Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

hacke

macrumors member
Nov 15, 2011
82
0
I would buy the ugly rig if it's so important for you to play games like bf4 etc. For me it's absolutly ok to play bf3 and older games so I'm good with thr iMac (gtx680mx)
 

MythicFrost

macrumors 68040
Mar 11, 2009
3,940
38
Australia
What should I do?
I love Apple, and I love Battlefield 3.

I got a Intel i7 920, Nvidia 470GTX, 16GB of ram and 2TB + 128GB SSD of storage. I want to buy an Apple iMac, but I'm not sure if I could run Battlefield 4 (all settings max, 1920x1080) in the future too; Did anyone tested the beta of Crysis 3 yet? Those games do really need powerhouses, and before I'm going to buy an iMac I really need to know if it can run smoothly on a 680MX GPU...

What do you think guys?
Spending 3000 bucks or skip the iMac and buy a *ugly* *big* *plastic* *with 1920x1080 lcd* powerhouse? hehe
You may be able to max it at 1920x1080 but that's not ideal since the native resolution of the 27 inch model is 2560x1440 -- it would look a little blocky, and blurry. The GTX 680MX iMac should run many high end games at 2560x1440 on high settings with at 30+ FPS. But it might not be very future proof. You could build yourself a stellar rig for ~$1300 and pick yourself up a nice 27 inch display and still have spent less than the iMac. If you do opt for the iMac -- maybe consider leaving it at stock (except for the GTX 680MX) as you'll save a lot of $$$. (Depending on what you're doing, of course.)
 

forty2j

macrumors 68030
Jul 11, 2008
2,585
2
NJ
Please excuse me asking a basic question, as I'm still waiting for my first Mac.

Have I understood correctly that:

(i) Drivers provided by NVidia are Windows drivers, only relevant if you are using Windows in some manner (e.g. Bootcamp); and

(ii) OSX drivers for the 680MX would come via Apple ?

Correct. Apple sends the drivers via Software Update.
 

forty2j

macrumors 68030
Jul 11, 2008
2,585
2
NJ
What should I do?
I love Apple, and I love Battlefield 3.

I got a Intel i7 920, Nvidia 470GTX, 16GB of ram and 2TB + 128GB SSD of storage. I want to buy an Apple iMac, but I'm not sure if I could run Battlefield 4 (all settings max, 1920x1080) in the future too; Did anyone tested the beta of Crysis 3 yet? Those games do really need powerhouses, and before I'm going to buy an iMac I really need to know if it can run smoothly on a 680MX GPU...

What do you think guys?
Spending 3000 bucks or skip the iMac and buy a *ugly* *big* *plastic* *with 1920x1080 lcd* powerhouse? hehe

Think of it this way: there are really 3 desktop cards that Nvidia sells that do better than the 680MX:
- The GTX 660 Ti, a very popular choice among mainstream gamers, performs marginally better.
- The GTX 670 does a bit better than that.
- And the GTX 680, essentially the crown jewel, does fantastic and oh boy do you pay for it.

Note that the GTX 690 is 2 680's stapled together and placed in one box.

If you insist on having top performance at ultra settings on the craziest demanding games, you're not only talking about getting something like a 680 or 690, you're talking about replacing it (and potentially the mobo&CPU) every year to accommodate the next games. If that's if enticing to you, get the $3K beige box, or sit tight until around June when we see where Apple's going with the Mac Pro. OTOH, if you would be satisfied with merely medium-high settings in about 3 years, and then selling to reclaim about half your money to put towards a whole new computer, then the 680MX iMac would serve you well.
 

Haugiz

macrumors member
Jul 26, 2010
30
0
Would anybody mind giving us a Metro 2033 Benchmark running at 1900x1080? (Pretty please :D)

So I gave Metro 2033 a spin with my 27" i5, 1 TB fusion, Win7, 16GB, using 310.90 drivers.

I didn't actually play the game, just ran the included benchmark tool.

DX: 11
Resolution: 1920x1080
Quality: Very High
Antialiasing: AAA
Texture filtering: AF 4X
Enabled advanced PhysX

Average FPS: 43

Official max and min were 114 and 12 respectively, but it never stayed below 20. The most intense bit was at around 22 fps, and didn't look that great, but on the whole it definitely looked playable. Tried changing from DX11 to 10, but it didn't have much of an effet on the fps.
Turning the AA up to MSA 4X and using AF 16X averaged at 32 FPS, and didn't seem as playable. At native res, and AA & TF cranked up, my iMac kneeled down to an average of 21 FPS.

Let me know if I should change anythin.

On a side note, I'm playing Skyrim at native res, with everything maxed out and using all sorts of gfx-mods, and it looks absolutely stunning on this screen!
 

forty2j

macrumors 68030
Jul 11, 2008
2,585
2
NJ
Don't forget about SLI/Crossfire which is how you really future proof a PC. Unfortunately you can't have two GPUs in an iMac.

Right, which is also essentially what the 690 is. 2 680's on SLI. Someone who wants that kind of performance and also wants the option to run OS X really has the choice of waiting out the Mac Pro or going the Hackintosh route (with all the perils and additional tinkering required above & beyond the typical BYO). The iMac won't get there.
 

Rytter

macrumors newbie
Dec 31, 2012
16
0
I have a question about overclocking with the EVGA Tool.
Overclocked the GPU to +200 and memory +250 the max temp on the GPU acc. to the tool was maximum 85c.

Without OC I think it's about 80c.

I've been playing borderlands 2, native ress and maxed settings the whole day and so far no problems, except two times when I was tabbed out to windows and couldn't get back into the game again event though I saw it was active on the start menu.

Could it be due to high temps that the game sort of crashed?
 

TweakOnline

macrumors regular
Dec 17, 2012
206
1
Europe
Think of it this way: there are really 3 desktop cards that Nvidia sells that do better than the 680MX:
- The GTX 660 Ti, a very popular choice among mainstream gamers, performs marginally better.
- The GTX 670 does a bit better than that.
- And the GTX 680, essentially the crown jewel, does fantastic and oh boy do you pay for it.

Note that the GTX 690 is 2 680's stapled together and placed in one box.

If you insist on having top performance at ultra settings on the craziest demanding games, you're not only talking about getting something like a 680 or 690, you're talking about replacing it (and potentially the mobo&CPU) every year to accommodate the next games. If that's if enticing to you, get the $3K beige box, or sit tight until around June when we see where Apple's going with the Mac Pro. OTOH, if you would be satisfied with merely medium-high settings in about 3 years, and then selling to reclaim about half your money to put towards a whole new computer, then the 680MX iMac would serve you well.

I know the new 680 MX is much better than my Nvidia 470GTX which runs all games at max. And the CPU is better... The screen is better... lol, almost everything is better so why I'm complaining?

I think I'm too worried about the future, but if I buy a new iMac after 2 years of using this one, everything is ok, right?

For now I'll have to get my money right, so I can place an order. :)
 

forty2j

macrumors 68030
Jul 11, 2008
2,585
2
NJ
I know the new 680 MX is much better than my Nvidia 470GTX which runs all games at max. And the CPU is better... The screen is better... lol, almost everything is better so why I'm complaining?

I think I'm too worried about the future, but if I buy a new iMac after 2 years of using this one, everything is ok, right?

For now I'll have to get my money right, so I can place an order. :)

If you're on a 2 year replacement cycle, particularly if you get AppleCare you can probably get close to 75% of your money back on each one you sell. Remaining AppleCare time is a huge selling point on used Macs. Really the downside of this approach is just setting up new computers so frequently.
 

TweakOnline

macrumors regular
Dec 17, 2012
206
1
Europe
If you're on a 2 year replacement cycle, particularly if you get AppleCare you can probably get close to 75% of your money back on each one you sell. Remaining AppleCare time is a huge selling point on used Macs. Really the downside of this approach is just setting up new computers so frequently.

But you know... Apple is an expensive hobby. :)
 

swarleystinson

macrumors regular
Aug 12, 2010
118
35
New York, NY
I have a question about overclocking with the EVGA Tool.
Overclocked the GPU to +200 and memory +250 the max temp on the GPU acc. to the tool was maximum 85c.

Without OC I think it's about 80c.

I've been playing borderlands 2, native ress and maxed settings the whole day and so far no problems, except two times when I was tabbed out to windows and couldn't get back into the game again event though I saw it was active on the start menu.

Could it be due to high temps that the game sort of crashed?

Could it be? Yes. Is it likely to be? No.
That happens all the time with me whether OC'd or not depending on the games. Some games don't play nice with alt+tab.
Here's a suggestion: Try turning off the OC, and repeating the process.

1) If the game plays wonderful w/o the OC, then don't even bother OC'ing.
2) If you have the same problem with getting back in, then there's your answer.

Typically artifacts such as weird flashes or random pixels or just your computer shutting down entirely are much more likely symptoms of an overly aggressive OC. Look up Here or Here for some guides I quickly googled. Here is a Youtube Video. Just remember with iMac you're NOT messing with your voltage at all. That would, in all likelihood, be really stupid.

Remember to record the temps while playing too w/ something like GPU-Z (also atitools, etc., I think FRAPS does it as well). If you switch out right away, it will immediately become 5+ºC cooler than when you were playing and much less relevant of a number. You need the number under stress. W/ GPU-Z if memory serves me you check a box that says "log to file" after selecting the sensors you want being monitored. It then saves it in a text file. You can go back and open up the text file after a period of time playing.

Checking temps after hitting Alt+Tab is like a cop getting you w/ his radar gun just after you've slammed on the brakes.

----------

I know the new 680 MX is much better than my Nvidia 470GTX which runs all games at max. And the CPU is better... The screen is better... lol, almost everything is better so why I'm complaining?

I think I'm too worried about the future, but if I buy a new iMac after 2 years of using this one, everything is ok, right?

For now I'll have to get my money right, so I can place an order. :)

Macs have terrific longevity. One of the benefits of a stable OS platform -- OSX has changed fairly little over the past 10 years -- is that you don't have to worry about the next OS making your computer run like crap. Furthermore, they tend to be stuffed with relatively fast specs for the time they're made. Apple has been making a substantial push towards improving GPU performance as it looks to add back gaming to part of it's PC platform.

My 2008 MBP is running just fine ... I'm typing on it right now as a matter of fact. I could still OC my 9600m GT and play games like ME2 etc at native resolution. I upgraded to a SSD and it's like having a brand new computer.

----------

If you're on a 2 year replacement cycle, particularly if you get AppleCare you can probably get close to 75% of your money back on each one you sell. Remaining AppleCare time is a huge selling point on used Macs. Really the downside of this approach is just setting up new computers so frequently.

In my experience, it's better to hope for just over 50%. I sold my 2010 on EBay for about 60%, but then Ebay took 9% of what I sold it for.

I sold me 2011 on Craigslist for $1650 and it had CPU, RAM, HDD, and GPU upgrades. I spent close to $3K right when it came out.

...Don't want you to have inflated expectations :eek:
 

Rytter

macrumors newbie
Dec 31, 2012
16
0
Could it be? Yes. Is it likely to be? No.
That happens all the time with me whether OC'd or not depending on the games. Some games don't play nice with alt+tab.
Here's a suggestion: Try turning off the OC, and repeating the process.

1) If the game plays wonderful w/o the OC, then don't even bother OC'ing.
2) If you have the same problem with getting back in, then there's your answer.

Typically artifacts such as weird flashes or random pixels or just your computer shutting down entirely are much more likely symptoms of an overly aggressive OC. Look up Here or Here for some guides I quickly googled. Here is a Youtube Video. Just remember with iMac you're NOT messing with your voltage at all. That would, in all likelihood, be really stupid.

Remember to record the temps while playing too w/ something like GPU-Z (also atitools, etc., I think FRAPS does it as well). If you switch out right away, it will immediately become 5+ºC cooler than when you were playing and much less relevant of a number. You need the number under stress. W/ GPU-Z if memory serves me you check a box that says "log to file" after selecting the sensors you want being monitored. It then saves it in a text file. You can go back and open up the text file after a period of time playing.

Checking temps after hitting Alt+Tab is like a cop getting you w/ his radar gun just after you've slammed on the brakes.


Thnx for the info!

I have been running som 3Dmark11 now and without OC max GPU temp reaches 88c. With som medium OC'ing max GPU temp reaches 90c.
Since the non OC temp is so high where should I put my limit?

While gaming max so far has been 85c even though I played for several hours.

So basically three more questions :)

1, What's a suitable max temp for instance in 3Dmark11 when non OC temp is 88c.

2, Is there a way to have my fans running at high speed all the time while I'm playing. As it is now they tend to stay at a low RPM even though the temp is at roughly 84c.

3, What temps do you guys get in 3Dmark11 and while playing with and without OC?
 

UberGTO

macrumors newbie
Jan 6, 2013
5
0
Indiana
I've got a maxed out early 2008 iMac that needs to go. I originally bought I to replace my G5 mostly because I knew I was going to need a Intel equipt Mac and I wanted to play games. It did play the games of 08 well to my liking as I was able to play Crysis 1 at decent settings and UT3 was spectacular. Well now about 5 years later nothing runs worth a damn. Initially bought BF3 on Xbox because for one my friends had it for that system and two I knew my computer couldn't do it justice. Well now after my second Xbox has taken a crap I'm ready for a "PC" again.

Now I've always owned a apple computer going back to 1985, but I'm very fluent in Windows as well. The normal thing to do would be buy a gaming PC, but I honestly despise Windows with a passion. Having a PC and a Mac isn't all that practical since it would require two desks to do so and once I build a PC that's equal to the new iMac with a monitor and necessary gear plus a additional desk it runs near $1800. So it either boils down to owning only a PC or getting a good Mac.

So here I am leaning towards the iMac. More than aware of it not being upgradable (not really) and the fact that in a few years it won't be that great any more. I really want to play BF3 again, but also able to play BF4 when it comes out in 10 months. Again a PC would be better for this, but I already own and use Final Cut Pro, Quark, Photoshop for Mac OS.

Right now what I've been eyeballing is the 27" I5 iMac with 680mx and everything else stock. I'll upgrade the RAM on my own and I may use a external SSD in the future when prices drop a bit. Already own a external DVD drive, and HD.
 

hacke

macrumors member
Nov 15, 2011
82
0
You've 4 options:

1) gaming PC
2) hackintosh
3) iMac
4) wait for the new Mac Pro
 

swarleystinson

macrumors regular
Aug 12, 2010
118
35
New York, NY
Thnx for the info!

I have been running som 3Dmark11 now and without OC max GPU temp reaches 88c. With som medium OC'ing max GPU temp reaches 90c.
Since the non OC temp is so high where should I put my limit?

While gaming max so far has been 85c even though I played for several hours.

So basically three more questions :)

1, What's a suitable max temp for instance in 3Dmark11 when non OC temp is 88c.

2, Is there a way to have my fans running at high speed all the time while I'm playing. As it is now they tend to stay at a low RPM even though the temp is at roughly 84c.

3, What temps do you guys get in 3Dmark11 and while playing with and without OC?

1. Good question. And one that's asked all the time on the PC side. There are a lot of opinions, but if you google that's often all you'll see, opinions. Look here for what I consider to be the most accurate answer. Basically NVIDIA cards have and auto shutdown feature. So technically you can't acutely and permanently brick the card unless you were to override this safety feature. As you can see, the danger temps are typically quite a bit higher than shutoff threshold. However, this is also a tricky question because in general, the higher the temperature, the more the molecules are imbued with energy/entropy the more apt they are to suffer physical stress and injury over time. An argument could certainly be made that an overclocked card with have a shorter lifespan. If you're changing computers every 3-4 years, this is probably no big deal. I'm not aware that anyone really knows how much shorter the lifespan is shortened though. A good way to see what Apple thinks is a good balance b/w performance and temps is to test the temps in the Mac OSX environment and see what you get under stress.

2. YES! Dude, look at the stuff I wrote eariler about macfan/smc fancontrol for bootcamp/windows. There're other programs I'm sure, but this is the one I've always used. Look at any good overclock guide and they will likely have a link to other available software. I always run my fans high (~80% maximum or even more) even when I'm gaming at standard clocks! DO NOT ATTEMPT OVERCLOCKING WITHOUT RUNNING FANS HIGH!

3. Don't know. Don't have mine yet. Better question is what is game performance like? Does a game that was previously not playable now become playable w/ max settings? Does a game's settings that were playable at 40-50 fps now play at an even smoother 60 fps?
 
Last edited:

swarleystinson

macrumors regular
Aug 12, 2010
118
35
New York, NY
Now I've always owned a apple computer going back to 1985, but I'm very fluent in Windows as well. The normal thing to do would be buy a gaming PC, but I honestly despise Windows with a passion.

I will say that Windows 7 is actually a pretty darn good OS. In fact, I'd probably go so far to say that it's the best OS they've ever produced. One could make an argument that it's even better than mac OS, and I might agree with them.

Having a PC and a Mac isn't all that practical since it would require two desks to do so and once I build a PC that's equal to the new iMac with a monitor and necessary gear plus a additional desk it runs near $1800. So it either boils down to owning only a PC or getting a good Mac.

Another option, and one that I wanted to smack myself on the forehead for not knowing earlier when I impulsively sold my 2010 iMac for a newer '11 model, is that you could just buy a used 2010 iMac and then build a gaming rig tower. You could then use target display to run a minidisplay out from your PC's blazing fast graphics card to the glorious 1440p IPS display. You'd then have a computer that is much faster on the Windows side. Note that for $1800, you build a PC that was considerably FASTER than the top of the line iMac, and still probably find a cheap used desk on Craigslist for less than the cost of the base 27" iMac model.
If you don't believe me, check out this $1000 build or this $2000 build, which would easily spank the top of line iMac. Hell, the $2000 build would destroy the mac pro.

I really want to play BF3 again, but also able to play BF4 when it comes out in 10 months. Again a PC would be better for this, but I already own and use Final Cut Pro, Quark, Photoshop for Mac OS.
BF4? If it's coming out this fast then it's gotta based off the same engine. That means it'll be only slightly more demanding than BF3 in terms of performance. Probably much like COD4->6->7->8->9

Right now what I've been eyeballing is the 27" I5 iMac with 680mx and everything else stock. I'll upgrade the RAM on my own and I may use a external SSD in the future when prices drop a bit.
Not a bad choice ... that's what I'm doing.

The knowledge that I could have more if I wanted to is sufficient enough ... sometimes. Until I look at gameplay videos of stuff like crysis 3 running at max settings. :mad:
 

pubjoe

macrumors 6502
Aug 14, 2007
270
12
Nvidia's "New Dawn" demo is well worth a look to showcase the gtx 680mx.

http://www.nvidia.com/coolstuff/demos

Very impressive, but low FPS at High res - but that's okay for a fish tank I suppose.

I have it in a smaller desktop window at the moment and it's quite smooth like that. The window can scale to any size and dimension and it adjusts the FoV accordingly, which is quite nice.

The imac's 680mx runs this demo pretty much as well (or should that be 'badly'?) as any single GPU card out there can, desktop or not.
 

AndiS.

macrumors regular
Dec 16, 2012
181
0
Nvidia's "New Dawn" demo is well worth a look to showcase the gtx 680mx.

http://www.nvidia.com/coolstuff/demos

Very impressive, but low FPS at High res - but that's okay for a fish tank I suppose.

I have it in a smaller desktop window at the moment and it's quite smooth like that. The window can scale to any size and dimension and it adjusts the FoV accordingly, which is quite nice.

The imac's 680mx runs this demo pretty much as well (or should that be 'badly'?) as any single GPU card out there can, desktop or not.

very impressive tech demo, and outstanding performance on the 680MX, considering that this was developed to showcase the GTX690.
 

AndiS.

macrumors regular
Dec 16, 2012
181
0
So I gave Metro 2033 a spin with my 27" i5, 1 TB fusion, Win7, 16GB, using 310.90 drivers.

I didn't actually play the game, just ran the included benchmark tool.

DX: 11
Resolution: 1920x1080
Quality: Very High
Antialiasing: AAA
Texture filtering: AF 4X
Enabled advanced PhysX

Average FPS: 43

Official max and min were 114 and 12 respectively, but it never stayed below 20. The most intense bit was at around 22 fps, and didn't look that great, but on the whole it definitely looked playable. Tried changing from DX11 to 10, but it didn't have much of an effet on the fps.
Turning the AA up to MSA 4X and using AF 16X averaged at 32 FPS, and didn't seem as playable. At native res, and AA & TF cranked up, my iMac kneeled down to an average of 21 FPS.

Let me know if I should change anythin.

On a side note, I'm playing Skyrim at native res, with everything maxed out and using all sorts of gfx-mods, and it looks absolutely stunning on this screen!

The benchmark tool keeps crashing, but it plays very smooth at native resolution and high settings, as long as you turn the Advanced DOF option off (under DX11 in the game's video options). I don't know what exactly this option does to be honest, couldn't make out a difference without it, other than a very noticeable increase in FPS.

The one time the benchmark did work, I got an average of 60 FPS with normal settings and Advanced PhysX enabled.

Update: the benchmark works when I first quit Steam and then let the benchmark re-open it. Anyways, I get 43.81 FPS on native with high settings.
 
Last edited:

Rytter

macrumors newbie
Dec 31, 2012
16
0
1. Good question. And one that's asked all the time on the PC side. There are a lot of opinions, but if you google that's often all you'll see, opinions. Look here for what I consider to be the most accurate answer. Basically NVIDIA cards have and auto shutdown feature. So technically you can't acutely and permanently brick the card unless you were to override this safety feature. As you can see, the danger temps are typically quite a bit higher than shutoff threshold. However, this is also a tricky question because in general, the higher the temperature, the more the molecules are imbued with energy/entropy the more apt they are to suffer physical stress and injury over time. An argument could certainly be made that an overclocked card with have a shorter lifespan. If you're changing computers every 3-4 years, this is probably no big deal. I'm not aware that anyone really knows how much shorter the lifespan is shortened though. A good way to see what Apple thinks is a good balance b/w performance and temps is to test the temps in the Mac OSX environment and see what you get under stress.

2. YES! Dude, look at the stuff I wrote eariler about macfan/smc fancontrol for bootcamp/windows. There're other programs I'm sure, but this is the one I've always used. Look at any good overclock guide and they will likely have a link to other available software. I always run my fans high (~80% maximum or even more) even when I'm gaming at standard clocks! DO NOT ATTEMPT OVERCLOCKING WITHOUT RUNNING FANS HIGH!

3. Don't know. Don't have mine yet. Better question is what is game performance like? Does a game that was previously not playable now become playable w/ max settings? Does a game's settings that were playable at 40-50 fps now play at an even smoother 60 fps?

Ok I've ran MacFan now and it says that I got 1 fan with levels from 1200 to 2700 rpm. Is it only one fan in the new Imac? Anyone else tried?
 

maxira

macrumors member
Oct 5, 2012
59
0
An argument could certainly be made that an overclocked card with have a shorter lifespan. If you're changing computers every 3-4 years, this is probably no big deal.

is what I wrote in a previous post, when you make an OC you have to adapt better dissipation, changing the default one to bring the temperature to factory standard, or even improve the original.
also the motor of a car deteriorates more quickly when always used at high rpm
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.