Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

flavr

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Nov 9, 2011
363
40
Ok, there are conflicting reports that the actual CUDA cores in the iMac version of the 675mx are closer to the 680m, and that the 675mx used in the iMac is a rebaged 680m...which brings it much closer to the 680mx in terms of performance. can ANYBODY confirm? It would require using windows under bootcamp with a card specs app. Im more interested in someone who has a more recent iMac with 675mx (Feb-March+ build), please post a screenshot for us, thanks!
 
Mine is a march build and it has the higher cores, 1344 I believe.

You don't need windows to run the program. There's a program that works on osx. You do have to install the cuda drivers though.
 
Mine is a march build and it has the higher cores, 1344 I believe.

You don't need windows to run the program. There's a program that works on osx. You do have to install the cuda drivers though.


Confirmed, 1344 cores

6tukGMz.png


I add a memory screenshot, it has 2500MHz clocks and not only 1800MHz as nVidia says.

ncUgvJg.png


In addition
geforce 680m
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/notebook-gpus/geforce-gtx-680m/specifications

same clock speed and cores
 
Last edited:
Here's a couple of shots of the GTX 680MX to compare with that 675...

680cude.png


cuda680mem.png


(mine is a march 2013 build)
 
Last edited:
For $150 extra, what can you really get by Apple standard? I knew it's not going to be that huge of a difference.

It only doubles the VRAM, and a mere extra 150 (1536 instead 1386) CUDA cores (which might even be activated by a simple tweak).
I remember back then lots of people raging over 680MX for being 50% more performance over 675MX for extra $150 ..

Fact is? Meh, 680MX is not that much better than 675MX.

The same company that would sell you a USB wall charger for $30 won't give you a lot for $150. Who are you kidding?
 
This is great news! Our 675mx cards are much more powerful than advertised and much closer in performance to the 680mx than previously thought!
 
Yeah its really more about the VRAM which at 2560x1440 and gaming or other tasks can make a difference.

It is a stretch to fit that much stuff into 1024 Vram at that resolution and even 2gigs can be pushing it close in some games like Skyrim on Ultra or Max Payne.

The 675mx in the iMac should prove to be a monster overclocker though :)
 
... its a lower clock speed and has half the vram than the 660m. I'm guessing though, that the 675mx has better performance lol.

The 660m in the iMac has 512mb the 675mx has 1GB
 
You guys are talking about your iMac production time, so early 675MX-s are not as powerful as the later ones?
 
You guys are talking about your iMac production time, so early 675MX-s are not as powerful as the later ones?

That's not true, they're all the same, some can over clock 2-5% higher than other production runs - just like processors but the specification is the same. It comes down to people with a 675MX wanting their cards to be 680MX's but without the naming. Fact is they will never be as powerful and are twice as poor in one very important area. They're nice cards but this is partial buyers remorse and partial 'mine is bigger' syndrome.
 
That's not true, they're all the same, some can over clock 2-5% higher than other production runs - just like processors but the specification is the same. It comes down to people with a 675MX wanting their cards to be 680MX's but without the naming. Fact is they will never be as powerful and are twice as poor in one very important area. They're nice cards but this is partial buyers remorse and partial 'mine is bigger' syndrome.

One very important area is VRAM?
 
One very important area is VRAM?
How did you guess?:eek:
Well, there's nothing to discuss here - for such a decent GPU and 1440p display 2GB of vRAM is a MUST.
p.s. I wish Apple offered 2GB 675MX base and 4GB 680MX bto. Would definitely pick the first option if looked for 27incher.
 
How did you guess?:eek:
Well, there's nothing to discuss here - for such a decent GPU and 1440p display 2GB of vRAM is a MUST.
p.s. I wish Apple offered 2GB 675MX base and 4GB 680MX bto. Would definitely pick the first option if looked for 27incher.

On 1440p Id say 512MB VRAM is too little, 1GB is a MUST and 2GB is gravy...

I would speculate this will def be the last time 512MB VRAM is offered on a 27 inch iMac...1GB will be the minimum next refresh...
 
On 1440p Id say 512MB VRAM is too little, 1GB is a MUST and 2GB is gravy...

I would speculate this will def be the last time 512MB VRAM is offered on a 27 inch iMac...1GB will be the minimum next refresh...

Most of today's games require about 1GB vRAM and more for 1080p already. For 1440p 2GB is a must, no "if"s are suitable here.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.