Geforce 680MX gaming in native screen resolution?

The GTX 680MX should be comparable to the desktop GTX 670. I expect it to perform extremely well.

can't wait to place my order, x-plane will hopefully run at very high graphic settings

From what I've read, the 680mx is basically an under-clocked desktop 680. That being said, I believe that it definitely has potential to run Crysis in native res with roughly 30 - 40 fps.

Can't wait to get my hands on one!

theturn said:

can't wait to place my order, x-plane will hopefully run at very high graphic settings

Click to expand...

That's what I am hoping as well. Not great on a 2009 iMac ATI Radeon HD 4670 256 MB so expect a big difference on a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX with 2GB of GDDR5. Got some cracking payware planes and scenery that I am looking forward to using at far higher settings

Mac32 said:

What do you guys think about i7 vs i5 CPU? Is it worth the upgrade in CPU in terms of temperature/fan noise and faster system in general?
Sorry for going off topic, but I'm thinking going for the fastest CPU and the 680MX could get very hot...

Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about the heat; if Apple didn't solve it they'll lose a fortune in warranty repairs.

But, for the most part games are GPU-constrained, not CPU-constrained. Few people are performing tasks that would actually benefit from the i7.

Mac32 said:

Thanks! I've done some googling myself, and as far as I can tell the i7 has next to no effect on gaming (vs i5). The i7 in the iMac is higher clocked though, but since gaming don't use the i7 multithreading the difference in FPS shouldn't very big(?), but I would assume one would get higher temperatures and more fan noise from using the i7 cpu option..?

Click to expand...

Not really, since the i7 would complete the same tasks faster and easily.

However, if you are talking about both being pushed at 100%, maybe you are right... But the iMac is an AIO, not a laptop, so you shouldn't worry too much about it. Let that for Apple

I'll probably play at 1080p as the graphics will be nice enough. . .plus it might make for better ultra settings :S Still confused as whether to bother with i7

I'm looking at a maxed out 27" as well, if I can afford it.

It's a pain not knowing the total price but I figure the i7 will run about $240 again, 680MX about the same and Fusion 1Tb about $300 if the Mini is a guide. Add that all to the top 27" and we're looking at a $3k iMac... would you be better off with 2x base model 21.5" LOL

Anyone know what the real-world performance difference between the 675 that comes standard on the high end 27 inch, and the 680 BTO option?

I think I'll just get the $1999 27 inch, so I don't spend weeks waiting for a BTO build.

I wonder how Skyrim Will play in this native resolution

Mac32 said:

I'm gonna ditch the fusion drive, and go for 256gb SSD and 3tb hard drive. That way I can control which files I want on my hard drive for myself (ie. music and movies, I have a HUGE lossless library).
Yep, it's gonna be an expensive purchase with 256gb/3tb, 680mx and 3.2ghz i5. It's gonna be one sweet computer though, especially going from using a 15'' MBP fulltime (many hours every day).

Click to expand...

Remember at this point we don't know how easy it will be to install after market drives.

Isengardtom said:

I wonder how Skyrim Will play in this native resolution

Click to expand...

Skyrim plays beautifully at native resolution on my 2011 iMac with the 6970m card.

The 680mx will destroy it

Im looking forward to seeing the new prices for a maxed out 27" iMac too, what I'm worried about are the Apple upgrade costs.

I'm afraid they're going to go crazy on the upgrade prices, possibly 200 for upgrade from i5 to i7, then 1k for the 768 ssd or 500 for the 512, 300 - 500 for the max GPU and 200 for Applecare. I would like to update my system next year but if the BTO iMac configured is over 3k Im not sure what I would do... though I am only guessing at prices so maybe I'm way high in my est...

I find it hard to believe that a 680mx will be on par with a desktop 670.

It's not that I don't believe it....... I just find it....amazing. Like, too good to be true level of amazing.

Honestly if people are expecting desktop 670 levels of performance in an imac....well.....prepared to be let down is all I will say. I would be delighted to be wrong, but I don't think I am.



And regarding the SSD options, as far as I can tell the only options will be the 128gb that comes with the fusion option, or 768gb SSD only. No 256gb or 512gb options.

Well, FWIW Tom's Hardware puts the GTX 680M somewhere between a gtx 660ti and a 560ti

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html

It's performing nowhere close to a GTX 670 or 680, but it's going to get good performance on most games w/ some details lowered @ 2560x1440p... For an all in one, that's nothing to complain about..

p.s. it's faster than the top end graphics card in the Mac Pro (5870)

Mac32 said:

Hi!

I'm really, really contemplating buying a maxed-out 27'' iMac with the Geforce 680MX graphics card. I'm not a huge gamer, but I like to play shooters like Crysis and Far Cry from time to time..
I know getting a dedicated PC-box for gaming is cheaper, but it would be great to have an "everything in one"-solution.
I know 680MX isn't out yet, but are there any graphics cards experts out there who can make some educated guess (based on the released specs) on how 680MX will perform in high-end shooter games like Crysis in native screen (2560x1440) resolution with graphics settings on high/very high?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Crysis is a rather old game now and Far Cry is even older. If all you want to play is Crysis and games from that generation, the 675MX will have no problems playing it at native resolution/high settings. If you want to play modern games with good performance, 680MX is a significant upgrade.

Even the 2011 iMac (6970m) had no problem with playing modern games like Skyrim at high settings with reasonable performance at native resolution. Now 680MX is much faster than 6970m.

----------

cosmicjoke said:

Well, FWIW Tom's Hardware puts the GTX 680M somewhere between a gtx 660ti and a 560ti

Click to expand...

680MX (1536 shaders @720Mhz) is significantly faster than 680M (1344 shaders @720Mhz). The 680MX is basically a downclocked desktop 680, while 680M is a downclocked desktop 670.

cosmicjoke said:

Well, FWIW Tom's Hardware puts the GTX 680M somewhere between a gtx 660ti and a 560ti

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html

Click to expand...

That's 680M, not the 680MX.

leman said:

680MX (1536 shaders @720Mhz) is significantly faster than 680M (1344 shaders @720Mhz). The 680MX is basically a downclocked desktop 680, while 680M is a downclocked desktop 670.

Click to expand...

This is on the mark. The 680MX is *very* good for a mobile chip, and let's be honest, with a 122W TDP, it's stretching the definition of mobile.

LachlanH said:

I find it hard to believe that a 680mx will be on par with a desktop 670.

Click to expand...

But you must compare Apple's with Apple's. So don't expect the Mac version of a game to run similar framerates as a 670 in a Windows machine with the windows version of the game. DirectX has a 30-50% advantage over OpenGL unfortunately.