680MX performance

[Jay9495]

Hey guys been doing a little studying and found gaming benchmarks for the 675m and 675MX and the performance difference is little, and will most likely be the same between the 680m and the 680MX. (Hoping not, but is still adequate)

Links to full gaming lists

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-...X.82580.0.html

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-...M.70785.0.html

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Compute...s.13849.0.html

Here are the pics, the one with the higher fps is the MX

[6ftunder]

we'll just have to wait and see.

[kaellar]

Originally Posted by Jay9495

and will most likely be the same between the 680m and the 680MX.

No it won't. 675m(Fermi) and 675mx(Kepler) are completely different architectures. 675mx is performing only a bit better, but eats much less energy instead. 680m and 680mx are both Kepler. the difference is 680mx has more cores and way higher RAM frequency. In fact, it should perform a bit worse than desktop 670, which is MUCH better than 680m.

[Jay9495]

Originally Posted by kaellar

No it won't. 675m(Fermi) and 675mx(Kepler) are completely different architectures. 675mx is performing only a bit better, but eats much less energy instead. 680m and 680mx are both Kepler. the difference is 680mx has more cores and way higher RAM frequency. In fact, it should perform a bit worse than desktop 670, which is MUCH better than 680m.

I thought the 680mx was almost a desktop 680 ??? Guess not

[All Taken]

Originally Posted by Jay9495

I thought the 680mx was almost a desktop 680 ??? Guess not

Hahaha imagine that.

[kaellar]

Originally Posted by Jay9495

I thought the 680mx was almost a desktop 680 ??? Guess not

it is, but it has much lower frequences - 720/5000 vs 1000/6000 for GPU/RAM respectively. 680m is btw the desktop 670 with even lower freqs - 720/3600 =)

[forty2j]

Originally Posted by Jay9495

I thought the 680mx was almost a desktop 680 ??? Guess not

In terms of the silicon? Yes.

In terms of performance? The reports I've seen thus far suggest it's equal to the desktop 660Ti.

[MatthewAMEL]

Originally Posted by forty2j

In terms of the silicon? Yes.

In terms of performance? The reports I've seen thus far suggest it's equal to the desktop 660Ti.

Which would be perfectly fine with me. That puppy runs Skyrim at 2560x1600, Ultra Detail, 16x AF, 8x MSAA at 50 fps. I can live with that.

I'm coming up from the Radeon 4850 in my Late 2009 iMac.

[spcdust]

Originally Posted by MatthewAMEL

Which would be perfectly fine with me. That puppy runs Skyrim at 2560x1600, Ultra Detail, 16x AF, 8x MSAA at 50 fps. I can live with that.

I'm coming up from the Radeon 4850 in my Late 2009 iMac.

That will definitely be a very nice bump for you. I had the 2009 iMac with that GPU and even when it was released their was a sense of disappointment among most of us that Apple had continued its tradition of short changing us GPU wise - don't get me wrong, it was adequate, would play games pretty well but nothing outstanding. I've now got the 2011 iMac with the ATI 6970M 2GB GPU, it's a great performer and handles games (always in Bootcamp) extremely well. I always play native res and TBH it's not let me down - currently playing Need For Speed Most Wanted and Black Ops (although only touched on Black Ops) with no complaints and these are recent games.

Obviously the 680MX will outperform the 6970M, but that's always the case year-on-year, but Apple, with the release of last years iMac, do seem to be raising their game in regards to GPU's.