780m vs 560 ti

Discussion in 'iMac' started by n0id, Jun 25, 2014.

  1. n0id macrumors member

    Mar 11, 2008
    I checked 3dmark to get some ideas, but because its two different platforms and hardware, im having problems determine which is better. Anyone have thoughts on which system is better?

    imac 27"
    32gb memory
    Fusion drive
    780m 4gb GPU

    3.0ghz i5
    16gb memory
    560 ti 448 core (this is a 3 year old card at this point).

  2. Mac32 Suspended

    Nov 20, 2010
    Both 780M and 880M are disappointing cards, because they throttle down when overclocked. That's why 680MX was a superior gfx card, especially for gaming. I really hope Apple will have a special option when the Maxwell GPU is released (ie. downclocked version of the desktop card like 680MX), and not just use standard laptop GPUs. Using 680MX was a great move, let's hope Apple will repeat it.
  3. omvs macrumors 6502

    May 15, 2011
  4. kitsunestudios macrumors regular

    Apr 10, 2012
    That's not what I've seen: http://barefeats.com/haswel3.html

    Do you have other benchmarks on these two?
  5. velocityg4 macrumors 601


    Dec 19, 2004
    Based on the most comparable presets I can find in real world tests. Found from tests done at Toms Hardware Guide of the AMD Radeon 780m and the nVidia Geforce 560 Ti 1GB. Which used presets purported to be the default Ultra settings at a resolution of 1920x1080 in frames per second.

    Far Cry 3 - 37.6
    Battlefield - 41.9
    Tomb Raider - 43.8

    560 Ti
    Far Cry 3 - 30.8
    Battlefield 4 - 22.6
    Tomb Raider - 39.7

    So the 780m is mildly better. The average being about 39%. Personally I'd just upgrade the card in the second system. Spending $300 to $400 on a GeForce 770 2GB, GeForce 770 4GB, Radeon R9 280x 3GB or Radeon R9 290 4GB would completely dominate either the iMac or PC. Plus you would save a lot of money over the iMac. The 770 2GB, R9 280x and R9 290 outclass the 560 Ti on the same tests by 166%, 151% and 205% respectively. The 4GB 770 is unknown to me but should be the same as the 2GB model on any game that uses less than 2GB VRAM.

    Heck if the whole idea is you want a Mac. Why not do both? Spend $300 to $400 on the video card and get 11" or 13" Macbook Air with 8GB of RAM. You'll have an awesome gaming PC, a great Mac you can also carry about with you and save at least $500.
  6. Mac32, Jun 27, 2014
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2014

    Mac32 Suspended

    Nov 20, 2010
    Wow, those benchmarks are even worse than I thought. This actually means buying a 2.5 year old iMac with a 680MX can perform better in games than the newest model. WTF Apple?!

    To clarify: I never play games with these cards at stock speed, it's a huge waste of performance/fps. I overclock my 680MX @250/375 with 100% stability and no heat issues (some tweaking needed, you have to know what you're doing!), and at that speed 680MX performance about the same as a desktop GTX680. 680MX not only overclocks better/higher than 780M and 880M, 680MX also stays at that speed whereas 780M/880M will start to throttle. So yeah, I'm disappointed by Apple's latest GPU choices for the iMac. Hopefully Apple can do better when Maxwell is launched (ie. offer a downclocked version of the desktop card, like 680MX = downclocked GTX680, not just plain laptop cards).
  7. kitsunestudios macrumors regular

    Apr 10, 2012
    You're misreading the benchmarks: The 680 is the desktop card in a Mac Pro. The 680MX iMac is consistently outperformed by the 780M. The Desktop 680 card in a Mac Pro beats them both except on Dirt and the Valve source based games.

    Edit: Ah. I never overclock, so I haven't seen any overclocking benchmarks on the three.
  8. Mac32, Jun 27, 2014
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2014

    Mac32 Suspended

    Nov 20, 2010
    I didn't misread the charts. My point was when overclocking, the 680MX should beat the 780M. I hope Apple will go back to offering special gfx solutions again, like they did with 680MX, not just standard laptop cards.

Share This Page