Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Mac and PC Games

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Sep 24, 2013, 03:44 PM   #1
MacsRgr8
macrumors 604
 
MacsRgr8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The Netherlands
New iMac grfx: 780M vs "old" 680MX

So, the new iMac is here, and as I expect that the 2013 Mac Pro will only get the Pro-grfx cards, the "best" gaming Mac will probably be the new maxxed out iMac.

Configure the iMac with the GeForce 780M and it you can't get any better... or can you?

According to http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html, the "new" 780M is slightly slower than the "old" 680MX (see pic)

Of course, the new 780M has 4 GB of VRAM which is important for X-Plane 10, but not so important in other games.
Could it be that the newer 780M is actually slower in real-life gaming on the Mac?

Waiting for Barefeats on this one....
Attached Images
 
__________________
Steve Jobs. 1955 - 2011. My Hero.
MacsRgr8 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 24, 2013, 04:47 PM   #2
cluthz
macrumors 68040
 
cluthz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Norway
Send a message via MSN to cluthz
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacsRgr8 View Post
So, the new iMac is here, and as I expect that the 2013 Mac Pro will only get the Pro-grfx cards, the "best" gaming Mac will probably be the new maxxed out iMac.

Configure the iMac with the GeForce 780M and it you can't get any better... or can you?

According to http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html, the "new" 780M is slightly slower than the "old" 680MX (see pic)

Of course, the new 780M has 4 GB of VRAM which is important for X-Plane 10, but not so important in other games.
Could it be that the newer 780M is actually slower in real-life gaming on the Mac?

Waiting for Barefeats on this one....
Both are 28nm GK104 with 1536 cores, 780M is clocked higher than 680MX.
I can't see how it scores lower.

Passmark is pretty much just silly, it has no relation to the real world performance at all. GTX 690 is apparently slower than 670.
GTX 570 and GTX 480 is faster than GTX 660..

Apparantly GT640 is also faster than GTX285... According to sites like tomshardware a GT640 is comparable with a 8800GT.
GT640 has a whopping 64 bit bus @40gb/sec with a texture fillrate of 16.7 bill/sec. (vs a 512 bit bus @160gb/sec and a texture fillrate of 52 bill/sec..)

Do yorself a favor and never visit that site again
__________________
-tb
MacBook Air 13" i5 osx10.7.5
HackPro i7-4790k, 16GB RAM, GTX780GHz Edition, 3x SSD , win7+osx10.9.4
cluthz is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2013, 08:03 AM   #3
Serban
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
in some test/benchmarks the result on Maveriks DP2 with 680MX was 4373 and for 780M with i7 the result were 4628
Serban is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2013, 01:56 PM   #4
MacsRgr8
Thread Starter
macrumors 604
 
MacsRgr8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by cluthz View Post
Both are 28nm GK104 with 1536 cores, 780M is clocked higher than 680MX.
I can't see how it scores lower.

Passmark is pretty much just silly, it has no relation to the real world performance at all. GTX 690 is apparently slower than 670.
GTX 570 and GTX 480 is faster than GTX 660..

Apparantly GT640 is also faster than GTX285... According to sites like tomshardware a GT640 is comparable with a 8800GT.
GT640 has a whopping 64 bit bus @40gb/sec with a texture fillrate of 16.7 bill/sec. (vs a 512 bit bus @160gb/sec and a texture fillrate of 52 bill/sec..)

Do yorself a favor and never visit that site again
Cheers.

Over at the X-Plane forums my attention was set on this:
http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/index...force-gtx-780m

In short:
780M is slightly higher clocked (7%), slightly higher texture- and pixel-rate and has double the VRAM.
Added to that OpenGL 4.3 support vs. OpenGL 4.1 support for the 680 MX.

It looks like that "all-round" the 780M will probably have around 10% better performance than the 680MX.
Games exceeding 2 GB VRAM (which X-Plane 10 easily does....) will obviously give the 780M far better results than the 680MX.

I think i just really, really want the new 27" iMac with 780M!
__________________
Steve Jobs. 1955 - 2011. My Hero.
MacsRgr8 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27, 2013, 12:59 AM   #5
smoketetsu
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Seeing as how Mavericks only supports 4.1 at launch from what I hear most games probably wont support 4.3 anytime soon. 4.3 will eventually be important though for stuff like compute shaders which is a next gen feature.
__________________
--Smoke Tetsu
27" inch iMac, Core i7 Quad 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB, 3TB Hard Drive; 7th Gen 16GB iPod Nano
smoketetsu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27, 2013, 11:41 AM   #6
maccompaq
macrumors 65816
 
maccompaq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacsRgr8 View Post
Cheers.

Over at the X-Plane forums my attention was set on this:
http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/index...force-gtx-780m

In short:
780M is slightly higher clocked (7%), slightly higher texture- and pixel-rate and has double the VRAM.
Added to that OpenGL 4.3 support vs. OpenGL 4.1 support for the 680 MX.

It looks like that "all-round" the 780M will probably have around 10% better performance than the 680MX.
Games exceeding 2 GB VRAM (which X-Plane 10 easily does....) will obviously give the 780M far better results than the 680MX.

I think i just really, really want the new 27" iMac with 780M!
To run X Plane 10 for best results, use GTX 780 (the desktop grafix). The small difference in performance of the GTX 680mx vs the 780m does not justify the additional cost.
X Plane 10 users, please give your experience.
maccompaq is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27, 2013, 01:13 PM   #7
MacsRgr8
Thread Starter
macrumors 604
 
MacsRgr8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccompaq View Post
To run X Plane 10 for best results, use GTX 780 (the desktop grafix). The small difference in performance of the GTX 680mx vs the 780m does not justify the additional cost.
X Plane 10 users, please give your experience.
Hmm... I'm not so sure on OS X.
It seems that OS X doesn't support "instancing" due to the drivers, and has a negative impact on FPS on X-Plane.

Google it, I happened to come across it.

Also, the 780 can only fit into the later Mac Pro's. I don't want to get an old Mac just so that I can use the 780.

As the new Mac Pro pretty definitely is dual grfx only, then the maxxed out iMac seems the best option.
Unless.... the 780M performs worse than a Radeon 7950...
__________________
Steve Jobs. 1955 - 2011. My Hero.
MacsRgr8 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27, 2013, 01:29 PM   #8
macguy360
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Considering Haswell has primarily been designed as a battery saving updated, there is little need to upgrade to the newer iMac this year. Personally, I would suggest that people save the money and buy last years iMac or wait until next year for the bigger intel update combined with a better nVidia update.
macguy360 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 27, 2013, 02:48 PM   #9
jeanlain
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacsRgr8 View Post
Hmm... I'm not so sure on OS X.
It seems that OS X doesn't support "instancing" due to the drivers, and has a negative impact on FPS on X-Plane.
That may be solved with Mavericks since one of the new features listed on one slide of the WWDC openGL session was "instancing", alongside tessellation and all.
http://fairerplatform.com/wp-content...-features.jpeg
jeanlain is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 28, 2013, 11:16 AM   #10
Serban
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2NTuc2BDm0
how does compared with the 2012 models?
Serban is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 30, 2013, 06:30 AM   #11
MacsRgr8
Thread Starter
macrumors 604
 
MacsRgr8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The Netherlands
I've done a little playing around with Unigine's "Heaven" and "Valley" 3D grfx benchmarking tool.

2 Macs:
- Mac Pro 2008, 8 x 2.8 GHz, 16 GB RAM, Radeon HD 7950 (3 GB VRAM)
- iMac "late 2012" 27", Core i5 3.2 GHz, 8 GB RAM, GeForce GTX 675MX (1 GB VRAM)

Both Macs running OS X 10.8.5

Test results:
- "Heaven": Mac Pro around 8% faster on average
- "Valley": iMac around 10% faster on average

In short: the two Macs perform quite similar. According to Barefeats, The GTX 680MX should perform better than both, so I am pretty confident that the GTX 780M in the new iMac should perform better than the Radeon HD 7950.

One interesting tidbit:
I also ran both "Valley" and "Heaven" on the Mac Pro, running Windows 7 (64 bits, Ultimate edition) with latest Catalyst Drivers and the test ran a lot faster (of course) than on OS X (Mountain Lion or Mavericks).
The fact that the FPS were much higher is not exciting news, but I noticed that the temperature of the 7950 running OS X hardly exceeded 35 degrees C, and running Windows it hit the 70 degrees C easily!
Also, the GTX 675 in the iMac running OS X and these benchmark tools also got hotter than the 7950: around 60 degrees C.
__________________
Steve Jobs. 1955 - 2011. My Hero.
MacsRgr8 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 30, 2013, 06:50 AM   #12
MacsRgr8
Thread Starter
macrumors 604
 
MacsRgr8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeanlain View Post
That may be solved with Mavericks since one of the new features listed on one slide of the WWDC openGL session was "instancing", alongside tessellation and all.
http://fairerplatform.com/wp-content...-features.jpeg
Thx for that!

I just ordered the new iMac 27" maxxed out (thus with the 780M)
I can't wait to find out how it will be doing in X-Plane, especially running Mavericks now I know this!
__________________
Steve Jobs. 1955 - 2011. My Hero.
MacsRgr8 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 1, 2013, 07:31 PM   #13
maccompaq
macrumors 65816
 
maccompaq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeanlain View Post
That may be solved with Mavericks since one of the new features listed on one slide of the WWDC openGL session was "instancing", alongside tessellation and all.
http://fairerplatform.com/wp-content...-features.jpeg
If Mavericks does all the above, then maybe, just maybe, X Plane 10 will run as good on OSX as it does on Windows. Here's hoping.
maccompaq is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 2, 2013, 02:26 PM   #14
jeanlain
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Well Unigine runs pretty well on Mavericks and that's a demanding engine (with tessellation and all). But I'm not sure Mavericks will help X-Plane in any way, since that engine doesn't use the openGL 3+ core profile that possibly gained most of the optimization in 10.9. (I suppose X-Plane still uses openGL 2 since it's compatible with Snow Leopard.)
jeanlain is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2013, 01:14 PM   #15
Serban
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
So with maveriks will be no more games experience differences between MACOS and Windows
Serban is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2013, 03:20 PM   #16
Serban
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
So its true that the 775M is faster than 780M ??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDUuDzmNQHE

and 780M got 54Fps
Serban is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2013, 03:56 PM   #17
N19h7m4r3
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serban View Post
So its true that the 775M is faster than 780M ??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDUuDzmNQHE

and 780M got 54Fps
It BS, and Cinebench is a useless outdated piece of rubbish.

I personally hate synthetic benchmarks, they're useless, and don't show real world performance.

http://www.barefeats.com/haswel1.html
__________________
6,1 Mac Pro - 3.50GHz Hex Core - 32 GB RAM - Dual FirePro D700 6GB
N19h7m4r3 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2013, 05:03 PM   #18
cluthz
macrumors 68040
 
cluthz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Norway
Send a message via MSN to cluthz
Quote:
Originally Posted by N19h7m4r3 View Post
It BS, and Cinebench is a useless outdated piece of rubbish.

I personally hate synthetic benchmarks, they're useless, and don't show real world performance.

http://www.barefeats.com/haswel1.html
Cinebench is a good CPU bench tho
__________________
-tb
MacBook Air 13" i5 osx10.7.5
HackPro i7-4790k, 16GB RAM, GTX780GHz Edition, 3x SSD , win7+osx10.9.4
cluthz is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Mac and PC Games

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ordered iMac 27" with 780m luismate1 iMac 9 Oct 30, 2013 09:51 AM
Apple Store 27" iMac I7/780M existe iMac 3 Oct 27, 2013 07:09 PM
Eight Games: 2013 iMac (780M) vs 2012 iMac (680MX) barefeats iMac 35 Oct 22, 2013 05:37 PM
Windows: Crysis 3 on 27" iMac with 680MX AndiS. Mac and PC Games 19 Feb 27, 2013 11:27 AM
My 27" iMac with 680mx first impressions torana355 iMac 70 Dec 18, 2012 10:55 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:38 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC