upgrading to NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M with 4GB of GDDR5

Discussion in 'iMac' started by karnashuk, Oct 1, 2013.

  1. macrumors newbie

    karnashuk

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2011
    Location:
    Warsaw
    #1
    Guys. I've got a late 2012 27'' iMac with GeForce GTX 680 MX. Do you think it is possible to upgrade to NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M with 4GB of GDDR5 (available in the newest late 2013 iMacs)?

    Does Apple handle such upgrades?

    BTW- I just hate when they do a 'refresh' a year later...

    THANKS VERY MUCH for all the replies.
     
  2. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2013
    Location:
    Best Korea, North Korea.
    #2
    Nope, you'll have to sell your 2012 model and buy the 2013 model.

    But why? GTX 680MX and GTX 780M are virtually the same (just slightly higher clock/memory speed and 100w vs 120w TDP), you won't really see the difference unless you're benchmarking.
     
  3. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2012
    Location:
    New York
    #3
    Not an expert here, but even if such an upgrade was possible, which I think it isn't, I doubt it would be worth your time, money and effort - you still have one of the best mobile graphics chips around.
     
  4. macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    Location:
    West Suburban Boston Ma
    #4
    Apple does not do post-sale upgrades, ever, no matter how much money you offer.
     
  5. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    #5
    Except on RAM that is not user-upgradeable, such as on the 2012 / 2013 21.5-inch iMac:

    "Memory replacement on the iMac (21.5-inch, Late 2012) and iMac (21.5-inch, Late 2013) is not user-removable and must be done by an Apple Retail Store or Apple Authorized Service Provider."
     
  6. macrumors 6502

    AaronM5670

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Location:
    London, England
    #6
    Yes, RAM is only user-upgradable in the 27", we should all know that by now. ;)
     
  7. sza
    macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    #7
    If you check the benchmark, you will see GTX 680 MX is actually slightly better the GTX 780M.
     
  8. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Location:
    Frederick Maryland
    #8
    GeForce GTX 780M GeForce GTX 680MX GeForce GTX 770M
    Cuda Cores 1536 1536 960
    Base Clock 771 MHz 720 MHz 706 MHz
    Boost Clock 797 MHz - 797 MHz
    Memory Clock 1250 MHz 1250 MHz 1002 MHz
    Effective Mem Clock
    5000 MHz 5000 MHz 4008 MHz
    Memory up to 4GB GDDR5 up to 2GB GDDR5 up to 3GB GDDR5
    Interface 256-bit 256-bit 192-bit
    Bandwidth 160 GB/s 160.0 GB/s 96.2 GB/s


    The only difference is the Boost Clock and not really sure that it does much in 99% of use. And in benchmarks the 680 actually seems to do better.

    Tom
     
  9. macrumors 6502

    elithrar

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    #9
  10. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #10
    What's with all the "680MX is faster than 780M"? There is just no way it can be faster (at stock settings). I will do some benchmarks later today when my imac arrives.

    @elithrar: the benchmarks were using a laptop with a totally misdesigned cooling solution. The card will be faster then that. See notebookcheck
     
  11. macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #11
    Or if you play X-Plane 10 which eats > 2 GB of VRAM.
     
  12. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    #12
    No... but usually you can get around that by buying used upgrades ie. 2009 27" 4850 to 6970 or whatever.
     
  13. kaellar, Oct 2, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2013

    macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    #13
    Looks like you don't even understand the nature of the 680m>780m difference in those benchmarks, do you?

    The gaming performance isn't GPU-dependant only. It's also the CPU that contributes. Leaving aside the CPU performance itself, under the certain circumstances (bad cooling, mostly) CPUs can throttle and thus drop the performance of the whole system while gaming. That's the only reason of 680m being more performant than 780m in that particular review.

    The GPU that has more cores and performs at higher clocks simply can't do worse than the lower-spec'd one if both are working in equal (and, what's important, proper) conditions.
     
  14. sza
    macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    #14
    bs.
     
  15. macrumors 6502

    2Turbo

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
  16. macrumors 6502

    elithrar

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    #16
    The 780M is faster, yes. There is no doubt about this. It is not (by my mark) much faster - 10% in most cases. But it also does this at a much lower TDP (100W vs 120W), which means it should run cooler and potentially give a very good overclock.
     
  17. macrumors 6502

    2Turbo

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    #17
    Cool. Can't wait for some OC results.
     
  18. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    #18
    Thanks for proving my standpoint in such an elegant, argued and polite manner.
     
  19. macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #19
    Simply stated:

    Expect the 780M to be close to 10% faster than the 680M
    (if the game doesn't need more than 2 GB VRAM - like X-Plane 10 - then the 780M with 4 GB VRAM will be hugely faster)
     
  20. macrumors 68020

    MrGimper

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2012
    Location:
    Andover, UK
    #20
    That's a sweeping statement. Architectural changes can make a huge difference even with less cores and clock speed.
     
  21. macrumors 68000

    GSPice

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
  22. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    #22
    The statement was made about the two particular GPUs that share identical architecture. I thought it's pretty clear.
     
  23. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #23
    I'd be willing to bet you quite a few pennies (at least three) that X-Plane 10 will not run significantly better on the 4GB 780M than the 2GB 680MX.
     
  24. macrumors 604

    MacsRgr8

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #24
    If you have many detailed extra sceneries loaded, the VRAM consumed by X-Plane 10 exceeds 2 GB easily.
    I have that now on my Radeon HD 7950.

    Pay-ware EHAM with ZL17 NL Photoscenery pushed my VRAM consumption to around 2.5 GB. Same goes with KJFK, KLGA and converted Manhattan scenery and others. It really is no exception in X-Plane 10, if you use custom scenery (which gives the flight-sim great eye-candy)

    Using these settings on a grfx card with 2 GB VRAM or less results in disastrous performance. On a grfx card with 3 GB or more, it'll be fine.

    I will happily take your pennies! :p
     
  25. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #25
    I would love to see proof of this on the 4GB GPU 2013 iMac vs last year's 2GB GPU iMac. I await benchmarks!
     

Share This Page