Thanks!
I got the Haswell i7 with 780M now!
Some insights regarding X-Plane 10 if you're interested.
I play X-Plane 10 heavily: high settings, lots and lost of very highly detailed scenery (pay ware and freeware) with many, many highly detail aircraft.
I went from a Mac Pro '08, 8 x 2.8 GHz, 16 GB RAM, Radeon HD 7950 3 GB VRAM (Mac edition) with SSD boot disk (but X-Plane on a 7200 rpm HDD) to a iMac 27" i7 Haswell 3.5, 32 GB RAM, GeForce MX780M 4 GB VRAM with X-Plane on the SSD boot disk (1 TB).
Both running GM of Mavericks.
Points of interest purely regarding X-Plane 10:
As the setup with the huge amount of scenery easily exceeds 2 GB VRA, having 3 GB VRAM or more is really a necessity. Game over for the Mac Edition of the 680 (and 680 MX).
The system uses > 12 GB of RAM total when flying over huge scenery with many AI aircraft and other plugins.
SSD helps loading-time (a lot!), but does nothing regarding FPS.
All settings were experimented with using the Mac Pro's 1920 x 1200 settings.
My findings in the game:
- In daylight rendering the iMac with 780M is 2 x as fast the Mac Pro with 7950.
It already seemed that the CPU / BUS / RAM speed was bottleneck regarding X-Plane on the ol' Mac Pro. The iMac seems to justify that.
- In night-time rendering, where other lighting needs to be rendered the iMac is slower by about 30%!
In short:
With daytime rendering "on" I can crank up the settings much higher than the Mac Pro could, and get better FPS!
With night-time rendering.... well, I avoid that now.![]()
Nice one.
So realistically, at best the 780m is about 10 fps better than the 680mx, and the 680mx is pulling already very good frame rates.
Thanks!
I got the Haswell i7 with 780M now!
Some insights regarding X-Plane 10 if you're interested.
I play X-Plane 10 heavily: high settings, lots and lost of very highly detailed scenery (pay ware and freeware) with many, many highly detail aircraft.
I went from a Mac Pro '08, 8 x 2.8 GHz, 16 GB RAM, Radeon HD 7950 3 GB VRAM (Mac edition) with SSD boot disk (but X-Plane on a 7200 rpm HDD) to a iMac 27" i7 Haswell 3.5, 32 GB RAM, GeForce MX780M 4 GB VRAM with X-Plane on the SSD boot disk (1 TB).
Both running GM of Mavericks.
Points of interest purely regarding X-Plane 10:
As the setup with the huge amount of scenery easily exceeds 2 GB VRA, having 3 GB VRAM or more is really a necessity. Game over for the Mac Edition of the 680 (and 680 MX).
The system uses > 12 GB of RAM total when flying over huge scenery with many AI aircraft and other plugins.
SSD helps loading-time (a lot!), but does nothing regarding FPS.
All settings were experimented with using the Mac Pro's 1920 x 1200 settings.
My findings in the game:
- In daylight rendering the iMac with 780M is 2 x as fast the Mac Pro with 7950.
It already seemed that the CPU / BUS / RAM speed was bottleneck regarding X-Plane on the ol' Mac Pro. The iMac seems to justify that.
- In night-time rendering, where other lighting needs to be rendered the iMac is slower by about 30%!
In short:
With daytime rendering "on" I can crank up the settings much higher than the Mac Pro could, and get better FPS!
With night-time rendering.... well, I avoid that now.![]()
Anyways, the real performance of the 680MX is unlocked when overclocking. I wonder how well the 780M overclocks.
Do you think the i5 780M combo would give you much less performance in X-Plane compared to the i7?
Nice one.
So realistically, at best the 780m is about 10 fps better than the 680mx, and the 680mx is pulling already very good frame rates.
Thanks, but I've seen this thread. There's no proper overclocking tests there yet (really pushing the card), but I'm sure they'll come eventually.
On my comfiguration crysis 3 with everything set to maximum, and filters at 2x (smaa and anisotropic) is perfect! Off course at 2550x1440
Thanks, but I've seen this thread. There's no proper overclocking tests there yet (really pushing the card), but I'm sure they'll come eventually.
Ask for specific games/benchmarks in the thread, otherwise I can only guess. I'm running 150/225 (450 effective) core/mem with good results, and posted a 3DMark bench (before/after) in there too. I might try my luck for a faster overclock, but without being able to increase the voltage it may not be stable.
"Real" games are harder to benchmark unless they have decent benchmarking tools. BioShock Infinite has one, but I can't seem to find anything for Dishonored (lest I just bench the opening cutscenes) or Tomb Raider (that doesn't require FRAPS). If you have word otherwise, link it up in the overclocking thread.
Ask for specific games/benchmarks in the thread, otherwise I can only guess. I'm running 150/225 (450 effective) core/mem with good results, and posted a 3DMark bench (before/after) in there too. I might try my luck for a faster overclock, but without being able to increase the voltage it may not be stable.
"Real" games are harder to benchmark unless they have decent benchmarking tools. BioShock Infinite has one, but I can't seem to find anything for Dishonored (lest I just bench the opening cutscenes) or Tomb Raider (that doesn't require FRAPS). If you have word otherwise, link it up in the overclocking thread.
CoD: BO2 has an option to show FPS in game. I'm interested in the performance boost OC'd in BF3 and CoD: BO2.
Well, it would be interesting to see some tests in 3dmark 11, as that was a the main benchmark test program for the 680MX overclocking thread.
I game at 250/375 with 100% stability. 225/350 is a also a good overclock speed as it produce slightly less heat (still in the best performance vs. heat zone for my 680MX card).
Again, if you use the i7 CPU, you would benefit from lower temps by disabling the CPU turbo boost. The 780M draws less power than the 680MX, so you could potentially overclock quite a bit with decent temperatures (lubbo's fan control is recommended though, setting the fan at a static speed, like 2300-2500rpm, not much higher though.)
I don't know how many frame, but it's perfect. I've activate the vsync too.
How could i see the frame rate in crysis 3?
Sounds great, thanks!Yeah, one should never change voltage settings in a closed system like the iMac in my opinion. Of course, my wish was to see how high you can overclock the 780M being 100% stable and not getting too hot. That would be the real comparison between 780M and 680MX, as I always overclock at 250/375 when playing demanding games, and the difference in performance from stock speed is quite big.
3D Mark (vanilla, 2013 version) Fire Strike scores:
Stock: 4341
150/450: 4969
200/450: 5246
Fan spins to max (2400RPM) at 81C thanks to my fan speed curve. Temp never gets past 81C even at the faster clocks. Haven't noticed any artefacts so far. I don't see much of a point increasing the memory clock based on reports from others: the gain is minimal and often introduces artefacts.
Might try a run at 250/450 and see how it goes. Still running the stock Bootcamp 311.71 drivers while I wait for the 331.58 WHQL drivers to go up (the desktop ones were just released).
Updated:
3D Mark '11
200/225 (450): 7988 (max 86C)
Judging by the results others have posted it looks like I could do better: this guy hit 8500 with a 130/450 overclock using 327.23 WHQL. I'm probably going to keep it hovering around 180/450 for now until I get the 331.58 drivers on this successfully and will re-run it then.
For reference, back in February I benchmarked my 2012 iMac, i7 3.4Ghz, Geforce GTX 680MX, and got 8646 in 3D Mark 2011 with an overclock of 250/375.