As I am planning to stick two 27" Dell U2711 onto the 27" iMac the 2GB of VRAM would be of use.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AMD Radeon HD 6970M 2GB GDDR5 or the 1GB version? Help!
- Thread starter hhaydenn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As I am planning to stick two 27" Dell U2711 onto the 27" iMac the 2GB of VRAM would be of use.
There is nothing to benchmark. The 1GB and the 2GB are the benchmark. On a video card, having more memory merely means that your game (or application if it is designed to load resources into VRAM) has more memory on the video card that it can load resources into.
Having 2GB of RAM on a video card will generally not make it faster than having 1GB of RAM on the same card. The exception is if you have a game that has an unusually large amount of resources (images, models, textures) that need to be loaded into VRAM, because if there is not enough VRAM, then it will start loading those resources into the system's RAM which is slower and can give a performance hit.
Personally, if the price is low enough I would go for the 2GB of RAM. I believe in future-proofing a system as much as possible. That said, not many PC games are pushing the 1GB barrier and even fewer (if any) Mac games are.
Yeah, it would be good. Hopefully we'll see some reviews and also some good benchmarks
No. Even if you are brave enough to crack the case Apple does not supply the cable or casing for the SSD w/ non-SSD machines and AFAIK it's not sold 3rd party either, at least yet.
That said, when TB enclosures start pouring out it will be a moot point. You can just put an SSD in and enclosure and plug and play. That day can't come quick enough.
No they won't.
They will be super expensive when they are first released. Welcome to the early adopter playing field. Maybe in a couple of years they will be cheaper, then you'll be tempted in buying a new iMac again. I saw the exact thing happen with firewire 800.Another intrest would be between cpu.. 3.1Ghz corei5 vs 3.4Ghz corei7..
Of course its a faster but if i play games sometimes is it like way faster?
Appreciate your precious help
I'd be interested in finding out about this as well, I know games these days are becoming more and more processor hungry. Any one have thoughts?
I went with the regular 1 GB option on the 6970M. After all, it's a mobile graphics card -- I don't think it has so much power that you can play future games that would really profit from 2 GB VRAM on highest settings anyways, just because the card itself would be too slow. So it doesn't really make sense to purchase that upgrade, imho.
But we'll see, I have my 360 for gaming, anyways.
But we'll see, I have my 360 for gaming, anyways.
I'm doing the same. 2 years from now when Crysis 3 or Battlefield 4 comes out, the card will be underpowered anyway so the extra GB won't do much of anything. I'm happy with the latest iMacs to play casually though, especially when you can play a game like Black Ops at max settings. Good enough for me!
There were a lot of people wishing and doubting that the iMac would have a 2GB and now people are contemplating on whether they should buy one
I went with the 2GB option, figured it was better? Reading these comments apparently theres no difference, apart from saving your systems RAM and I have 16GB of that so.. I guess it was pointless but oh well, I'm very happy with it
I went with the 1TB option simply because I'd rather have an extra 1TB that's portable instead of 2TB stuck in my iMac.. didn't go with the SSD because I don't need one and it's an extra pointless £400, could buy a load of other stuff for my office with that
I went with the 2GB option, figured it was better? Reading these comments apparently theres no difference, apart from saving your systems RAM and I have 16GB of that so.. I guess it was pointless but oh well, I'm very happy with it
I went with the 1TB option simply because I'd rather have an extra 1TB that's portable instead of 2TB stuck in my iMac.. didn't go with the SSD because I don't need one and it's an extra pointless £400, could buy a load of other stuff for my office with that
I am trying to decide between the base 27' with the 2.7 i5 and 6770m + SSD/1TB HD for $2299 or the 3.4 i7 6970m + 1TB for $2199.
That about maxes out my price range.
Usage will be:
1- Office apps
2- Web
3- Steam games CSS, maybe Portal 1/2 and the like
4- Handbrake/MTR a couple of times per week
5- iMovie/iPhoto
I don't reboot often so that is not a big deal but I want to future proof as much as possible if I decide on a new game or something. Resale value matters too.
That about maxes out my price range.
Usage will be:
1- Office apps
2- Web
3- Steam games CSS, maybe Portal 1/2 and the like
4- Handbrake/MTR a couple of times per week
5- iMovie/iPhoto
I don't reboot often so that is not a big deal but I want to future proof as much as possible if I decide on a new game or something. Resale value matters too.
I would think the second option. What do you prefer more, opening an app a few seconds quicker or getting a much bigger gaming performance? And the 3.4 Core i7 will be significantly faster than the 2.7 Core i5 in terms of Handbrake. And even opening apps quicker is a misnomer because you only have to open it once for it to stay in your system memory making subsequent access instantaneous.
Last edited:
An SSD isn't going to make video encoding any faster nor will it give you higher FPS in games.
It just opens things faster. Game levels will likely load faster. It's nice to have, no doubt about that, but a faster CPU and GPU will be more worthwhile.
It just opens things faster. Game levels will likely load faster. It's nice to have, no doubt about that, but a faster CPU and GPU will be more worthwhile.
Yes for that - I have 2 mac minis with the same processor, one has a 400$ SSD in it and the other the stock 5400RPM drive
handbrake pfs are EXACTLY the same... (7-9fps...) can't wait for my i7 - hope to get "some" more fps's
back to the thread's topic - I went with the 2GB video Card,
skipped the SSD will do the upgrade to an external SSD later
I'm having the same debate myself on the 1GB vs 2GB.
Am I understanding correctly, that the only reason to really get the 2GB graphics is for gaming quality? Does it improve quality of movies etc? I probably won't be doing much gaming at all but wouldn't want to rule it out I guess..
Am I understanding correctly, that the only reason to really get the 2GB graphics is for gaming quality? Does it improve quality of movies etc? I probably won't be doing much gaming at all but wouldn't want to rule it out I guess..
well i originally ordered my imac with the 2gb gpu .. but decided against it and i am just going into the store tonite and picking up the 3.4 i7 with the 1gb gpu .. my 2010 model played WoW on high quality at full res with the 1gb card with no slow down .. so i am not worried .. considering I switch every refresh
In most situations, going over 1GB graphics memory is probably pointless for the near future.
...But on the 27 inch imac's WQHD screen, it may be very worthwhile for demanding games.
I'd be interested to see some 1GB/2GB comparisons at 2560x1440 resolution.
...But on the 27 inch imac's WQHD screen, it may be very worthwhile for demanding games.
I'd be interested to see some 1GB/2GB comparisons at 2560x1440 resolution.
I've seen a few mentions in this thread of using an external SSD later on. While that sounds like an easy alternative to paying the high price Apple asks for a factory-installed internal SSD, I've read here-and-there on the 'net (including on these fora (pl?)) that one cannot boot from a Thunderbolt drive. I don't know whether this is a hardware thing at this stage (like certain Macs can't ever boot from USB) or a software limitation.
If it's hardware, probably in future versions we will gain this ability - as happened with USB booting.
Just something to keep in mind if it is indeed the case (can't believe everything ya read ey?).
Cheers, A.
If it's hardware, probably in future versions we will gain this ability - as happened with USB booting.
Just something to keep in mind if it is indeed the case (can't believe everything ya read ey?).
Cheers, A.
You can boot from thunderbolt. A TB and a firewire icon both pop up when you tru to start the computer in target mode.
For those who are thinking of using an external boot drive with their Thunderbolt port, there may be some cause for concern. Some sources (http://www.tidbits.com/article/11993) claim you cannot boot from Thunderbolt, as yet (with no talk about when it might happen).
Other sources (http://www.macworld.com/article/1581...d_to_know.html) say they believe so, but are still checking.
I'm in the "it better boot" camp, personally. But who knows until we get a Thunderbolt drive. Just because it can do Target Mode doesn't automatically mean you can boot it, I guess.
The post above you states that it shows as an option when option-booting
The tidbits article refers to another post:
http://ihnatko.com/2011/02/25/new-macbooks-new-interface-new-os/
"These MacBooks cant boot off a drive attached to the Thunderbolt port. Not today. Target Disk Mode will work, however."
Which doesn't say if it is a technical limitation or just because there are not any TB devices available? Pretty vague.... and not up to Andy's quality journalism - and it is not discussed in the comments.
If we can boot of of Firewire, USB2, Ethernet, Wireless?(Remote Disc), I'm pretty sure TB will be an option.
I did the exact same thing. Although I'm not sure if I will switch next refresh...will have to see about that one.
On a side note though...would be so kind as to PM me your settings for WoW? I can't seem to get it to run on High with anything more than 20 FPS...there must be something I'm doing wrong.
Computers have no resale value (i.e. they depreciate so fast) - so don't worry about that!
Are you running it at native (2560x1440) resolution? That is probably the reason.
Try dropping the resolution down, that will allow you to bump up things like draw distance, environment detail, shadows, particle effects. 2560x1440 is VERY taxing on the GPU.
