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.