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
Before we get too excited, Heaven appears to run faster under Windows (Direct X) vs OS X (OpenGL):
2010 Mac Pro 6-core w/ GTX 680 Classified = 57 FPS (OS X)
2010 Mac Pro 6-core w/ GTX 680 Classified = 77 FPS (Windows)
FENN's 2012 iMac 27" Core i7 3.4GHz w/ GTX 680MX = 52 FPS (Windows)
2010 Mac Pro 6-core w/ GTX 680 Classified = 57 FPS (OS X)
2010 Mac Pro 6-core w/ GTX 680 Classified = 77 FPS (Windows)
FENN's 2012 iMac 27" Core i7 3.4GHz w/ GTX 680MX = 52 FPS (Windows)
FurMark and GiMark -- 680MX vs 680 Classified
More Windows results.
FurMark
FENN's 2012 iMac 27" Core i7 3.4GHz w/ GTX 680MX = 30 FPS
2010 Mac Pro 6-core w/ GTX 680 Classified = 41 FPS
GiMark
FENN's 2012 iMac 27" Core i7 3.4GHz w/ GTX 680MX = =58 FPS
2010 Mac Pro 6-core w/ GTX 680 Classified = 86 FPS
We can't expect the iMac's mobile GPU to match the desktop equivalent stroke for stroke. A more fair comparison is with the 2011 iMac with the Radeon HD 6970M or the Retina MacBook Pro with the GeForce GT 650M or even the Mac Pro with the Radeon HD 5870 -- which is the best blessed GPU offered by Apple currently. I'm sure the 680MX beats them all even under OS X.
----------
Some of the apps are written to run under Direct X. Then when translated to Mac OS X to run under OpenGL, something gets lost in the translation or there is failure to optimize.
More Windows results.
FurMark
FENN's 2012 iMac 27" Core i7 3.4GHz w/ GTX 680MX = 30 FPS
2010 Mac Pro 6-core w/ GTX 680 Classified = 41 FPS
GiMark
FENN's 2012 iMac 27" Core i7 3.4GHz w/ GTX 680MX = =58 FPS
2010 Mac Pro 6-core w/ GTX 680 Classified = 86 FPS
We can't expect the iMac's mobile GPU to match the desktop equivalent stroke for stroke. A more fair comparison is with the 2011 iMac with the Radeon HD 6970M or the Retina MacBook Pro with the GeForce GT 650M or even the Mac Pro with the Radeon HD 5870 -- which is the best blessed GPU offered by Apple currently. I'm sure the 680MX beats them all even under OS X.
----------
Some of the apps are written to run under Direct X. Then when translated to Mac OS X to run under OpenGL, something gets lost in the translation or there is failure to optimize.
LuxMark Sala OpenCL benchmark under Windows
LuxMark 2.0 under Windows, Sala scene, GPU only
FENN's 2012 iMac 27" Core i7 3.4GHz w/ GTX 680MX =427 Ksamples/sec
2010 Mac Pro 6-core w/ GTX 680 Classified = 655 Ksamples/sec
Again, unfair to compare Mobile GPU with Desktop GPU but it's important that new iMac owners with the 680MX don't have delusions of grandeur. ;-)
LuxMark 2.0 under Windows, Sala scene, GPU only
FENN's 2012 iMac 27" Core i7 3.4GHz w/ GTX 680MX =427 Ksamples/sec
2010 Mac Pro 6-core w/ GTX 680 Classified = 655 Ksamples/sec
Again, unfair to compare Mobile GPU with Desktop GPU but it's important that new iMac owners with the 680MX don't have delusions of grandeur. ;-)
Last edited:
So were looking at less than OS X run times, for bootcamp games... While this is an improvement to the previous iMac it doesn't look that this GPU will remain relevant beyond a year. :/
Leaves me to wonder further how much of an impact could new drivers really have? Will they even properly support it seeing how it remains Mac exclusive? Could the computer maintain a cool temp when even modern games will demand 100% use for running?
So much uncertainty...
If FENN or anyone else doesn't run Heaven, Luxmark, FurMark or GiMark on the iMac with 680MX under OS X, by Monday I should be able to do it when ours is delivered.
That will enable me to use the data we collected under OS X to give you comparisons with the 2011 iMac 3.4 with HD 6970M and other related Macs.
----------
Did you run the Entry, Performance, or Extreme preset when you ran 3DMark 11? (Just clicked your results link and according to the resolution, you must have run the default Performance preset.)
Also, since you have Windows running on your 2011 iMac, will you run Heaven, Luxmark, Furmark, and GiMark on it? Thanks.
That will enable me to use the data we collected under OS X to give you comparisons with the 2011 iMac 3.4 with HD 6970M and other related Macs.
----------
Did you run the Entry, Performance, or Extreme preset when you ran 3DMark 11? (Just clicked your results link and according to the resolution, you must have run the default Performance preset.)
Also, since you have Windows running on your 2011 iMac, will you run Heaven, Luxmark, Furmark, and GiMark on it? Thanks.
Last edited:
If anyone is intersted, 3DMark Vantage of 25501.
http://www.3dmark.com/3dmv/4452681
And yes, my 3DMark 11 runs were using the default preset.
Also played around with The Witcher 2. With ultra settings (with the exception of Uber sampling) on the 680mx I didn't drop under 30 fps when using fraps and the average was hovering around 33 with a max of 39. On my 2011 using the same save, I averaged around 14 with drops below 10 and never hitting anything above 19.
Unless anyone else requests anything, after I run some comparisons in OS X, I think I'll leave the rest up to the pro's. This should be enough of a picture to whet the appetite and give an idea of what kind of tech we are dealing with. I am genuinely curious to see what an official Nvidia 680MX driver and a stable OC can do to many of these numbers, but in all honesty, with the exception of The Witcher 2, my guess is that the 680mx will easily be able to play anything you throw at it on maximum settings with a very high frame rate and is a welcomed improvement in rendering performance over what else is available. Course a Mac Pro will basically always trump an iMac, but it is good to know that you can get a nice all-in-one machine that now has excellent performance across the board.
http://www.3dmark.com/3dmv/4452681
And yes, my 3DMark 11 runs were using the default preset.
Also played around with The Witcher 2. With ultra settings (with the exception of Uber sampling) on the 680mx I didn't drop under 30 fps when using fraps and the average was hovering around 33 with a max of 39. On my 2011 using the same save, I averaged around 14 with drops below 10 and never hitting anything above 19.
Unless anyone else requests anything, after I run some comparisons in OS X, I think I'll leave the rest up to the pro's. This should be enough of a picture to whet the appetite and give an idea of what kind of tech we are dealing with. I am genuinely curious to see what an official Nvidia 680MX driver and a stable OC can do to many of these numbers, but in all honesty, with the exception of The Witcher 2, my guess is that the 680mx will easily be able to play anything you throw at it on maximum settings with a very high frame rate and is a welcomed improvement in rendering performance over what else is available. Course a Mac Pro will basically always trump an iMac, but it is good to know that you can get a nice all-in-one machine that now has excellent performance across the board.
yeh. I think the impressive thing here is that apple have finally offered a "high end" card (albeit mobile) where as before the best BTO options were relatively mid range cards.
hopefully it's a sign of things to come.
although with the obvious theme of downsizing, I can't see them ever offering an actual desktop GPU
and I would never expect any GPU to stay at the top of the field for a year or more. I got pretty good use out of my 2007 iMac with a Radeon 2600 256 MB, I was able to play D3 without everything on low. and that card didn't start out nearly as up in the ranks as the 680mx appears to be. so I'm sure it will be excellent for a while. and will continue to play games at a decent level for years to come
hopefully it's a sign of things to come.
although with the obvious theme of downsizing, I can't see them ever offering an actual desktop GPU
and I would never expect any GPU to stay at the top of the field for a year or more. I got pretty good use out of my 2007 iMac with a Radeon 2600 256 MB, I was able to play D3 without everything on low. and that card didn't start out nearly as up in the ranks as the 680mx appears to be. so I'm sure it will be excellent for a while. and will continue to play games at a decent level for years to come
Here's the 3DMark 11 Performance (default) preset run for the 2010 Mac Pro 6-core with GeForce GTX 680 Classified:
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5219300
To summarize,
FENN's 2011 iMac 27" Core i7 3.4GHz w/ Radeon HD 6970M = 3287 score
FENN's 2012 iMac 27" Core i7 3.4GHz w/ GTX 680MX = 6883 score
2010 Mac Pro 6-core with GeForce GTX 680 Classified = 9442 score
(P.S. I'm running 306.23 NVIDIA driver under Windows. I'll try the newer driver next.)
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5219300
To summarize,
FENN's 2011 iMac 27" Core i7 3.4GHz w/ Radeon HD 6970M = 3287 score
FENN's 2012 iMac 27" Core i7 3.4GHz w/ GTX 680MX = 6883 score
2010 Mac Pro 6-core with GeForce GTX 680 Classified = 9442 score
(P.S. I'm running 306.23 NVIDIA driver under Windows. I'll try the newer driver next.)
Last edited:
exciting results from the 680MX so far, how much improvement do you guys expect with coming drivers?
Also, let's not forget that the Classified is a highly overclocked edition of the 680, meaning the gap between a stock 680mx and a reference 680 would be closer, maybe even "a lot" closer.
This 680 Classified is clocked at 1176MHz. The "normal" one we tested recently was clocked at 1059MHz. But your point is taken.
A more meaningful comparison, as I indicated earlier, is with previous models of iMac and possibly Windows "all-in-one" PCs.
----------
Thanks, Fenn, for taking the time to run some benchmarks on your new iMac and posting them here.
I plan to run more GPU tests Monday once I have my sweaty paws on the CTO we ordered. Those will include GPU intensive functions in Pro Apps like Photoshop, Premiere Pro, After Effects, Final Cut Pro X, Motion, Davinci Resolve, and World of Warcraft.
I'm looking forward to seeing your tests of the 680MX in PSD, Premiere Pro and AE. I'll be using those programs extensively with my new 27" (which I expect to arrive next week) and am hoping to see great improvements with the Mercury Playback Engine and the Ray Trace Engine. Have fun with your tests!
Here are some OSX benchmarks from the 680MX. These numbers are very solid and essentially beat out the Windows equivalents with the exception of the transition from DX11 to OGL in the Heaven bench. Again, if people were expecting 3DMarks of 8000 with the 680mx, there appears to be a large amount of growth on both OS's for driver maturation.
Heaven (Native resolution, default settings.)
FPS: 38.7
Scores: 974
Min FPS: 24.4
Max FPS: 95.9
LuxMark (Sala default, GPU only)
Samples/sec 814K
Rays/sec 7840K on 488.5k tris
Geeks 3D GPUTest (native resolution, default options)
FurMark
Score: 1916 points (FPS: 31)
GiMark
Score: 3623 points (FPS: 60)
For comparison as well, here are the numbers from the 2011 HD 6970 under Win7. As you can see, this alone shows that the OpenCL drivers in Win7 for the 680mx are very immature as even the last years iMac beats the performance of this years 680mx.
Heaven (Native resolution, default settings.)
FPS: 26.4
Scores: 664
Min FPS: 15.3
Max FPS: 50.9
LuxMark (Sala default, GPU only)
Samples/sec 492K
Rays/sec 4749K on 488.5k tris
Geeks 3D GPUTest (native resolution, default options)
FurMark
Score: 1161 points (FPS: 19)
GiMark
Score: 2602 points (FPS: 43)
Glad I could help folks. Now everyone enjoy your machines as they start trickling in over the oncoming weeks!
Heaven (Native resolution, default settings.)
FPS: 38.7
Scores: 974
Min FPS: 24.4
Max FPS: 95.9
LuxMark (Sala default, GPU only)
Samples/sec 814K
Rays/sec 7840K on 488.5k tris
Geeks 3D GPUTest (native resolution, default options)
FurMark
Score: 1916 points (FPS: 31)
GiMark
Score: 3623 points (FPS: 60)
For comparison as well, here are the numbers from the 2011 HD 6970 under Win7. As you can see, this alone shows that the OpenCL drivers in Win7 for the 680mx are very immature as even the last years iMac beats the performance of this years 680mx.
Heaven (Native resolution, default settings.)
FPS: 26.4
Scores: 664
Min FPS: 15.3
Max FPS: 50.9
LuxMark (Sala default, GPU only)
Samples/sec 492K
Rays/sec 4749K on 488.5k tris
Geeks 3D GPUTest (native resolution, default options)
FurMark
Score: 1161 points (FPS: 19)
GiMark
Score: 2602 points (FPS: 43)
Glad I could help folks. Now everyone enjoy your machines as they start trickling in over the oncoming weeks!
Last edited:
Found this on the crysis forums. Seems to be the manual way of doing it.
http://www.mycrysis.com/forums/topic33974
Here is a tool that can do it automatically.
http://www.overclock.net/t/991016/crysis-2-benchmark-tool-new-dx11-version
I would imagine a good way to do it would to reference Nvidia's recommended settings for the GTX 680 and grab the average FPS.
However given Fenn might not have it, a free to play game might be better. I've heard of those Planetside 2 is supposed to be demanding, however demos of high demand games might be better. Though I don't know what demos might be out there given my iMac is so old it can only play UT2k4 at best.
One game that would be really interesting however is Dayz/Arma 2. I've heard pretty much nothing but horror stories from that games performance, even when one set up does ok and another almost identical struggles at low settings.
Skyrim would be another good test I bet.
I would appreciate if someone could test the performance of Battlefield 3 with these settings: 1080p res, ultra 16xAF, and 4x MSAA. I'm very interested in comparing the framerates with notebookcheck's gaming list on the GTX 680M and making certain I'll be able to game fluidly.
Also interested in Far Cry 3 performance!
Also interested in Far Cry 3 performance!
so it really runs slightly better on OS X atm, as mentioned, will be interesting to see what happens when mature Win7 drivers become available
If this card is only to be used in Apple's iMacs, will NVIDIA even bother to make proper Windows drivers for it?