Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Eight Games: 2013 iMac (780M) vs 2012 iMac (680MX)

elithrar said:
Thanks for the data. I ran some more tests just then on the new 331.58 drivers and had much better results when I pushed the memory down a little:

3DMark '11:
180/450: 7079 (max 81C using 331.58 - this seems like an outlier)
200/400: 8364 (max 73C using 331.58)

Will run a test at 230/370 and see how we go. That extra 50MHz on the RAM seems to have made a difference on the core temp (bus speeds, perhaps?) for some reason. Notably it's a slightly cooler morning here as well, so that might be helping (it's hard to control the variables!)

Added:

230/370: 8518 (max 76C using 331.58)
Click to expand...

So the 2013 iMac really is benching the same results in 3D Mark 11 as the 2012... Thanks for the results, but I still the 2013 is a "disappointment" after just about a year has gone by. :(

I was secretly hoping for a GPU bombshell like the 2012 was, but alas...
 
WilliamG said:
So the 2013 iMac really is benching the same results in 3D Mark 11 as the 2012... Thanks for the results, but I still the 2013 is a "disappointment" after just about a year has gone by. :(

I was secretly hoping for a GPU bombshell like the 2012 was, but alas...
Click to expand...

This is the Haswell effect

CPU gains tiny across all lines

It's mainly about
Power consumption reduction, big improvement
Faster storage
Ac wifi

Personally I think this is right. Apps simply can't make use of higher clock speeds in most desktop cases, Mac Pro esq use cases excluded

Great if you don't have an imac / recent imac

Lukewarm if you have one less than 2 years old
 
Some Tomb Raider benchmarks:

Tomb Raider (1440p, Ultra textures, 8x AF, 2x SSAA, Normal/Normal Shadows, High LoD, Normal
Hair, Normal Reflections, Normal DoF, Normal SSAO, Post Processing, VSync Off)

230/370: 44/68/54.8 [min/max/avg] (max 81C using 331.58)
Stock: 36.8/56.0/45.6 [min/max/avg] (mac 71C using 331.58)

That's a 20.1% improvement between runs.

----------
WilliamG said:
So the 2013 iMac really is benching the same results in 3D Mark 11 as the 2012... Thanks for the results, but I still the 2013 is a "disappointment" after just about a year has gone by. :(

I was secretly hoping for a GPU bombshell like the 2012 was, but alas...
Click to expand...

You would have been setting yourself up for disappointment, then. The 780M is only an incremental update over the 680M, and the 680MX sits between them.

What temps did you get on that 8600 run at 250/375, anyway?
 
elithrar said:
Some Tomb Raider benchmarks:

Tomb Raider (1440p, Ultra textures, 8x AF, 2x SSAA, Normal/Normal Shadows, High LoD, Normal
Hair, Normal Reflections, Normal DoF, Normal SSAO, Post Processing, VSync Off)

230/370: 44/68/54.8 [min/max/avg] (max 81C using 331.58)
Stock: 36.8/56.0/45.6 [min/max/avg] (mac 71C using 331.58)

That's a 20.1% improvement between runs.

----------



You would have been setting yourself up for disappointment, then. The 780M is only an incremental update over the 680M, and the 680MX sits between them.

What temps did you get on that 8600 run at 250/375, anyway?
Click to expand...

As I recall, - about 85C. I don't run any fan management of any sort. Don't really see the point. :)

Not really sure how I was setting myself up for disappointment? I knew as soon as the 780M was announced that was it was barely an update. Before then, I was hopeful for a 780MX!
 
I tried a couple of runs at 250/370, but the driver crashed out the benchmark on the first one (very quickly) and the second attempt resulted in a black screen (had to kill it). Core didn't actually ramp up to 250MHz (according to my log) so it may be a driver issue.

I'll take another shot at it tonight and see how it goes. The 780M is, as I understand it, effectively a 680MX with an overclocked core and a lower thermal profile (read: better yields/QC).

The 230/370 results were pretty good in my books as it is.
 
I played around with MSI Afterburner and ended up with additional 225MHz for the Core and 300MHz for the memory. Played Crysis 3 MP (1920 x 1080, Very High settings,...) to test if it is stable. No voltage modifications etc. Temperature was peaking at 86 degree Celsius without fan adjustments and slightly lower with it. Still running the stock 311.71 driver. Performance wise the overclocked GTX 780M should be somewhere between the GTX 670 & GTX 680...

I also tested 250MHz for the Core but Crysis was crashing once and 350MHz for the memory (together and separate) but there was some texture flickering showing up... Decided it isn't worth it and the results are already quite good. Was really surprised (in a positive way) about the gaming performance of an iMac.
 
Last edited:
elithrar said:
Thanks for the data. I ran some more tests just then on the new 331.58 drivers and had much better results when I pushed the memory down a little:

3DMark '11:
180/450: 7079 (max 81C using 331.58 - this seems like an outlier)
200/400: 8364 (max 73C using 331.58)

Will run a test at 230/370 and see how we go. That extra 50MHz on the RAM seems to have made a difference on the core temp (bus speeds, perhaps?) for some reason. Notably it's a slightly cooler morning here as well, so that might be helping (it's hard to control the variables!)

Added:

230/370: 8518 (max 76C using 331.58) - that's 1005/5376 effective clocks.
Click to expand...

Thanks! It seems that these cards are fairly close in performance. I would also guess since 780M draws less power (100w vs 680MX 120w), that could mean that the overclocking potential is less, and the 780M would be more prone to crash sooner on more aggressive overclocks.
Anyway, both cards work pretty well for gaming, and the iMac is one beautiful machine.
Enjoy your iMac! :)
 
Question for the hardcore gamers checking this out: what's the difference between the games the Mac Pro posted the best results for vs the ones the iMac had the better results for?

I'm curious exactly what it is that each is doing better than the other. Thanks.
 
elithrar said:
Thanks for the data. I ran some more tests just then on the new 331.58 drivers and had much better results when I pushed the memory down a little:

3DMark '11:
180/450: 7079 (max 81C using 331.58 - this seems like an outlier)
200/400: 8364 (max 73C using 331.58)

Will run a test at 230/370 and see how we go. That extra 50MHz on the RAM seems to have made a difference on the core temp (bus speeds, perhaps?) for some reason. Notably it's a slightly cooler morning here as well, so that might be helping (it's hard to control the variables!)

Added:

230/370: 8518 (max 76C using 331.58) - that's 1005/5376 effective clocks.
Click to expand...

What did you do to install these drivers(331.58)? When i tried to download this from Nvidia it didnt work in bootcamp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back