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 Feb 16, 2013, 02:52 PM   #1
2Turbo
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
650m 512MB VRAM enough for gaming?

I'm concerned the 650m with 512MB vram will cause bad performance when gaming. I plan on running CoD Black Ops 2 in Bootcamp.

If 512 isn't enough, I might have to go 27" but I didn't want that much screen for everyday normal use. uhhh why is this soo hard. Apple please make a 21" with 675mx.
2Turbo is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 16, 2013, 03:23 PM   #2
ihuman:D
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Ireland
Quote:
I'm concerned the 650m with 512MB vram will cause bad performance when gaming. I plan on running CoD Black Ops 2 in Bootcamp.

If 512 isn't enough, I might have to go 27" but I didn't want that much screen for everyday normal use. uhhh why is this soo hard. Apple please make a 21" with 675mx.
Or atleast 1gb VRAM standard...
__________________
iMac G4 17'' 1.25GHz PowerBook G4 15'' Hi-Res 1.67GHz iMac 2012 21.5" 2.9GHz i5
It's spelled "Aluminium"
It's "Couldn't care less" not "Could care less"
ihuman:D is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2013, 05:35 AM   #3
Serban
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Are you kidding me?
Core speed mooore important than vRam.
i already tested the 640M and 650M with some more demanding games than CoD BO2.

----------

My old Geforce 250 GTS with 1 GB vRAM is far behind of 650M
Serban is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2013, 08:19 AM   #4
ihuman:D
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Ireland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serban View Post
Are you kidding me?
Core speed mooore important than vRam.
i already tested the 640M and 650M with some more demanding games than CoD BO2.

----------

My old Geforce 250 GTS with 1 GB vRAM is far behind of 650M
That doesn't mean VRAM isn't important . It's 2013 now, 1gb should be standard.
__________________
iMac G4 17'' 1.25GHz PowerBook G4 15'' Hi-Res 1.67GHz iMac 2012 21.5" 2.9GHz i5
It's spelled "Aluminium"
It's "Couldn't care less" not "Could care less"
ihuman:D is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2013, 09:51 AM   #5
Ice Dragon
macrumors 6502a
 
Ice Dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
I was just about to create a topic with regards to this and you may have seen some posts about it in the Haswell mini thread. I agree that we are getting to a point where 1 GB of VRAM should be standard.

Maybe 512 MB is acceptable on the base iMac but that should only be if you drop it back to $1,199. At $1,299 it should be 1 GB.

Or you could have put 512 MB of the 650M in the base model followed by a 1 GB in the upgraded model, but that might have gimped sales of the retina MacBook Pro which should have had 2 GB to handle the retina screen.
Ice Dragon is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2013, 11:11 AM   #6
HurtinMinorKey
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
It sucks that they force you to go with a bigger screen just to get decent graphics card. A 27' is way too big for the space i have to work with, but i need at least a 1gb card (more like 2gb) to run DaVinci.
HurtinMinorKey is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2013, 11:25 AM   #7
Ice Dragon
macrumors 6502a
 
Ice Dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurtinMinorKey View Post
It sucks that they force you to go with a bigger screen just to get decent graphics card. A 27' is way too big for the space i have to work with, but i need at least a 1gb card (more like 2gb) to run DaVinci.
By the time 2 GB is standard or even as a BTO for anything less than the top model, 4 GB will be the option and so forth. Hell it sucks nowadays that you have to go with a bigger screen if you just want to change your own RAM.
Ice Dragon is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2013, 12:23 PM   #8
Serban
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
650M is in top 100 of high end video cards
Serban is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2013, 04:19 PM   #9
leman
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
A game will run into performance limitations much faster with the 650M than it will run into VRAM limitations... With another words - if your game really needs 1GB VRAM, than 650M is already too slow for it.

Of course, its nice to have 1GB VRAM... but at least Apple puts fast GDDR5 on their cards instead of crippled GDDR3
leman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2013, 04:37 PM   #10
Irishman
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Turbo View Post
I'm concerned the 650m with 512MB vram will cause bad performance when gaming. I plan on running CoD Black Ops 2 in Bootcamp.

If 512 isn't enough, I might have to go 27" but I didn't want that much screen for everyday normal use. uhhh why is this soo hard. Apple please make a 21" with 675mx.
Look, the main thing you'll get with 1GB of memory over the 512MB of memory is more room for textures.

The games will not suddenly be playable versus unplayable on the 512MB.

I know because I have the GPU you're asking about in my iMac.
Irishman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2013, 04:52 PM   #11
kaellar
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
vRAM has nothing to do with GPU processing power limitations. It's about something completely different - storing the textures, models and shaders in it. For example, some hypothetic game has several texture quality settings. With the highest setting it requires 800mb of vRAM to put all the required textures into it. Which means, that the card with 512mb vRAM will struggle using the highest texture quality setting, while 1gb vRAM card with the same GPU will do it just fine, since storing and layout of the textures requires much less processing power than, lets say, complex shaders, tesselation or realistic lighting.
kaellar is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2013, 05:03 PM   #12
Irishman
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaellar View Post
vRAM has nothing to do with GPU processing power limitations. It's about something completely different - storing the textures, models and shaders in it. For example, some hypothetic game has several texture quality settings. With the highest setting it requires 800mb of vRAM to put all the required textures into it. Which means, that the card with 512mb vRAM will struggle using the highest texture quality setting, while 1gb vRAM card with the same GPU will do it just fine, since storing and layout of the textures requires much less processing power than, lets say, complex shaders, tesselation or realistic lighting.
Well, tessellation isn't even supported in Mac OSX. Sadly.
Irishman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2013, 06:06 PM   #13
Ice Dragon
macrumors 6502a
 
Ice Dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
At minimum, at least include a BTO option to increase the memory period end of story.
Ice Dragon is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2013, 06:44 PM   #14
2Turbo
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serban View Post
Are you kidding me?
Core speed mooore important than vRam.
i already tested the 640M and 650M with some more demanding games than CoD BO2.

----------

My old Geforce 250 GTS with 1 GB vRAM is far behind of 650M
Are you saying the 650m w/512MB works just fine in Black Ops 2 with these settings?

Details: Extra
Shadows: off
MSAA: 2x
HBOA: off
FXAA: on
Occlusion: Medium
Dept of field: Medium
fps: around 60+

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Dragon View Post
By the time 2 GB is standard or even as a BTO for anything less than the top model, 4 GB will be the option and so forth. Hell it sucks nowadays that you have to go with a bigger screen if you just want to change your own RAM.
Yup they made it so gamers/power users MUST get the 27".
2Turbo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2013, 07:56 PM   #15
d0nK
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurtinMinorKey View Post
It sucks that they force you to go with a bigger screen just to get decent graphics card. A 27' is way too big for the space i have to work with, but i need at least a 1gb card (more like 2gb) to run DaVinci.
Yes.
If you get the 21.5" you have to shell out extra for the Fusion drive and the 640m is rubbish.

Even if you go for the 27", I wouldn't want to be running that large screen with a 512MB 660m! Apple basically force you to get the high-end 27" with the 1Gig 675mx or you're a sucker.
Penny-pinchers. I am no fan of theirs atm.

Obv you don't hear all the high-end 27" 680mx users complaining. They're the first to argue that the new iMac's are good
That's because the high-end iMac is decent but you have to pay megabucks for it, which is exactly what Apple have planned for.

..and don't give me that crap about the difference between "average consumers" and "professional" users. People deserve a powerful computer for a decent price these days in order to do what they like with... We aren't living in the 90's where the powerful tech wasn't readily and cheaply available!
If I want to render 3D, render long video's, edit many large photo's and create complex music does that make me a "professional" user or just a simple user of today's tech doing what he enjoys/loves to do?

Apple seem stuck in the past and need to get with the times.

Last edited by d0nK; Feb 17, 2013 at 08:06 PM.
d0nK is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2013, 08:51 PM   #16
thekev
macrumors 603
 
thekev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serban View Post
Are you kidding me?
Core speed mooore important than vRam.
i already tested the 640M and 650M with some more demanding games than CoD BO2.

----------

My old Geforce 250 GTS with 1 GB vRAM is far behind of 650M
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishman View Post
Well, tessellation isn't even supported in Mac OSX. Sadly.

Part of the problem is limiting it to just games when a wide range of budgets and use cases exists. At the $1000+ level in the current year, no one wants to see weird budget cutting measures in machines at these pricing tiers. Beyond that it always has some impact. These were technically 2012 models in spite of delays. The early 2011 15" had 256MB. In both cases they were weirdly low on memory for their respective times. I think they should have started with a 1GB 650m. 21" displays tend to be extremely cheap on their own, but I have a feeling the new process and other changes are quite expensive. It went up $100 and they skimped slightly on the gpu rather than one or the other to balance things out.
__________________
world's largest manufacturer of tin foil hats, none of that aluminum foil crap.
thekev is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2013, 09:00 PM   #17
Ice Dragon
macrumors 6502a
 
Ice Dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
I am fine with Apple forcing people to go for the ultimate 27" for the best video card. That isn't the problem I have.

I feel they should at minimum go:

512 MB 640M - $1,299
512 MB 650M - $1,499 (option for 1 GB)
1 GB GTX 660M - $1,799
1 GB GTX 675MX - $1,999 (obviously the option for 2 GB)
Ice Dragon is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2013, 03:28 AM   #18
kaellar
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
I already said so, but in my opinion, the GPU options should be like that:

21.5 base - 1gb 650m
21.5 hi-end - 1gb 660m; 1.5gb 670mx option
27 base - 1gb 660m; 1.5gb 670mx option
27 hi-end - 2gb 675mx; 4gb 680mx option.

The reasoning beyond that is pretty simple:

1. 640m/650m/660m have not-that-big difference in oem pricing and with margins Apple has it's pretty easy to go with a bit higher model. Sadly, it's not typical for Apple to provide customers with a bit better options though.

2. RAM and vRAM are extremely cheap nowadays (especially for such a large customer like Apple), and it's pretty easy to go with more vRAM. But Apple sells RAM at x4 market prices, and vRAM amount is even worse - it's limited to the point where it becomes a real bottleneck. Pretty lame, if you ask me.

That said, I'm not Apple and we have what we have. Which is pretty sad, because with the cost of a bit lower margins Apple could provide us with a much more desirable product.

Last edited by kaellar; Feb 18, 2013 at 03:43 AM.
kaellar is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2013, 06:00 AM   #19
Serban
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
I don't understand. The high end 21.5" is getting some good quality of some demanding games at native resolution. So after i read all these posts i am aware that you refer to the gamers ! And for hard gamers for that prices you go for maxed imac or alienware.

if you are not a gamer(for me a gamer is someone who play every day/day by day lots of hours and wants everything on any game at maximum settings) you can go easily for base imac with 640M.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6jhvIwAGKs
Serban is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2013, 06:07 AM   #20
leman
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaellar View Post
... and vRAM amount is even worse - it's limited to the point where it becomes a real bottleneck. Pretty lame, if you ask me.
Can you provide any evidence that VRAM amount is a bottleneck in the iMac? Look, I am not trying to defend Apple here. I also think that they could have easily doubled the amount of VRAM on the entry model, the few bucks wouldn't hurt them. However, I feel that this issue is completely overrated. If your game already runs with acceptable frame rates on the 650M, adding VRAM will not increase make it much better. Similarly, if it does not run on the 512Mb model, it would not run any better even if the card had 4Gb VRAM.
leman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2013, 06:33 AM   #21
cluthz
macrumors 68040
 
cluthz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Norway
Send a message via MSN to cluthz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serban View Post
Are you kidding me?
Core speed mooore important than vRam.
i already tested the 640M and 650M with some more demanding games than CoD BO2.

----------

My old Geforce 250 GTS with 1 GB vRAM is far behind of 650M
A desktop GTS250 is faster than a 650M.
__________________
-tb
MacBook Air 13" i5 osx10.7.5
HackPro 4.3GHz, 16GB RAM, GTX780GHz Edition, 3x SSD , win7+osx10.9.2
cluthz is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2013, 06:38 AM   #22
kaellar
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
leman, there was an article at the website called overclockers.ru, about the vRAM amount necessary for modern games. I don't think you need a link to it, since it's completely in Russian
but the testing results clearly pointed that absolutely most famous gaming titles that comed out in 2011-2012, require 550-1000MB at 1080p resolution.
that said, 512mb is a real bottleneck for those who want to use highest texture quality settings.
If the GPU is too weak for, lets say, Crysis 3, more vRAM of course won't solve it. But what if the GPU is capable enough but there's no vRAM for highest texture quality? It's where it becomes a bottleneck.
kaellar is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2013, 06:48 AM   #23
Irishman
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekev View Post
Part of the problem is limiting it to just games when a wide range of budgets and use cases exists. At the $1000+ level in the current year, no one wants to see weird budget cutting measures in machines at these pricing tiers. Beyond that it always has some impact. These were technically 2012 models in spite of delays. The early 2011 15" had 256MB. In both cases they were weirdly low on memory for their respective times. I think they should have started with a 1GB 650m. 21" displays tend to be extremely cheap on their own, but I have a feeling the new process and other changes are quite expensive. It went up $100 and they skimped slightly on the gpu rather than one or the other to balance things out.
I re-read your post, because at first I thought I missed it, but you quoted me, but didn't speak on hardware tessellation.
Irishman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2013, 06:51 AM   #24
Serban
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by cluthz View Post
A desktop GTS250 is faster than a 650M.
Get real...i had Gts 250 for almost 3 years now...
Serban is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 18, 2013, 06:58 AM   #25
Irishman
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serban View Post
I don't understand. The high end 21.5" is getting some good quality of some demanding games at native resolution. So after i read all these posts i am aware that you refer to the gamers ! And for hard gamers for that prices you go for maxed imac or alienware.

if you are not a gamer(for me a gamer is someone who play every day/day by day lots of hours and wants everything on any game at maximum settings) you can go easily for base imac with 640M.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6jhvIwAGKs
See, this is a bit of a stereotype, if you ask me. There are people like me who don't play every day, but when we do play, we want the best experience possible.

Quality, not quantity.
Irishman 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
Nvidia 650M 512MB vram 2mer MacBook Pro 22 Oct 31, 2013 06:33 AM
GT 650M 512MB for gaming? benjamwes iMac 6 Jul 19, 2013 04:58 AM
GT 650M 512MB VRAM GPU for 15" MBP (non-retina)? MagicThief83 MacBook Pro 4 Oct 31, 2012 09:48 PM
amd 6770 1g vs nvidia 650m 512mb gaming? dHk MacBook Pro 1 Aug 20, 2012 03:45 AM
Nvidia 650m 512mb vram gaming? dHk MacBook Pro 2 Aug 20, 2012 02:28 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:18 AM.

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

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