675mx vs, 680mx

I would go with the 680MX because it is a better card and offers more memory.

the gtx 675xm fast enought I have Overclocked it and everything i Play is Fine and Ive tried Far Cry3 Borderlands 2

MaydayMAc said:

the gtx 675xm fast enought I have Overclocked it and everything i Play is Fine and Ive tried Far Cry3 Borderlands 2

Click to expand...

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

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

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.

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-GeForce-GTX-675MX.82580.0.html

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-680MX.83519.0.html

what if you dont game though? I do use photoshop and final cut though.

talisabt said:

The 680mx is 50% faster.

Click to expand...

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.

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 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

petsk said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

kaellar said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Tanax said:

graphic intensive applications will definitely notice it.

just playing YouTube videos.

Click to expand...

Omg I'm not even going to comment on that. :facepalm:

petsk said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Extra cost for 680MX is worth it, better performance for money

petsk said:

Omg I'm not even going to comment on that. :facepalm:

Click to expand...

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

DIMEZ said:

what if you dont game though? I do use photoshop and final cut though.

Click to expand...

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.

Tanax said:

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

Click to expand...

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).

SDH3BLK said:

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!

Click to expand...

Why the i7?

Tanax said:

Why the i7?

Click to expand...

Lol, what you think?

petsk said:

Lol, what you think?

Click to expand...

Well, humor me and explain then if you know

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!

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.