Calling all GTX 680mx / 675mx owners...please post VALLEY benchmarks!

[WilliamG]

Most competitive shooters don't suffer from screen tearing that much, while games like Diablo 3 or Dota 2 (named a few I recently played) do. At the same time, Diablo 3 doesn't suffer from input lag at all, and I too highly recommend playing it with vsync=on.

Those "few ms" are, in other hand, a huge disadvantage in games like quakelive.

OK, so sure - in a really, REALLY competitive arena, I'd probably suffer through screen tearing to be a few ms ahead of the competition. That's not really the argument, though, right? For 99.9% of people, who are not playing competitively, screen tearing is downright abusive on the eyes.

I just fired up Call of Duty Black Ops 2, with and without vsync, and with vsync+triple buffering.

These are my results:

I'm very sensitive to input lag, as I mentioned. Vsync off = great. Really responsive, no issues. Vsync on = holy crap horrible (with the bearing in mind that most people wouldn't notice. Of course, that's maybe irrelevant since most people are clueless to a/v or input lag anyway). Vsync on + triple buffering = ALMOST (and I do say almost) as good as with vsync off, but without screen tearing.

Honestly, I'd almost be willing to bet that even a "pro" gamer would have a hard time telling the difference between the vsync off and vsync on + triple buffering.

Now, I can't speak for all GAMES, but any games I own (about 400 Steam titles) have never given me an issue in terms of input lag.

But, again, this is subjective. I can't imagine anyone who games on an iMac (after all, we're not serious gamers, right? ) being upset with vsync+triple buffering.

And you're absolutely right about Diablo 3. The screen tearing in that with vsync off is just unfreakingbelievable.

 

[kaellar]

OK, so sure - in a really, REALLY competitive arena, I'd probably suffer through screen tearing to be a few ms ahead of the competition. That's not really the argument, though, right? For 99.9% of people, who are not playing competitively, screen tearing is downright abusive on the eyes.

I just fired up Call of Duty Black Ops 2, with and without vsync, and with vsync+triple buffering.

These are my results:

I'm very sensitive to input lag, as I mentioned. Vsync off = great. Really responsive, no issues. Vsync on = holy crap horrible (with the bearing in mind that most people wouldn't notice. Of course, that's maybe irrelevant since most people are clueless to a/v or input lag anyway). Vsync on + triple buffering = ALMOST (and I do say almost) as good as with vsync off, but without screen tearing.

Honestly, I'd almost be willing to bet that even a "pro" gamer would have a hard time telling the difference between the vsync off and vsync on + triple buffering.

Now, I can't speak for all GAMES, but any games I own (about 400 Steam titles) have never given me an issue in terms of input lag.

But, again, this is subjective. I can't imagine anyone who games on an iMac (after all, we're not serious gamers, right? ) being upset with vsync+triple buffering.

And you're absolutely right about Diablo 3. The screen tearing in that with vsync off is just unfreakingbelievable.

Dude, just go to quakelive, register and play some practice with bots. Test it as you did with Black Ops 2. I bet, you'll agree that 99.9% of people won't stand to that input lag in this game. With triple buffering or without, whatever.

 

[WilliamG]

Dude, just go to quakelive, register and play some practice with bots. Test it as you did with Black Ops 2. I bet, you'll agree that 99.9% of people won't stand to that input lag in this game. With triple buffering or without, whatever.

Yes, I can tell the difference in Quakelive. Definitely. However, once again, this is a very extreme example of input lag differences. For most games, it's preferable (for me, and many other gamer buddies) to play with vsync+triple buffering. Is it as good? No. Can you tell in non-competitive shooters/other games? Pretty much never.

I speak for myself, but also for other people I've discussed this with.

But yes, for Quakelive, the difference is there. I'd be competitive, but there's definitely an edge to vsync off.

 

[kaellar]

Yes, I can tell the difference in Quakelive. Definitely. However, once again, this is a very extreme example of input lag differences. For most games, it's preferable (for me, and many other gamer buddies) to play with vsync+triple buffering. Is it as good? No. Can you tell in non-competitive shooters/other games? Pretty much never.

I speak for myself, but also for other people I've discussed this with.

But yes, for Quakelive, the difference is there. I'd be competitive, but there's definitely an edge to vsync off.

That's what I was talking about from the beginning. Sure, the feel from most of the games will be very fine with vsync=on, but there ARE games that truly suffer from it.

Cheers!

 

[WilliamG]

That's what I was talking about from the beginning. Sure, the feel from most of the games will be very fine with vsync=on, but there ARE games that truly suffer from it.

Cheers!

Well, I'd say Quakelive is one of VERY few games where it might make a difference. Pretty extreme case, right? How many other games are THAT twitchy! Not even CoD is like Quake.

By the way, fun game. Just kicked some ass at it for my first time playing competitively in... years!

2nd! Not bad, eh?

 

[kaellar]

Well, I'd say Quakelive is one of VERY few games where it might make a difference. Pretty extreme case, right? How many other games are THAT twitchy! Not even CoD is like Quake.

By the way, fun game. Just kicked some ass at it for my first time playing competitively in... years!

Image

2nd! Not bad, eh?

Dude, no matter how many games are like that, they ARE THERE
And yes, it's pure fun playing QL. I always loved Q3, and its like an improved edition

 

[Mac32]

Most competitive shooters don't suffer from screen tearing that much, while games like Diablo 3 or Dota 2 (named a few I recently played) do. At the same time, Diablo 3 doesn't suffer from input lag at all, and I too highly recommend playing it with vsync=on.

Those "few ms" are, in other hand, a huge disadvantage in games like quakelive.

It's a huge difference between playing immersive, story-based shooters like STALKER vs. twitchy, fast-paced competitive shooteres like Quake Live. The whole point of avoiding lag and then buying an iMac is pretty silly anyway. If your main goal is minimum lag and fast gaming response, you're gonna buy a PC with a powerful desktop GPU (higher framerates) and a TN 120hz monitor.

........................

Regarding overclocking: In a specific place in Crysis 3 I got 34-36fps at standard clock, but 43-46fps with 250/375. That's a pretty big difference.

 

[Mac32]

Hehe. Yeah you only completely confused everyone. I got your back!

Good work!

Btw., how is your Eizo IPS screen for gaming compared to the iMac screen? The Eizo looks like a nice all rounder.

 

[WilliamG]

Good work!

Btw., how is your Eizo IPS screen for gaming compared to the iMac screen? The Eizo looks like a nice all rounder.

It's fantastic. I really like it. Noticeably more responsive than the iMac display. Really great stuff. And no glare!

 

[MOSSMANG]

gtx 680mx over clocked and at 90c all the time!!

hey guys im at work at the momnet so i cant post and benchmarks but, i have a late 2012 imac 27 3.4 24 g ram and a 680mx. have been playing bf4 tha last month or so but last night downloaded Precision X to see what i could get out of it.

playing in ULTARA its seems stable 200/500 but my tempgoes up top 90c and stays there, sometimes going over to 91 or 92.

my question is can i keep running it like this or am i heading for a meltdown?

cant change fan speeds on the i mac so im not sure what to do.

i cant find anything telling me what the max temp is for thr gtx 680mx is so i thought id ask yall?

thanks in advance