Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > iMac

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 7, 2013, 03:40 PM   #1
SDH3BLK
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
675mx vs, 680mx

planning on buying a 27, even though it seems like no one will be getting theirs anytime soon ordering now but anyways I use my gopro alot and love to make videos and this most liely will be my primary use of the iMac with final cut.

I wondering if the 675mx is all I really need? or the 680MX something I shouldnt pass up? I like to get the latest and the greatest just because it will last longer with this fast moving tech stuff, but from what I have seen, most people get it for gaming... correct me if Im wrong because I have no clue haha.

thanks,
SDH3BLK is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 03:43 PM   #2
Ice Dragon
macrumors 6502a
 
Ice Dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
I would go with the 680MX because it is a better card and offers more memory.
Ice Dragon is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 03:48 PM   #3
MaydayMAc
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
the gtx 675xm fast enought I have Overclocked it and everything i Play is Fine and Ive tried Far Cry3 Borderlands 2
MaydayMAc is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 05:18 PM   #4
SDH3BLK
Thread Starter
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Hmm a yes and a no haha. Well if I'm going to pay this much money anyways might as well go big! Even though I may not need it, it's always nice to have it if I ever did. Thanks!

and if anyone has a more detailed comparison or where I could find one that'd be great!

Thanks,
SDH3BLK is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 05:19 PM   #5
jarnold
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Seattle,WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaydayMAc View Post
the gtx 675xm fast enought I have Overclocked it and everything i Play is Fine and Ive tried Far Cry3 Borderlands 2
How fast is fast enough? lol I really just want to go to the apple store and buy a high end model rather than wait a month for the BTO
jarnold is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 05:59 PM   #6
MaydayMAc
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
the $1999 model has gtx 675 and its plenty fast when u over-clock it make big difference let me know what else u like to know

ps I came from a windows machine with gtx 690 watercooled so when I say the gtx 675mx is fast i know what I am talking about :-)
MaydayMAc is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 06:03 PM   #7
fitshaced
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
I have the 675 and play Arkham City on full resolution and high quality. There is some lag when going through doorways but mostly its very smooth. Overclocking would fix that but I don't think its necessary.
__________________
Lots of stuff.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/picsbykev/
fitshaced is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 06:04 PM   #8
talisabt
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
If you don't get the 680mx you will regret it 2 years later when the 675 isn't powerful enough to run games and programs at native 1440p resolution. The 680mx is 50% faster.

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

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-...X.83519.0.html
talisabt is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 01:11 AM   #9
DIMEZ
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: MD
Send a message via AIM to DIMEZ
what if you dont game though? I do use photoshop and final cut though.
__________________
27in" Imac , 2.7GHz I5, 16GB RAM, 256 SSD + 1tB HD
15" Macbook Pro retina, 2.6GHz, 16GB RAM, 512 SSD
Iphone 5 64GB
Ipad 2 64GB WIFI+3G
DIMEZ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 02:33 AM   #10
kaellar
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by talisabt View Post
The 680mx is 50% faster.
Well, it depends. Stock 675mx has 600/3600 clocks while Apple clocks for it are the same as 680mx's - 720/5000.
Due to the core numbers differense (960 vs 1536), there could be a 50% performance differense, but some benchmarks results posted by forum guys show a lot less performanse differense.
kaellar is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 04:14 AM   #11
petsk
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
There's absolutely no point in getting the highend imac unless you're a gamer.

And getting the 680mx is just a waste of money. The performance increase compared to the 675mx is close to none existing. I ordered the 680mx before any benchmarks were released and I definitely regret it now.
petsk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 06:43 AM   #12
kaellar
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by petsk View Post
There's absolutely no point in getting the highend imac unless you're a gamer.

And getting the 680mx is just a waste of money. The performance increase compared to the 675mx is close to none existing. I ordered the 680mx before any benchmarks were released and I definitely regret it now.
There should definitely be an around 1.5x performance increase, due to 60% more CUDA cores in 680mx. I guess, it's something temporary and is drivers-related.
kaellar is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 06:54 AM   #13
Tanax
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by petsk View Post
There's absolutely no point in getting the highend imac unless you're a gamer.

And getting the 680mx is just a waste of money. The performance increase compared to the 675mx is close to none existing. I ordered the 680mx before any benchmarks were released and I definitely regret it now.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. None existing performance increase between 675MX and 680MX? There is a difference and people who use graphic intensive applications will definitely notice it.

If you're planning to use your iMac for 3 years or more, getting a 680MX is almost a must. I'm using a 3 year old graphic chip in my Macbook Pro, it gets very warm just playing YouTube videos. Who knows how graphic intensive applications will be in 3 years, no one knows. Futureproofing your iMac graphics-wise is definitely a top priority.
Tanax is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 07:12 AM   #14
petsk
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaellar View Post
There should definitely be an around 1.5x performance increase, due to 60% more CUDA cores in 680mx. I guess, it's something temporary and is drivers-related.
Yes, on the paper it looks like there's should be a huge difference, but that's on the paper. It could be a driver issue but I doubt there will be a fix if that's the case. Also looking at previous GPU upgrades in the highend iMac the performance boost have been very moderate, at best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tanax View Post
graphic intensive applications will definitely notice it.

just playing YouTube videos.
Omg I'm not even going to comment on that. :facepalm:
petsk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 08:40 AM   #15
Outrigger
macrumors 65816
 
Outrigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by petsk View Post
There's absolutely no point in getting the highend imac unless you're a gamer.

And getting the 680mx is just a waste of money. The performance increase compared to the 675mx is close to none existing. I ordered the 680mx before any benchmarks were released and I definitely regret it now.
Sorry but to say there is no performance increase is just beyond false. Just because you regret it, it doesn't mean others might not have a use for it, and no, its not just on paper.
__________________
iMac | Intel i7 3.4GHz | 32GB RAM | 1TB Fusion | GTX 680MX
Mini | Intel i5 2.5GHz | 8GB RAM | 750GBSSD | AMD 6630M
rMBP 13 | Intel i5 2.6Ghz | 8GB RAM | 512GB SSD
Outrigger is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 08:42 AM   #16
Wreckie
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2011
Extra cost for 680MX is worth it, better performance for money
Wreckie is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 09:03 AM   #17
Tanax
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by petsk View Post
Omg I'm not even going to comment on that. :facepalm:
If playing YouTube at 1080p is too much for a only 3 year old Mac, imagine what really graphic intensive applications(like Adobe applications, games, etc) will do to an iMac with "only" a 675MX in 3 years. Seems I have to explain my point in great detail. Perhaps you shouldn't facepalm so hard so that you don't lose those precious braincells
Tanax is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 09:43 AM   #18
FuriousGreg
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by DIMEZ View Post
what if you dont game though? I do use photoshop and final cut though.
You will notice a difference when scrubing in FC so if you use this program it's worth the extra $150. PS not so much.

Basically any program the renders in realtime will benifit from a more powerful graphics card.
FuriousGreg is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 09:44 AM   #19
nosnhojm
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tanax View Post
If playing YouTube at 1080p is too much for a only 3 year old Mac, imagine what really graphic intensive applications(like Adobe applications, games, etc) will do to an iMac with "only" a 675MX in 3 years. Seems I have to explain my point in great detail. Perhaps you shouldn't facepalm so hard so that you don't lose those precious braincells
Browsers have only recently started to use GPU acceleration for streaming video. Your old Macbook is not heating up due to Youtube using the GPU; more likely due to the battery or CPU (or blocking the the ventilation).
__________________
iMac 2012 | iPad Air | iPhone 5S | TV 3 | Airport Extreme 6
nosnhojm is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 11:45 AM   #20
SDH3BLK
Thread Starter
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
I'm all about future proofing things, especially with a large purchase like this. I think 680MX will be the winner, and if I don't access it's full potential... Well at least I have it and it's there just in case, I would never regret something like that! I would regret getting something and then finding out i needed something better! Who knows maybe ill start playing some games! Thanks for all the input guys! Really appreciate it. Now I have to decide where I will buy it from... Either way, not getting it soon!

Here's what I'm getting
27"
3.4 i7
8GB RAM
1TB fusion drive
680MX!

Think this will be nice computer for a long time!
SDH3BLK is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 12:04 PM   #21
Tanax
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDH3BLK View Post
I'm all about future proofing things, especially with a large purchase like this. I think 680MX will be the winner, and if I don't access it's full potential... Well at least I have it and it's there just in case, I would never regret something like that! I would regret getting something and then finding out i needed something better! Who knows maybe ill start playing some games! Thanks for all the input guys! Really appreciate it. Now I have to decide where I will buy it from... Either way, not getting it soon!

Here's what I'm getting
27"
3.4 i7
8GB RAM
1TB fusion drive
680MX!

Think this will be nice computer for a long time!
Why the i7?
Tanax is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 12:05 PM   #22
petsk
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tanax View Post
Why the i7?
Lol, what you think?
petsk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 12:09 PM   #23
Tanax
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by petsk View Post
Lol, what you think?
Well, humor me and explain then if you know
Tanax is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 01:30 PM   #24
talisabt
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
To clarify something which people have not clarified for the OP:

The imax 27" has a 1440p screen or 2560x1440 or 3.7 million pixels... that's an extra 75% pixels over a 1080p or 1920x1080 or 2.1 million pixels. It's simple math.

Yes, the 675mx is a great chipset and is quite powerful. However, take into account that most reviews of a chipset or graphics card involve displays and games at 1080p - not 1440p.

The 680mx's 50% extra horsepower pays dividends when working with a monitor that is 75% "larger" (or more accurately has 50% more pixels).

Simply, imo, you need a better graphics card to futureproof yourself. For the price, the 680mx is a better upgrade than going from an i5 to the i7.

Hope this helps people become informed.

Good luck!
talisabt is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 01:36 PM   #25
nosnhojm
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Everything I read in the forums re: 675mx vs 680mx seems like speculation and hearsay. Can anyone point to a direct comparison between running a game/benchmark on the 675mx and on the 680mx, at full 1440p resolution, in osx (not bootcamp)?

The only comparison I've seen is from here, and it shows Heaven running about 37.2 fps on the 675mx and at 38.7 fps on the 680mx.

If you can point me to any other comparisons, I'd appreciate it.
__________________
iMac 2012 | iPad Air | iPhone 5S | TV 3 | Airport Extreme 6

Last edited by nosnhojm; Jan 8, 2013 at 01:44 PM.
nosnhojm is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > iMac

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Calling all GTX 680mx / 675mx owners...please post VALLEY benchmarks! flavr iMac 59 Nov 27, 2013 11:13 PM
GTX 675MX or GTX 680MX lixe iMac 92 Jun 30, 2013 12:03 AM
Request: Do you have a 675MX or 680MX equipped iMac? cal6n iMac 10 May 10, 2013 07:26 AM
GTX 680MX and GTX 675MX reviews to share Red Fuji iMac 0 Apr 19, 2013 03:59 PM
675mx vs 680mx benchmarks closer than you might think! flavr iMac 5 Mar 24, 2013 11:12 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:36 AM.

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

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