680MX slower than Radeon 6970 in Cinebench OpenGL according to Macworld's Lab Tests!

[obsoletepower]

Originally Posted by Penn Jennings

The 2012 iMac 27 is technically current, even if it hasn't been released and is the high end iMac, so I'll stand corrected there.

The iMac 21 comes with a 640m, which from I've read is is average at best for a decrete GPU in 2012 but the next generation will probably be announce and might be shipping before the Apple has the both the 21 and 27 iMacs freely available.

I shouldn't confuse the hardware that you should get vs what you do get and whats current. I will stand by the statement though that Apple does not always keep up with current GPU, CPU and IO. USB 3.0 started shipping in 2010, Apple shipped it in 2012. The Mac Pro still only has 2.0.

As I think about it... Apple GPUs are usually current (except MP), they are just usually horrible for a company that produces expensive workstations and claims to love visuals. A $1,700 rMBP 13 with it dual core i5 and HD 4000 driving two 2650x1440 displays under load very well.

----------



I will concede that the hardware is USUALLY current, even is not a good value or choice. However it is not always current, that hasn't been true for years.

I'm willing to suspect that the USB 3 adoption was slow because they wanted to push Thunderbolt. I have a 2011 Lenovo ThinkPad workstation laptop that has USB 3.0 but prior to 2011 no manufacturers had added it yet. Apart from the Mac Pro which in my opinion needs to be sent the way of the Dodo, all models have the current generation CPU and GPU but they are not the highest-end available.

[Penn Jennings]

Originally Posted by obsoletepower

I'm willing to suspect that the USB 3 adoption was slow because they wanted to push Thunderbolt. I have a 2011 Lenovo ThinkPad workstation laptop that has USB 3.0 but prior to 2011 no manufacturers had added it yet. Apart from the Mac Pro which in my opinion needs to be sent the way of the Dodo, all models have the current generation CPU and GPU but they are not the highest-end available.

As far as CPU and GPU, the MBA, MBP and iMac are current, even if poor choices for there placement in market place.

I agree with you on that point. Apple was years late with USB 3.0 because they wanted to push Thunderbolt. I needed high speed access to several TB of storage, but not an array. I figured thunderbolt would be great. It's a year later, I can get a 3 TB USB 3.0 external drive for under $150. I still can't touch a 3 TB thunderbolt drive for under $330 as far as I know. I know lots of people with Macs, I don't know anyone with a thunderbolt device. Thunderbolt sounded great but for the masses, focusing on USB 3.0 would have been a far better choice I think.

[seble]

Originally Posted by Siderz

Hope thats an error, can't belive Apple went a step back...and they're already a big step back from competitors. If my 650M with 512MB VRAM doesn't perform that well, it's going straight back to Apple and I'm gonna build a PC...

I checked out the base model 21.5" at an Apple Store and FCPX lagged while scrolling through the timeline...that shouldn't be happening.

What I want to know though, how did they get hold of BTO iMacs? Or am I reading the post wrong?

I heard someone on these forums complaining about the spinning beach ball on the base for practically everything, I'm glad I went for fusion, but I'll be dissaoiinted if the performance turns out to be crap

[mystara]

Originally Posted by MasterLibrarian

Macworld has lab-tested the new iMacs, including a fully loaded BTO 27'' (i7, fussion, 680MX) and compares it with the 2011 model (again fully loaded BTO)

In general, the 2012 model is better, except the Cinebench OpenGL test, where the 2011 model with the ATI HD 6970 is better !!!!

"Those tests show the new iMac to be 22 percent faster overall, with better times in all but the Cinebench Open GL test, in which the AMD Radeon was faster than the Nvidia GeForce."


http://www.macworld.com/article/2017...-upgrades.html

Not sure about Cinebench OpenGL test, but according to Apple website, 680MX is 50-60% faster than the 6970 for the three games they tested.

http://www.apple.com/imac/performance/

Testing conducted by Apple in October 2012 using preproduction 27-inch 3.4GHz quad-core Intel Core i7–based iMac units with NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX and 2GB graphics memory, and shipping 27-inch 3.4GHz quad-core Intel Core i7-based iMac units with AMD Radeon HD 6970M and 2GB graphics memory, all configured with 8GB RAM. StarCraft II v1.5.3.23260 tested using the 2012 MLG Winter Arena EGldrA vs IMNesTea replay from 11:00-16:00 with ultra graphics quality, at 2560x1440. Half-Life 2: Episode Two v(4295)(420) tested using storm.dem, maximum graphics quality, 4x anti-aliasing, 4x anisotropic filtering, at 2560x1440. Portal v(5042)(620) tested using LaserStairs.dem, maximum graphics quality, 4x anti-aliasing, 4x anisotropic filtering, at 2560x1440. Performance tests are conducted using specific computer systems and reflect the approximate performance of iMac.

[leman]

Cinebench is as useful to benchmark modern GPUs as, say, Apple Mail. Look at benchmarks that matter, like the Unigine Heaven, latest 3DMarks etc.

----------

Originally Posted by Penn Jennings

I agree with you on that point. Apple was years late with USB 3.0 because they wanted to push Thunderbolt.

They were 'late' with USB3 because Intel only included USB3 support in their chipsets this year. If you want to blame someone, blame Intel in the first place.

[Patchwork]

I do know there has been quite a lot of discussion about the desktop GTX 600 series not being as good as the GTX 500 series for pro apps. The speculation is that this happened because the 500 series performance, particularly for CUDA, was quite close to the Quadro series, so was taking sales from the high end workstation card. The Cinebench results for the GTX 680mx may reflect this as the desktop and mobile chips share similar architecture.

Obviously this isn't great news for pro users if true for the 680mx. The good news for gamers is that the 600 series is generally acknowledged to be better than the 500 series and right up there with the 7000 series AMD cards (at least that's the case for desktop cards). It may also be the case that the drivers are still immature as the chip is so new, so there could be a performance boost down the line.

[Penn Jennings]

Originally Posted by leman

Cinebench is as useful to benchmark modern GPUs as, say, Apple Mail. Look at benchmarks that matter, like the Unigine Heaven, latest 3DMarks etc.

----------



They were 'late' with USB3 because Intel only included USB3 support in their chipsets this year. If you want to blame someone, blame Intel in the first place.

I'm aware of the intel chipset issue but other manufactures supported USB 3.0 prior to 2012. It could have been done, Intel's lack of a supporting chipset is not an excuse. Apple simply would have had to get supporting chips from someone else.

[Icaras]

Originally Posted by shigzeo

Eventually, Mac gaming may take a turn for the better, but it's been 6-7 years now with Intel processors and bootcamp, and Mac gaming, for all its compatibility, hasn't gotten better. More titles, maybe, but next to no optimisation from either game devs or Apple.

I purchased KOTOR and Unreal for Mac, but wish I had stayed with Bootcamp as those perform at worst 50-80% better in windows. On one hand, it is a shame, but on the other, it proves the use of either OS: OSX for work, windows for play.

The only non-gaming app I use in Windows is Right Mark Audio Analyser, an app I use in testing headphone amps.

More titles is a huge first step in my opinion. And all these digital distribution services popping up are only helping to catalyse widespread industry support for gaming on the Mac. I have high hopes for the future.

Also, did you happen to purchase KOTOR on Steam? Because you may already know that it supports Steam Play.

Originally Posted by THOPMedia

Speaking of that, I just had my first go with Windows 8. Literally nearly punched the screen right in.

***And now back to your regularly scheduled iMac moaning posts***

I considered grabbing Windows 8 at the special introductory launch upgrade price, but I've read too many non-gaming friendly posts on these forums so I'll stick with 7 for now.

8 intrigues me and I'd like to upgrade eventually but not at the expense of gaming compatibility.

Originally Posted by MagicThief83

What model did you end up purchasing?

Hi Magic. I ended up purchasing the top end 27" with 8GB RAM, 680MX, and the 1TB Fusion Drive. I just had to get the best hardware performing GPU because I game quite a bit. I also work with Logic Pro so going back to the 27" can be justified since pro apps are better utilized with a larger display or multiple displays. Of course, I also got the thumbs up from the wife to geek out on the purchase

How about you? Which one did you go for?

[shigzeo]

Originally Posted by Icaras

More titles is a huge first step in my opinion. And all these digital distribution services popping up are only helping to catalyse widespread industry support for gaming on the Mac. I have high hopes for the future.

Also, did you happen to purchase KOTOR on Steam? Because you may already know that it supports Steam Play.

Hey Icaras,

I think I purchased from Steam, though I can't remember and my computer is too busy doing other stuff for me to check. If it's on the App Store, I may have done it that way. Whatever I did, I love the game, but its performance on my 2007 MBP is worse than it was with my 2001 P4 1,6 with Ti4200 128. Oh well, great game either way.

[Dazant]

I believe its only a driver issue, Since even the 675mx is supposed to be faster than the 6970m. So I wouldn't worry

[Icaras]

Originally Posted by shigzeo

Hey Icaras,

I think I purchased from Steam, though I can't remember and my computer is too busy doing other stuff for me to check. If it's on the App Store, I may have done it that way. Whatever I did, I love the game, but its performance on my 2007 MBP is worse than it was with my 2001 P4 1,6 with Ti4200 128. Oh well, great game either way.

It is quite an awesome game, I agree.

But yea, the Steam copy you bought will work for both OSX and Windows, which is a nice nod to Mac users.

That said I also own it for both Steam and MAS. I just wish developers would start updating these older games with Game Center support...

[rnb2]

Originally Posted by Penn Jennings

I'm aware of the intel chipset issue but other manufactures supported USB 3.0 prior to 2012. It could have been done, Intel's lack of a supporting chipset is not an excuse. Apple simply would have had to get supporting chips from someone else.

Apple didn't support USB3 until Intel added it to their chipset because they didn't want to lose internal space to another chip on the motherboard. Apple's laptop logic boards are as small as they can possibly make them - they want as much internal space for battery as possible. An extra chip on the motherboard just for USB3 wasn't a good enough tradeoff for Apple's priorities, especially when they had Thunderbolt for people who REALLY needed faster storage and they knew that Intel was going to integrate support into the chipset in a year.

[shigzeo]

Originally Posted by rnb2

Apple didn't support USB3 until Intel added it to their chipset because they didn't want to lose internal space to another chip on the motherboard. Apple's laptop logic boards are as small as they can possibly make them - they want as much internal space for battery as possible. An extra chip on the motherboard just for USB3 wasn't a good enough tradeoff for Apple's priorities, especially when they had Thunderbolt for people who REALLY needed faster storage and they knew that Intel was going to integrate support into the chipset in a year.

Thunderbolt doesn't interest me in terms of speed alone. Its that it does what FW did/does: powers high-voltage devices via the BUS, something USB never has been able to do and never will.

I work with medium-range external sound cards for audio reviews. None of these devices run properly via USB unless powered externally with a brick. Thank god for Thunderbolt/Firewire, which allow fewer cables, more flexibility, and good speed.

If USB could spit out more voltage, I'd run with it. As it is, TB and FW are much better for true portable work for some very specific applications.