Windows: Crysis 3 on 27" iMac with 680MX

[AndiS.]

I just installed the game in bootcamp yesterday and played for maybe 30 minutes, but I was very pleasantly surprised that the game runs well in 1440p and high settings (with FSAA). I don't have any idea what the FPS were, but subjectively speaking I was getting smooth gameplay, and that's what counts for me.

I even put it on very high settings (the game actually defaults to this setting), which still remains somewhat playable, even though most people including myself wouldn't want to play that way. It's noticeably slower this way, but what I found remarkable is, that it still runs without becoming a slide show.

I'm just amazed how capable the new iMacs are when it comes to gaming. Since I had to go through a bunch of replacements, I had been debating to return the iMac and get a PC instead. I'm glad I didn't, because I really love the iMac's design and especially missing out on Mac OSX would've been sad, and in terms of gaming I personally would've gained very little for the money.

[The-Pro]

Good to know, they really are powerful machines.

[Haiku214]

680MX laptop gpu ~ 660Ti desktop gpu

[cosmicjoke]

Originally Posted by Haiku214

680MX laptop gpu ~ 660Ti desktop gpu

from what i read its 3dmark 11 score was much closer to a 660 than 660ti, but w/ez

[AndiS.]

Originally Posted by cosmicjoke

from what i read its 3dmark 11 score was much closer to a 660 than 660ti, but w/ez

With some over clocking (+200/300) I get P8570 in 3DMark 11, which is what the 660Ti gets, depending on the whole system. Others in the iMac section of the forum have used even higher clocks and got higher benchmarks. With standard clock speeds, the 680MX reaches around P7050, which is closer to the 660, reaching around P6850. Also, there is no official driver for the 680MX yet, even though the one for the 680M works great.

That said, I don't run my system over clocked, my impressions for Crysis 3 are for the standard clocks. It's good to now that it works though, but you have to set the fan speed manually, to keep the temperatures under control.

Edit: this result is from forum user Sam.021 http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5870763

[CJM]

Originally Posted by AndiS.

I just installed the game in bootcamp yesterday and played for maybe 30 minutes, but I was very pleasantly surprised that the game runs well in 1440p and high settings (with FSAA). I don't have any idea what the FPS were, but subjectively speaking I was getting smooth gameplay, and that's what counts for me.

I even put it on very high settings (the game actually defaults to this setting), which still remains somewhat playable, even though most people including myself wouldn't want to play that way. It's noticeably slower this way, but what I found remarkable is, that it still runs without becoming a slide show.

I'm just amazed how capable the new iMacs are when it comes to gaming. Since I had to go through a bunch of replacements, I had been debating to return the iMac and get a PC instead. I'm glad I didn't, because I really love the iMac's design and especially missing out on Mac OSX would've been sad, and in terms of gaming I personally would've gained very little for the money.

It's because a middle-of-the-road (gaming) PC these days will quite happily run Crysis 3 at high settings. You've bought the top of the line iMac which costs a near-fortune.

The hardware has massively caught up to the level of processing demanded by today's games.

[McCaffers]

This is really interesting to know. I was curious how the new iMac would run Crysis 3. Running such a high resolution 1440p and with high settings is really good.

[AndiS.]

Originally Posted by CJM

It's because a middle-of-the-road (gaming) PC these days will quite happily run Crysis 3 at high settings. You've bought the top of the line iMac which costs a near-fortune.

The hardware has massively caught up to the level of processing demanded by today's games.

Like I said further up, I had been debating to buy a PC instead because of the many times I had to replace the iMac. I was trying various configurations on pcpartpicker, and with a comparable 1440p monitor, same i7 CPU and GTX 680 the price was around $2,400 (I guess a 660 Ti would save around $250?), not including a webcam, mouse and keyboard. With that PC I wouldn't have had OSX (unless I went the Hackintosh route), I would have to build it myself and it wouldn't be an All-in-One. The only advantages would have been upgradability and a couple more FPS in games.

The iMac is very decently priced actually, no other All-in-One currently delivers that value for the money. Admittedly, because of the replacement processes I went through Apple came through and I saved a substantial amount in form of items given for compensation.

Yet, I can absolutely see why some people would choose a gaming rig over an iMac for their needs, the price tag for the top end iMac is very high, as you say, and if you just want gaming and a 1080p monitor or Korean 1440p is enough, then no doubt will you easily save $1,000 or more.

----------

Originally Posted by McCaffers

This is really interesting to know. I was curious how the new iMac would run Crysis 3. Running such a high resolution 1440p and with high settings is really good.

Yes, that's what I thought as well. This is my first Apple computer, and I didn't plan on purchasing it for gaming, but with the 680MX I really got back into PC games. I didn't even know how gorgeous 1440p looks, which is not to say I won't be playing consoles on the TV screen anymore.

[cosmicjoke]

Originally Posted by AndiS.

With some over clocking (+200/300) I get P8570 in 3DMark 11, which is what the 660Ti gets, depending on the whole system. Others in the iMac section of the forum have used even higher clocks and got higher benchmarks. With standard clock speeds, the 680MX reaches around P7050, which is closer to the 660, reaching around P6850. Also, there is no official driver for the 680MX yet, even though the one for the 680M works great.

That said, I don't run my system over clocked, my impressions for Crysis 3 are for the standard clocks. It's good to now that it works though, but you have to set the fan speed manually, to keep the temperatures under control.

Edit: this result is from forum user Sam.021 http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5870763

Good info for sure, am glad it's all working out for you. There are a couple gaming cards in this household, a mac pro w/ gtx 670 and a gaming rig (3770k @ 4.5ghz with gtx 680). They all have 1440p panels, for better or worse. Most games run great and hold 60fps at max settings without issues, others like The Witcher 2, even with ubersampling disabled, are 30-50fps... 1080p holds 60fps without an issue on The Witcher 2 and I personally can easily tell the difference in fluidity, but it's also a non native res for the displays. There's def. a reason for expensive SLI setups and 1440p or multi monitor spanning gaming are amongst them for the most demanding of games. Sometimes I wish I just had a third display @ 1080p & 120hz, would simplify things greatly.

[Lark.Landon]

Originally Posted by AndiS.

Like I said further up, I had been debating to buy a PC instead because of the many times I had to replace the iMac. I was trying various configurations on pcpartpicker, and with a comparable 1440p monitor, same i7 CPU and GTX 680 the price was around $2,400 ...

Why do you need an i7?

[bulldogg80]

AndiS. If you run in 1080p, will it look nice? I read somewhere that The 680MX scale very well.

[AndiS.]

Originally Posted by cosmicjoke

Good info for sure, am glad it's all working out for you. There are a couple gaming cards in this household, a mac pro w/ gtx 670 and a gaming rig (3770k @ 4.5ghz with gtx 680). They all have 1440p panels, for better or worse. Most games run great and hold 60fps at max settings without issues, others like The Witcher 2, even with ubersampling disabled, are 30-50fps... 1080p holds 60fps without an issue on The Witcher 2 and I personally can easily tell the difference in fluidity, but it's also a non native res for the displays. There's def. a reason for expensive SLI setups and 1440p or multi monitor spanning gaming are amongst them for the most demanding of games. Sometimes I wish I just had a third display @ 1080p & 120hz, would simplify things greatly.

Completely agree, there definitely are reasons for those setups, and after I had gotten back into PC gaming I found it very tempting to build a rig. But I don't game that much and the iMac is a better fit for me, since I want to get into FCPX at some point. Your PC sounds excellent, when you need more power you just buy a second GTX 680, which probably will drop in price soon, due to Titan?

----------

Originally Posted by Lark.Landon

Why do you need an i7?

I don't "need" one, even though FCPX will take advantage of it, once I start using it. I started with the i5 iMac, before the replacements, and upgraded within the replacement process. Just for gaming, the i5 seemed to perform exactly as good as the i7. That might change with future games, or not, but the computer is capable of HT now and has a higher re-sell value, even if I would never need the i7 power for anything.

In a PC, I guess people get the i7 for their rigs because they have higher over clocking potential and because people want high end parts for their PCs. Like I said, that's my guess.

----------

Originally Posted by bulldogg80

AndiS. If you run in 1080p, will it look nice? I read somewhere that The 680MX scale very well.

Yes, there are no problems with the scaling, but I haven't tried 1080p in Crysis 3 so far. I had a look at 1080p in Metro 2033 and Far Cry 3, no problems with the scaling, but also no need to not play at 1440p ; )

[lightz39]

This game is optimized extremely well. They do a hell of a job with their engine. I mean they have to. Game looks wonderful on aging piece of crap technology (consoles).

[Sam.021]

Originally Posted by AndiS.

With some over clocking (+200/300) I get P8570 in 3DMark 11, which is what the 660Ti gets, depending on the whole system. Others in the iMac section of the forum have used even higher clocks and got higher benchmarks. With standard clock speeds, the 680MX reaches around P7050, which is closer to the 660, reaching around P6850. Also, there is no official driver for the 680MX yet, even though the one for the 680M works great.

That said, I don't run my system over clocked, my impressions for Crysis 3 are for the standard clocks. It's good to now that it works though, but you have to set the fan speed manually, to keep the temperatures under control.

Edit: this result is from forum user Sam.021 http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5870763

yup, that's what I ended up with but could have been higher and closer to 9000
if it wouldn't restart on me as soon as I hit +324/500.

Only if I could overclock this beast without getting restarts, I'd have way over 9000. I hope they release the official drivers soon, this thing can easily overclock to 1100+

----------

Originally Posted by Sam.021

yup, that's what I ended up with but could have been higher and closer to 9000
if it wouldn't restart on me as soon as I hit +324/500.

Only if I could overclock this beast without getting restarts, I'd have way over 9000. I hope they release the official drivers soon, this thing can easily overclock to 1100+

And just like that my dream came true, here is the official driver for 680MX by one and only Nvidia

http://www.geforce.com/drivers/results/57623

[cosmicjoke]

Originally Posted by AndiS.

Completely agree, there definitely are reasons for those setups, and after I had gotten back into PC gaming I found it very tempting to build a rig. But I don't game that much and the iMac is a better fit for me, since I want to get into FCPX at some point. Your PC sounds excellent, when you need more power you just buy a second GTX 680, which probably will drop in price soon, due to Titan?[

Maybe. As it stands probably 90% the Witcher 2 runs at 45-50fps @1440p Ultra w/ VSync (minus ubersampling), but there are points where it does dip to 30fps - ironically the beginning tutorial swamp where very little is going on, it seems very based on what effects are being used.

I've always been an Nvidia/eVGA fan boy, but tbh the 7970 ghz edition gets compelling performance with this game (and most I play). I kind of prefer the drama free elements of a single card solution since SLI seems to have its own nonsense like microstutters. I may just see what next year's line up brings to the table, maybe one high end card will do the trick.

----------

Originally Posted by Sam.021

yup, that's what I ended up with but could have been higher and closer to 9000
if it wouldn't restart on me as soon as I hit +324/500.

Only if I could overclock this beast without getting restarts, I'd have way over 9000. I hope they release the official drivers soon, this thing can easily overclock to 1100+

----------




And just like that my dream came true, here is the official driver for 680MX by one and only Nvidia

http://www.geforce.com/drivers/results/57623

Exactly how do you go about this? I started OCing my EVGA GTX 670 FTW last night out of curiousity, but using Furmark for stress testing, I was only able to get my video clock up like +70 and my mem clock speed up something crazy like +650mhz and pass a 15 minute stress test, mine wouldn't reboot but rather the drivers would crash and I'd have to log out and back in or it would run at reduced performance... I was able to push my gpu clock speed higher but it would crash after 8 mins or so, it might be "stable" enough for an epeen score out of 3dmark pushing it higher though heh.... After getting a solid run through I ran 3d mark 11 and it only got a P9335 lol, kindah depressing... I will try on my GTX 680/3770k build soonish and see what happens.

[AndiS.]

Originally Posted by Sam.021

yup, that's what I ended up with but could have been higher and closer to 9000
if it wouldn't restart on me as soon as I hit +324/500.

Only if I could overclock this beast without getting restarts, I'd have way over 9000. I hope they release the official drivers soon, this thing can easily overclock to 1100+

----------




And just like that my dream came true, here is the official driver for 680MX by one and only Nvidia

http://www.geforce.com/drivers/results/57623

Great news : ) I had just checked earlier this day and it hadn't been there, let's see how that driver affects performance

Just noticed, that link is for a Windows XP driver and I can't select the 680MX for Win 7? Well, at least it can't take them much longer then.

[AndiS.]

Originally Posted by cosmicjoke

Maybe. As it stands probably 90% the Witcher 2 runs at 45-50fps @1440p Ultra w/ VSync (minus ubersampling), but there are points where it does dip to 30fps - ironically the beginning tutorial swamp where very little is going on, it seems very based on what effects are being used.

I've always been an Nvidia/eVGA fan boy, but tbh the 7970 ghz edition gets compelling performance with this game (and most I play). I kind of prefer the drama free elements of a single card solution since SLI seems to have its own nonsense like microstutters. I may just see what next year's line up brings to the table, maybe one high end card will do the trick.

I was looking at the 7970 GHE when I researched building a computer, but I would've gone for a GTX 680 after reading some articles. Aren't those cards almost on par, but the 680 delivers a smoother experience?

Either way, you seem to be getting great performance in Witcher 2 on your rig ; )

[cosmicjoke]

Originally Posted by AndiS.

I was looking at the 7970 GHE when I researched building a computer, but I would've gone for a GTX 680 after reading some articles. Aren't those cards almost on par, but the 680 delivers a smoother experience?

Either way, you seem to be getting great performance in Witcher 2 on your rig ; )

i don't know, we got our kepler cards last spring/summer before the 7970 was even an option so i haven't done a whole lot of research or anything because it's already done with, but i have ran across some benchmarks and the 7970 seems to spank the 680 at the games I personally play at higher resolutions like 1600p, a good 7-10fps more on each game.

i'm less of an nvidia fan as i am an evga fan, a buddy of mine is a supervisor for their tech support and if i have an issue i'm pretty much like rma this w/ cross shipping plox and snap it's done... much better than getting some canned response w/ google translate in broken english from a vendor like gigabyte heh.... so nvidia is just the default, it's more of the safety net of evga.

anyways, i don't mean to imply i'm some freak that demands 100fps on every game i play, but a locked 60fps on vsync would be nice lol.

[frayne182]

That is amazing. I've never been able to get more then Duke Nukem 3D working on my macbook.

[ResoKP]

I've never owned a MAC but I've used one at work in the past. I think they've become fantastic machines for gaming.
My iPhone handles heavy gaming quite well too.