Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
680MX Benchmarks please
- Thread starter tacokisses
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
OMG IT GETS BETTER!
The bootcamp drivers that download for the 2012 27" contain Nvidia drivers that are a few generations behind what is currently available. I had difficulty installing the current stable release (no compatible hardware found) but the beta drivers that were just released on the 4th of december contain substantial improvements in 680 hardware.
Prepare to be stunned.
With the current beta drivers 310.70
3DMark 2011.....6883
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5212798
The bootcamp drivers that download for the 2012 27" contain Nvidia drivers that are a few generations behind what is currently available. I had difficulty installing the current stable release (no compatible hardware found) but the beta drivers that were just released on the 4th of december contain substantial improvements in 680 hardware.
Prepare to be stunned.
With the current beta drivers 310.70
3DMark 2011.....6883
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5212798
It's weird, I just searched for 680M (not MX) benchmarks on the 3D Mark site and it's got more than the MX? Is something dodgy going on there?
There has to be something wrong with the drivers.
The 680M is ~13,000 on 3DMark11.
The 660Ti is ~18,000
The 650M is ~4,500
The 680M is ~13,000 on 3DMark11.
The 660Ti is ~18,000
The 650M is ~4,500
Maybe it's down to those people overclocking their GPUs crazily?
I just saw a GPU highlight for the 680M and it got 6400 which is 400 less than the MX's score.
I just saw a GPU highlight for the 680M and it got 6400 which is 400 less than the MX's score.
I don't believe those numbers are right, but I do believe that we should see better performance when new drivers are released. Fenn shows a score of 6883 and I expected something closer to 8000 (Desktop 660ti). It has to be drivers.
It is definitely the drivers, a graphics card with those specifications should pull up a very good score.
Maybe you should've kept the ones apple provided installed for now and tried that under benchmarks.. though I'm not sure, only because the GTX 680MX is not actually specifically included in any of the drivers as far as I know (see http://www.nvidia.co.uk/Download/index.aspx?lang=en-uk). Going to ask NVIDIA about this.
Maybe you should've kept the ones apple provided installed for now and tried that under benchmarks.. though I'm not sure, only because the GTX 680MX is not actually specifically included in any of the drivers as far as I know (see http://www.nvidia.co.uk/Download/index.aspx?lang=en-uk). Going to ask NVIDIA about this.
Run the Heaven OpenGL Benchmark at 2560x1440 --defaults to that when you launch it on the 27" iMac. Use other default settings as well. Click "Run" and then "Benchmark" - the average FPS will be displayed in a pop-up window after it "flys" through 26 scenes:
http://unigine.com/products/heaven/download/
If you are running Windows, it tests Direct-X speed.
An OpenCL GPU test is LuxMark. (Runs on OS X and Windows.) You can render three different scenes with GPU only, CPU only, or combined CPU/GPU. Please post your results in Ksamples/sec for the Default Sala scene using GPU only:
http://www.luxrender.net/wiki/LuxMark#Download
Bonus: Geeks3D GPUtest - Runs under OS X as well as Windows. Has 3 OpenGL tests. Run FurMark and GiMark. Set at 2560x1440 and default settings. Click "Run benchmark" button and wait for the average to be posted in a pop-up window:
http://www.geeks3d.com/20121113/gpu...gl-benchmark-furmark-lands-on-linux-and-os-x/
http://unigine.com/products/heaven/download/
If you are running Windows, it tests Direct-X speed.
An OpenCL GPU test is LuxMark. (Runs on OS X and Windows.) You can render three different scenes with GPU only, CPU only, or combined CPU/GPU. Please post your results in Ksamples/sec for the Default Sala scene using GPU only:
http://www.luxrender.net/wiki/LuxMark#Download
Bonus: Geeks3D GPUtest - Runs under OS X as well as Windows. Has 3 OpenGL tests. Run FurMark and GiMark. Set at 2560x1440 and default settings. Click "Run benchmark" button and wait for the average to be posted in a pop-up window:
http://www.geeks3d.com/20121113/gpu...gl-benchmark-furmark-lands-on-linux-and-os-x/
Last edited:
This is probably entry preset. He would be running the middle grade preset (cause its the only one you can run with a free version of 3d mark).
My 660m gets about 2700 points (3000 points when overclocked) so there is a huge jump from the base model to the high end model.
Hey Fenn, choose the "High Performance" energy profile in Windows!
From what 3dMark link you gave to us shows, your GPU/VRAM frequencies during the test were
--------
Core clock 324 MHz
Memory clock 2500 MHz
--------
The core clock should be the whole 400MHz higher! 0_0
From what 3dMark link you gave to us shows, your GPU/VRAM frequencies during the test were
--------
Core clock 324 MHz
Memory clock 2500 MHz
--------
The core clock should be the whole 400MHz higher! 0_0
3DMark Vantage
For Windows users, in addition to 3DMark 11, I suggest 3D Mark Vantage which is available from the FutureMark website or from Steam:
http://www.futuremark.com/support/downloads
We've used it in the past to compare different GPUs doing Texture Fill, Color Fill, Pixel Shader, Particles Collide, Perlin Noise, etc.
For Windows users, in addition to 3DMark 11, I suggest 3D Mark Vantage which is available from the FutureMark website or from Steam:
http://www.futuremark.com/support/downloads
We've used it in the past to compare different GPUs doing Texture Fill, Color Fill, Pixel Shader, Particles Collide, Perlin Noise, etc.
How about some GeForce GTX 680 Classified results?
While waiting for my iMac to arrive with the GTX 680MX, I popped a GTX 680 Classified GPU in my Mac Pro 6-core.
This is what I get at 2560x1440 (default settings) running the following benchmarks:
Heaven = 57 FPS
LuxMark - Sala GPU only = (won't run -- no OpenCL support)
FurMark = 51 FPS
GiMark = 28 FPS
Will be interesting to see how the iMac's 680MX compares.
While waiting for my iMac to arrive with the GTX 680MX, I popped a GTX 680 Classified GPU in my Mac Pro 6-core.
This is what I get at 2560x1440 (default settings) running the following benchmarks:
Heaven = 57 FPS
LuxMark - Sala GPU only = (won't run -- no OpenCL support)
FurMark = 51 FPS
GiMark = 28 FPS
Will be interesting to see how the iMac's 680MX compares.
When are you guys posting a report? I wanna compared my previous Macs to the 2012 27" Core i7 680MX.
Some very encouraging first results there, boys!
Finally, will be able to play some proper Hard-Games on Mac in stunning performance.
Finally, will be able to play some proper Hard-Games on Mac in stunning performance.
If "you guys" refers to BareFeats.com, we will post a report as soon as our 27" iMac Core i7 680MX arrives -- Monday the 17th.
The only previous iMac we have access to currently is the 2011 Core i7 with Radeon HD 6970. Hopefully members of this forum and some of our remote mad scientists can help us fill in the blanks for other models.
Maybe they are all busy playing with their machines....
That is why we have so few benches to grind our teeths in.
That is why we have so few benches to grind our teeths in.Great thanks!
I want to compare the 2012 iMac to the following. I know desktop Core i7 and the best notebook GPU will blow everything out of the water but I want to know to which degree.
Late 2012 iMac 27-inch BTO/CTO 3.4 GHz Core i7-3770
Mid 2012 MacBook Air 13-inch BTO/CTO 2.0 GHz Core i7-3667U
Late 2011 MacBook Pro 13-inch MD314LL 2.8 GHz Core i7-2640M
Mid 2010 MacBook Pro 13-inch MC375LL 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo P8800
Late 2008 MacBook Pro 15-inch MB470LL 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo P8600
Early 2008 MacBook Pro 15-inch MB133LL 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo T8300
Mid 2007 iMac 20-inch MA876LL 2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo T7300
Early 2006 MacBook Pro 15-inch MA464LL 2.0 GHz Core Duo T2500
I feel guilty entering the thread as a non-serious gamer. Do dabble on a bit of Civilization V but that's about it. Question I have is this, what sort of improvement does the 680MX have over the 675MX all else being equal?
I have to decide between i7/675MX or i5/680MX for my machine which is currently ordered for the former but the more I dig, the more I want to change the order to the latter
I have to decide between i7/675MX or i5/680MX for my machine which is currently ordered for the former but the more I dig, the more I want to change the order to the latter
I noticed this too. Either the results are inaccurate or it's under clocking itself due to the performance profile in windows. I'm guessing a combination of that and drivers.
Well, it's actualy 2.36 times faster, not 236% =)
In per cents it's gonna be 136% increase.