680MX slower than Radeon 6970 in Cinebench OpenGL according to Macworld's Lab Tests!

Discussion in 'iMac' started by MasterLibrarian, Dec 2, 2012.

  1. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2012
    #1
    Macworld has lab-tested the new iMacs, including a fully loaded BTO 27'' (i7, fussion, 680MX) and compares it with the 2011 model (again fully loaded BTO)

    In general, the 2012 model is better, except the Cinebench OpenGL test, where the 2011 model with the ATI HD 6970 is better !!!!

    "Those tests show the new iMac to be 22 percent faster overall, with better times in all but the Cinebench Open GL test, in which the AMD Radeon was faster than the Nvidia GeForce."


    http://www.macworld.com/article/201...equipped-with-fusion-drives-cpu-upgrades.html
     
  2. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2012
    #2
    It's going to be leagues faster than my 2.8 C duo with the ati hd 2600 pro though, so I'm not going to lose any sleep :D
     
  3. macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #3
    Hmmm... I was expecting more from the 680MX.
     
  4. macrumors 6502a

    shigzeo

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Location:
    Japan
    #4
    sum of parts

    There were very few gaming benchmarks there, and I assume, most were performed running OSX. In OSX, still, gaming optimisations are few and far between when compared to Microsoft's OS. Oh well.

    I will be getting i5, 680MX and 3TB Fusion and expect things to be very very nice. The price in Japan is more expensive than some other places, but pretty comparable to Canadian prices (after CAD tax) and considering the display quality, look like damn fine machines.

    Wait a few weeks for proper gaming benchmarks if you are looking for direct 680mx scores.
     
  5. Siderz, Dec 2, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2012

    macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2012
    #5
    Hope thats an error, can't belive Apple went a step back...and they're already a big step back from competitors. If my 650M with 512MB VRAM doesn't perform that well, it's going straight back to Apple and I'm gonna build a PC...

    I checked out the base model 21.5" at an Apple Store and FCPX lagged while scrolling through the timeline...that shouldn't be happening.

    What I want to know though, how did they get hold of BTO iMacs? Or am I reading the post wrong?
     
  6. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2012
    #6
    This is bad news for people who play OpenGL compatibility tests. :(
     
  7. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    #7
    OMG OMG I'm freaking out!! You mean I just spent $150 more to upgrade to the 680MX and it is worse than the HD 6970 in last year's model???????

    ......Okay in all seriousness, even if this test is accurate it doesn't really mean much. Serious gamers will have Windows installed through Bootcamp for their games and only casual gamers will play games in OSX. The OpenGL API is quite un-optimized, very clunky and very hardware-hungry. The same game played with OpenGL requires better hardware to achieve the same framerates of the DirectX (Windows) version.

    Please, DO NOT spend money on Mac games if you can buy them for Windows. There are virtually no games out there that don't first come out for Windows so this should not even be an issue.
     
  8. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Location:
    Michigan
    #8
    The 2010 MBP 13 with the 320m performed better than the 2011 MBP 13 with HD 3000 in graphics applications. So this wouldn't be the first time.

    Apple is pretty inept in the graphics department.... Can't be good at everything I guess.
     
  9. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Location:
    Michigan
    #9
    Umm, I would say PLEASE DO buy Mac games. Not only will the games not get better and Apple will not produce better hardware but if there is no profit in it, there won't be game makers will to produce Mac games.

    If you are a serious (hardcore) gamer you'd have to be a little silly to try serious gaming on a Mac. However, most people that buy games aren't hardcore. Most gamers are casual. The mainstream, casual gamers are where the profits are simply because they purchase the most games by volume. I'd also say that casual gamers don't generally need games on day 1. I'm fine playing games a little latter. I work on Mac first and play second. Although I used to install bootcamp for games, I'd simply rather not keep restarting, even with a SSD.

    Your advice is horrible for all Mac users in the long run, gamers or not.
     
  10. macrumors 601

    Icaras

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Location:
    California, United States
    #10
    Sorry but I'm not a spec or benchmark whore, so I always choose the Mac version of the game when I can. I'm voting with my wallet too so more mac games sold means more mac games support in the future.

    In all honesty, although I bootcamp, I try to stay away from Windows as much as I can help it.
     
  11. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    #11
    That figures for me...I got the better GPU for use in Cinema 4D, so I'm sure that Cinebench, also from Maxon, is a good measure of that.

    Luckily, it's probably a matter of drivers, since the hardware of the 680MX is much better. Hopefully they'll get their stuff together with drivers and what not.
     
  12. macrumors regular

    THOPMedia

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2012
    #12
    Oh no! I love to play that test! What am I going to do. This must mean I wont be able to play it all all on my new 27" iMac right?
     
  13. macrumors 6502a

    shigzeo

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Location:
    Japan
    #13
    Eventually, Mac gaming may take a turn for the better, but it's been 6-7 years now with Intel processors and bootcamp, and Mac gaming, for all its compatibility, hasn't gotten better. More titles, maybe, but next to no optimisation from either game devs or Apple.

    I purchased KOTOR and Unreal for Mac, but wish I had stayed with Bootcamp as those perform at worst 50-80% better in windows. On one hand, it is a shame, but on the other, it proves the use of either OS: OSX for work, windows for play.

    The only non-gaming app I use in Windows is Right Mark Audio Analyser, an app I use in testing headphone amps.
     
  14. macrumors regular

    THOPMedia

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2012
    #14
    Speaking of that, I just had my first go with Windows 8. Literally nearly punched the screen right in.

    ***And now back to your regularly scheduled iMac moaning posts***
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    shigzeo

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Location:
    Japan
    #15
    That's the power of touch-input. (emphasis mine.)
     
  16. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Location:
    NYC
    #16
    What model did you end up purchasing?
     
  17. macrumors 603

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #17
    It's quite possibly a matter of drivers. We've seen NVidia gpus with third party drivers including some unofficial ones that performed quite well on the mac pro. I'd expect mainstream options to be quite good.

    It would be helpful if people described what they dislike about in detail rather than emotion. I've used bootcamp quite a bit in the past, so I do find this interesting.
     
  18. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    #18
    cinebench is a useless benchmark, especially when looking at gaming performance.

    http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

    A 6770m is stronger (6818 pts cinebench r10 32 bit and 48.2 pts cinebench 11.5) than a 580m SLI (5996 pts cinebench r10 32 bit and 45.9 pts cinebench 11.5).

    In fact the 6770m seems almosy as strong as the leading mobile cards out there (680m and 7970m only have around 20-30% more)
     
  19. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    #19
    First of all, it is not the duty of consumers to keep people in business. Second, your statement about people not buying games on the Mac leading to Apple putting in mediocre hardware is completely false as well as ignorant. Apple will always put in the current generation hardware such as CPU, GPU and IO not only since there is no difference in cost for them but also because previous gen hardware is not readily available anymore ie suppliers will have limited stock and the manufacturers will be phasing it out. Also, Apple is a premium brand, they will never put in obsolete hardware in new machines. Gaming is not the only reason for powerful hardware. Apple knows there are a lot of pros out there using Photoshop, AutoCad, Final Cut and others and those individuals will need the hardware.

    This voting with your wallet concept is very dated and is foolish.
     
  20. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    #20
    yes this sucks, i really could care less about all those demanding games like skyrim or witcher 2 etc. that will run flawlessly at max setting, instead I was so looking forward to playing the OpenGL test on my new imac, now you guys are telling me I just wasted $150?
     
  21. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Location:
    Auckland, New Zealand
    #21
    It wouldn't surprise me if the drivers need a bit of work for the 680MX vs the 6970m. The 680MX is far better hardware wise.
     
  22. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Location:
    Michigan
    #22
    WHAT?!

    It's not a consumers a job but a business will go where the money is. If there is no money in an area then there will be no business in that area. Any drug dealer can explain that but if you don't understand that then there is no point talking about it.

    As far as current hardware goes, that is only true in areas that Apple deems the effort worth it. MBPs didn't' get USB 3.0 until 2012, about a year after it was mainstream?. That was not current. The last Mac Pro update had USB 2.0, a 2 year old GPU and less than current CPU. The rMBP is a $1,700 Hi Res workstation with no discrete GPU. That doesn't sound current. You can get a Dell for half the price with a 7670m and 1 GB video RAM for half the price. Apple sucks ass in the GPU area. Apple does great things with hardware when they want to but not when it comes to GPUs or other areas that they don't deem it worth the effort. If you only compare hardware specs (exclude form factor), Apple loses almost all the time, if not all the time. But hey, they will always make it then.

    Don't get me wrong, I like Apple hardware but you can't call it current. Your statement that they will always use the current IO, CPU and GPU couldn't be more wrong. Apple is always late in one of those areas and has been for years. They have not been current in all 3 on the same device, at least not in the last few years. Look at the current line up.
     
  23. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Location:
    Auckland, New Zealand
    #23
    Tell me what isn't 'current' about the new 27 inch iMac?
     
  24. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    #24
    Believe me, I understand the concept of supply and demand but I don't agree that as a consumer you should support a platform that is not delivering, in this case the Mac gaming platform. Of course businesses will go where the money is and there will continue to be money in Mac gaming from casual gamers but hardcore gamers will never choose the Mac as their main platform for games.

    The only MBP that doesn't have a discrete GPU is the 13" model which was never a gaming machine to begin with. Laptops are rarely intended for gaming due to the mobility components and small form-factor unless you count the Dell Alienware beasts and the Toshiba Qosmio abominations which use desktop components and weigh 11 lb with 30 min battery life, not meant to be lugged around.

    The hardware that Apple uses is current generation hardware but what I think is more appropriate is to talk about whether it is high end or low end. The BTO options in the current iMac models are pretty substantial in terms of performance and thus far offer the best performance over their entire Macintosh lineup, including the neglected Mac Pro which still ships with a Radeon HD 5770.

    I think that if gaming is your main concern then Apple will not be a wise investment.
     
  25. Penn Jennings, Dec 2, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2012

    macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Location:
    Michigan
    #25
    The 2012 iMac 27 is technically current, even if it hasn't been released and is the high end iMac, so I'll stand corrected there.

    The iMac 21 comes with a 640m, which from I've read is is average at best for a decrete GPU in 2012 but the next generation will probably be announce and might be shipping before the Apple has the both the 21 and 27 iMacs freely available.

    I shouldn't confuse the hardware that you should get vs what you do get and whats current. I will stand by the statement though that Apple does not always keep up with current GPU, CPU and IO. USB 3.0 started shipping in 2010, Apple shipped it in 2012. The Mac Pro still only has 2.0.

    As I think about it... Apple GPUs are usually current (except MP), they are just usually horrible for a company that produces expensive workstations and claims to love visuals. A $1,700 rMBP 13 with it dual core i5 and HD 4000 driving two 2650x1440 displays under load very well.

    ----------

    I will concede that the hardware is USUALLY current, even is not a good value or choice. However it is not always current, that hasn't been true for years.

    EDIT:
    The fact still remains that Apple was 2 years behind on USB 3.0, the MP still doesn't have USB 3.0 even though it was updated this year.
     

Share This Page