680MX Benchmarks please

[marzer]

Originally Posted by dogbone66

That may be, but assuming most people over-clock, doesn't that make your point somewhat moot?

No offense but your assumption would be way off. "Most" people have never even heard of over-clocking, and of the minority of that has, many only know of it but never attempted it.

I think a more accurate assumption would be: of the people who overclock, the majority are probably overclocking higher end desktop GPU's.

[dogbone66]

Originally Posted by marzer

No offense but your assumption would be way off. "Most" people have never even heard of over-clocking, and of the minority of that has, many only know of it but never attempted it.

I think a more accurate assumption would be: of the people who overclock, the majority are probably overclocking higher end desktop GPU's.

Fair enough, and that is really what I meant of course. So let me put it another way. It's equal to a 660ti that's not over-clocked, but then again if you had a 660ti you would over-clock it. It would be another story if you couldn't over-clock a 660ti, so then an over-clocked 680mx would be equal, but assuming you can over-clock these other cards, they're still the same percentage better than the 680mx. So making these comparisons seems a little moot to me. But I meant no offense, sorry if it sounded that way.

When I over-clocked my card I wasn't impressed but that's probably the game I was playing and the difference may be much more apparent in other games. So i'll try again.

[ppd8472]

Originally Posted by dogbone66

Fair enough, and that is really what I meant of course. So let me put it another way. It's equal to a 660ti that's not over-clocked, but then again if you had a 660ti you would over-clock it. It would be another story if you couldn't over-clock a 660ti, so then an over-clocked 680mx would be equal, but assuming you can over-clock these other cards, they're still the same percentage better than the 680mx. So making these comparisons seems a little moot to me. But I meant no offense, sorry if it sounded that way.

When I over-clocked my card I wasn't impressed but that's probably the game I was playing and the difference may be much more apparent in other games. So i'll try again.

Yeah, I completely understand your point. I was just pleasantly surprised at the 680MX's amount of power, considering it truly is a mobile GPU. Also, I over-clocked it, and it now is hitting a bit over 16,000. So yeah, it's not too shabby if you're a casual gamer - which most iMac users are. We all know if all you love to do is game, it's substantially more cost effective to just build a "desktop" gaming system. However, there are caveats to that - as I used to do just that. From excessive heat & power consumption, to the constant driver problems that can arise, to the simple fact that if something goes wrong you have to pull apart the system and pray that the manufacturer will help you out - which of course most do. It is a bit of a pain, and that's why I opted for the iMac.

Now, your link about the Mac Pro "Gaming Edition" seems bad ass, no lie. However, even with the base Mac Pro costing upwards of $2,500 - without the quality monitor that the iMac possesses, I can see a base "gamer" Mac Pro costing at least $2-3K - especially considering it has the costly Titan included, plus another $1K for a monitor. But again, I am excited to see if the rumors are true. It may make me a little bit jealous.

[Mac32]

Yep, we can overclock our 680MX, but so can people with desktop cards. However, since the 680MX is a downclocked GTX680 card (without the turbo function I would assume), the card has a very powerful chip that benefits greatly from overclocking. However there are limits to the overclocking where increased heat output starts to cancel out the positive effects of increased performance. Around +250/+375 is near that limit I think, I've stopped using +285/+425 because it's basically more heat, but no real noticable performance increase in the games I've tested so far.
Having said all that for a hardcare gamer the 680MX is a bit anemic for 1440p with great visuals AND framerates, though it's a great card for 1080p. I must say I've started to game way more than I should after I got the iMac, and I'm really frustrated that the iMac won't work as an external display for a PC. A PC with GFX Titan + the iMac screen would have been pretty awesome for more serious gaming sessions.

[ppd8472]

Originally Posted by Mac32

Yep, we can overclock our 680MX, but so can people with desktop cards. However, since the 680MX is in reality a downclocked GTX680 card (without the turbo function I would assume), the card has a very powerful chip that benefits greatly from overclocking. However there are limits to the overclocking where increased heat output start to cancel out the positive effects of increased performance. Around +250/+375 is near that limit I think, I've stopped using +285/+425 because it's basically more heat, but no noticable real-life performance increase in the games I've tested so far.
Having said all that for a hardcare gamer the 680MX is a bit anemic for 1440p with great visuals AND framerates, though it's a great card for 1080p. I must say I've started to game way more than I should after I got the iMac, and I'm really frustrated that the iMac won't work as an external display for a PC. A PC gaming rig with GFX Titan + the iMac screen would have been pretty awesome for more serious gaming sessions.

I can't agree more. And wow, I will have to try that over clock because as of right now the max I've done is around +130/+180. But the heat hasn't been an issue, and is actually rather cool IMO. I will try to up it a bit next time I'm in Windows. The cool thing about the iMac is that it CAN be an external display, but with one caveat...the computer must be Thunderbolt enabled. I hooked up a Mac Mini to my iMac, pressed Command-F2, and bam, it was showing the Mac Mini on the screen - I believe Apple calls it "Target Display Mode." Pretty cool if I do say so myself.

[dogbone66]

We all know if all you love to do is game, it's substantially more cost effective to just build a "desktop" gaming system. However, there are caveats to that - as I used to do just that.

I almost did just that because my 5770 couldn't cut it on some three year old games, let alone more recent games, and I was waiting for the new mac pro to be announced but didn't know if any better GPU would be available for it, but I couldn't wait any longer and ultimately I just couldn't justify dropping around $1000 (i7 and a 680) for a computer only for games. Plus I needed a new display and my computer was almost 7 years old, so the imac was the compromise.

I must say I've started to game way more than I should after I got the iMac,

Yea, me too and I'm kicking myself for it, I need to get more work done.

[Mac32]

Originally Posted by dogbone66

.
Yea, me too and I'm kicking myself for it, I need to get more work done.

Sounds familiar...lol.. I've recently gotten completely lost in the STALKER games, incredible atmosphere and gameplay..spending way too much time on that. I just love gaming with that beautiful 27'' 1440p iMac screen.

[ppd8472]

Originally Posted by dogbone66

I almost did just that because my 5770 couldn't cut it on some three year old games, let alone more recent games, and I was waiting for the new mac pro to be announced but didn't know if any better GPU would be available for it, but I couldn't wait any longer and ultimately I just couldn't justify dropping around $1000 (i7 and a 680) for a computer only for games. Plus I needed a new display and my computer was almost 7 years old, so the imac was the compromise.

I feel you entirely. I calculate that to build an i7 and a 680 gaming rig - without the awesome OSX - would bring me up to at least $1-1.5K, plus another $800 just for a decent display that somewhat rivals the iMac's. I don't mind Windows, but OSX is powers better IMO. In the end the customer service, plus OSX, plus the awesome display convinced me that the iMac was the desktop for me.