GTX 675MX or GTX 680MX

[mushroomtip]

what does this mean as far as the difference between the 675MX and 680MX ?

[WilliamG]

Originally Posted by Bear

The issue isn't so much Diablo III performance, as it is the performance of the next game you get or of other software that makes more use of the graphics processor.

Also, having more graphics ram will speed up some programs. I think for longevity it would be worth the graphics upgrade.

And let's not forget, gaming under OS X is pretty darn horrible. Diablo 3 will not run at 60fps solid, period, with the 680MX, at 2560x1440. I get slowdown pretty frequently on my iMac, playing Diablo 3, even with settings turned down to low. I'd be willing to bet that's minimized in Boot Camp, but I'd need to reinstall Diablo 3 there (may have to do that!). I really hope 10.8.3 brings better driver support for those video cards..

[Tombs]

Originally Posted by WilliamG

And let's not forget, gaming under OS X is pretty darn horrible. Diablo 3 will not run at 60fps solid, period, with the 680MX, at 2560x1440. I get slowdown pretty frequently on my iMac, playing Diablo 3, even with settings turned down to low. I'd be willing to bet that's minimized in Boot Camp, but I'd need to reinstall Diablo 3 there (may have to do that!). I really hope 10.8.3 brings better driver support for those video cards..

Ah, so do you play anything on bootcamp, do you "tinker" with o/c on the gnu?

[WilliamG]

Originally Posted by Tombs

Ah, so do you play anything on bootcamp, do you "tinker" with o/c on the gnu?

Yes I played Far Cry 3 in Boot Camp, and Devil May Cry etc. Devil May Cry runs at 60fps (vsync locked) maxed out (literally every option checked) in 2560x1440, which is lovely. Far Cry 3 doesn't, of course.

I don't want to overclock on a permanent basis at this state since I don't feel the necessity to do so. I have tried it, though, and the 680 does take VERY well to overclocking.

[yUnoNinja]

I went into apple today and asked 3 apple employes about the 675 vs 680. All three told me the same thing, the 680 is ideal if you plan on gaming other then that, the 675 would be plenty.

[Starhawk]

Originally Posted by plasmaj

more likely the 680m

as deconstruct60 pointed out, the CUDA cores match up (1344) and so does the clock.

I can't believe that it will remain like this - that it is the result of short-term supply issues from Nvidia. I think some of the early purchasers may have gotten lucky, but doubt it will be consistent. If Apple is advertising the 675mx, then that is what people should expect to receive if they order it (960 CUDA cores and a 600Mhz clock). It's a little annoying though if it skews some of the benchmarks and comparisons that are being reported as it affects buying choices.

Has anyone with a recent iMac purchase and 675MX been able to confirm the CUDA cores and other specs of the card are still matching up with a 680M?

[Wezzywebb]

Originally Posted by Starhawk

Has anyone with a recent iMac purchase and 675MX been able to confirm the CUDA cores and other specs of the card are still matching up with a 680M?

Hi there ,I received my 27 in i5 3.2 675 mx 2 days ago and upon reading this thread , I can confirm that my 675 match the 680 spec,I'm in the uk

[iSayuSay]

Originally Posted by KrasHr

My 675MX vs 680MX story.

2 weeks ago I ordered an iMac with i7/3TB Fusion and 675MX. I didn't think I'd need to choose the 680MX, thinking that the money saved will go to 32GB of 3rd party RAM. I certainly didn't need it for gaming since I play on a PS3 and have a PC gaming rig (3930k @ 4.3Ghz, 2 x GTX 680's in SLI for nVidia 3D Surround etc) I built in the last year. The 675MX would be more than good enough for 99% of the things I use my iMac for.

Then in recent days I've started to second guess my choice, thinking why not just get the higher end graphics card, because the additional, theoretical graphics horse power (50% more CUDA cores, higher memory/core speeds etc) compared to the 675MX was worth the extra AUD$175 (I consider it a bargain). This morning I called apple to change my configuration to a 680MX and thankfully, my delivery date hasn't changed

Anyways, 675MX or 680MX are both great and you should be happy with either card, but if the additional cost of the 680MX won't break the bank, I'd go for the 680MX.

Sorry but I don't think it's quite right, but 675MX in $1999 iMac is a 680M, yep it's a bit confusing compared to what nVidia says on the website, but for $150 more, 680MX contains a little bit more CUDA cores (1536 instead of 1384 on iMac 675MX, certainly not 50% more). It has double the memory indeed though.

[shikai90]

Hi,

I am currently working as a 3D illustrator in the interior depart of my office.
Therefore, there are some side project on 3d for interior design and some photo editing.
So I plan to change to iMac. So is iMac suitable for 3d modelling and rendering works? I mostly used autodesk 3ds max and sketchup for work.
If I getting an imac 27, should i upgrade the processor to i7 and the gpu to 680mx?

Thanks.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by shikai90

Hi,

I am currently working as a 3D illustrator in the interior depart of my office.
Therefore, there are some side project on 3d for interior design and some photo editing.
So I plan to change to iMac. So is iMac suitable for 3d modelling and rendering works? I mostly used autodesk 3ds max and sketchup for work.
If I getting an imac 27, should i upgrade the processor to i7 and the gpu to 680mx?

Thanks.

3ds max would have to run via bootcamp. Look up what cards are tested by autodesk and how the gpu options perform in max with the nitrous viewport. Some gaming cards are terrible in these programs, but it's not always the case. If your scenes won't be too heavy, it may make little difference. Typically if severe driver bugs aren't an issue, you won't see a big difference at lower polygon counts. The i7 provides hyperthreading. I'm not sure how much that helps for rendering. Offline rendering with mental ray or whatever you use doesn't rely on the gpu unless you're using a specifically gpu based renderer like the iray mode they incorporated a couple cycles back. Otherwise it's just about viewport performance. The 680mx offers no real world advantage for photo editing over the other options. The ram would help if you were using a 3d paint app.

[Red Fuji]

Correct me if I am wrong regarding the 1G vs. the 2G memory importance, the 680mx NEEDS to mate with 2G to maxamize its function where the 675mx only needs 1G- a functional requirement rather than an upgrade. An example is the New Ipad; the Retina display call for the bigger 11,666 mAh battery because of the heavier Current draw. Putting 2 G in the 675mx would really not improve performance all that much and putting 1G in the 680mx would limit its function. Focus on the Cuda and not the memory.

[Dykstra]

Originally Posted by Red Fuji

Correct me if I am wrong regarding the 1G vs. the 2G memory importance, the 680mx NEEDS to mate with 2G to maxamize its function where the 675mx only needs 1G- a functional requirement rather than an upgrade. An example is the New Ipad; the Retina display call for the bigger 11,666 mAh battery because of the heavier Current draw. Putting 2 G in the 675mx would really not improve performance all that much and putting 1G in the 680mx would limit its function. Focus on the Cuda and not the memory.

No, the ram it utilised when you run programs on a higher resolution. For a 27", a 2GB card should be the standard minimum for running new games and taxing visual applications at that resolution.

If you had a 675mx with 1gb and a 675mx with 2gb, frame rates on a game would be the same at smaller resolutions.