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.
GTX 660M Gaming?
- Thread starter LogicPro
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
We all know how great the top end Gpu is, we are looking to see exactly how good/bad the 660 is in the real world to see what we can and can't play on our macs. It's all good saying buy the top end macs, but some of us are on a budget lol. 
Keep it up though and keep telling us what games you can get working on this card
Keep it up though and keep telling us what games you can get working on this card
wasn't a budget thing in my case. there is no official Apple store in my country and i needed a new desktop asap, so i grabbed the best they had - which, in this instance, was low-end 27 inch iMac (they had a decent bunch of laptops and desktops with twice as much gpu-power than this for half the price)
-------
btw, GTX 660M 512 mb , as i tested, can run Starcraft 2 and Civ5 on high texture settings (but not extreme, it physically can't, it seems) and ultra graphics on native resolution smoothly. i've never been a shooter or rpg-type myself, so i leave testing skyrim and cod to someone else, don't want to waste my machine's resources on that
(they had a decent bunch of laptops and desktops with twice as much gpu-power than this for half the price)-------
btw, GTX 660M 512 mb , as i tested, can run Starcraft 2 and Civ5 on high texture settings (but not extreme, it physically can't, it seems) and ultra graphics on native resolution smoothly. i've never been a shooter or rpg-type myself, so i leave testing skyrim and cod to someone else, don't want to waste my machine's resources on that
Yes but as I've said I needed screen size for using logic and photo editing first. Gaming for me is a very distant third or forth....I have a playstation for my serious gaming
There's nothing wrong with a little bit of investigating though, I'm only doing this for a bit of fun.
my final verdict is that low-end 27 imac is great for me, because i need to work more, play less also, i'm more into strategies and i can't think of any strategy game that is graphically demanding enough that this machine cannot run (except perhaps anno 2070 and i don't like the anno series anyway)
saying that, once again, it would be great to see some amazing graphics (for graphics sake, not for gaming's sake) on this screen... maybe we'll see external graphics cards this year
also, i'm more into strategies and i can't think of any strategy game that is graphically demanding enough that this machine cannot run (except perhaps anno 2070 and i don't like the anno series anyway)saying that, once again, it would be great to see some amazing graphics (for graphics sake, not for gaming's sake) on this screen... maybe we'll see external graphics cards this year
Well, what I did was to allocate 16Gb of Ram to the Windows virtual machine on the Mac and it works great.
You'd have to Google it. It also depends on the model of video card(I think it needs to MXM - not sure though) and the model of iMac.
Yes, however you are limited to the range that Apple used during that product cycle (so a 2048mb/2GB 6970M). This is because even though Apple used separate graphics boards (allowing the upgrade), the board requires a specific Apple firmware which limits you to the options that they initially offered. Best place to look would be ebay. Be aware that it will cost you a fair amount, possibly even cheaper to sell your machine and buy one of the same mode, with a better GPU.
If you lower the resolution to 720p- which is displayed nicely on the panel- it plays everything fine with settings on high or very high. The card itself is pretty good, and the memory restriction only affects it when running at higher resolution.
The better card only really has any bearing on gamers.
If you are a gamer you are much better buying a high spec PC which is upgradeable at half the price or using the £300 (cost in UK to buy the higher spec 27 with 680 card) to buy the new Xbox or PS 4 coming out this year- specs look to include the new 8 series GPU or the A10 Apu ( in the case of the PS4) and the standardised hardware means that in 5 years time you will still be playing the latest games at high detail- unlike you will be with your 680 on your iMac which will be old tech in 18 months. The new Xbox and PS3 will likely put the mobile 680 processor to shame- and the latest leaks seem pretty reliable (google it on news)
The better card only really has any bearing on gamers.
If you are a gamer you are much better buying a high spec PC which is upgradeable at half the price or using the £300 (cost in UK to buy the higher spec 27 with 680 card) to buy the new Xbox or PS 4 coming out this year- specs look to include the new 8 series GPU or the A10 Apu ( in the case of the PS4) and the standardised hardware means that in 5 years time you will still be playing the latest games at high detail- unlike you will be with your 680 on your iMac which will be old tech in 18 months. The new Xbox and PS3 will likely put the mobile 680 processor to shame- and the latest leaks seem pretty reliable (google it on news)
This much is true.
And now you've started to lose me. Why do people assume that if you want to play games, you are "much better buying" the exact opposite of a beautiful, high build quality computer with a stunning display running a more intuitive OS and much lower malware threat? There are tradeoffs to getting DX11 performance on top Desktop cards.. tradeoffs many of us happily acknowledge and choose not to accept. And "half the price" is an old FUD that isn't even close to true once you factor in the display.
Although there are some of the same titles on consoles and PC (and Mac), it's not really the same thing. There are games that I prefer to lean back and use a controller, and games that I prefer to lean forward and use a keyboard and mouse. So I have both, and many others do too.
From what I saw I think the new Xbox will use last year's good performance mainstream AMD desktop card. Not the top of the line. I think it was the 6850. It's a good card but it actually benches quite a bit below the 680MX.
Insider leaks Xbox 720 specs:
Mars SOC: AMD 8850 spec GPU clocked at 600MHz, x86 1.8GHz quad-core CPU, Audio digital signal processing
Venus SOC: AMD 8900 spec GPU clocked at 800MHz, quad-core CPU clocked at 2.5GHz, 1.5GB GDDR3 RAM on each SOC clocked at 1.2GHz
Power brick of 300 watts
Console has 8GB of RAM, but 1GB is dedicated to the operating system
Capable of 4.2Tflops of data
Got a link? I've seen some posts that say it's a 6670 and some that say it's a custom 7000 series (perhaps in Crossover).
I've just played FIFA 13 on full settings and skyrim as well on high settings, seems ok but need to play a bit more to check it out(only on level 1 if skyrim)
Lots of this in the news- private briefings were given at CES last week. Here is an example of a report- http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/1...to-large-power-gap-between-ps4-and-xbox-720/2
I have always thought they would go with the 8 series in the new Xbox. Very strongly suspect (and remember the dedicated nature of the console means that they produce much better real world results on similar specs), that the Xbox and PS4 will blow away what those 680 iMacs are capable of.
The new iMac is a beautiful machine and a lovely general computer (I have one) but to buy one to game on is pretty much folly and a waste of cash. If your gaming is a side product of everything else, fine, but really you are much better investing that extra £300 plus in one of this year's consoles (accepting that there may be reasons why a PC gamer wants to stick to PC- e.g. a strategy game player)
played Empire: Total War (native) on full-settings, plays all smooth. Starcraft 2 goes without noticeable fps drop on max resolution, but without max texture quality. didn't try anything else yet. also, i'm getting used to the os, so i refuse to use bootcamp so far and only run the games that are available on mac - which may contribute to the increased performance
I'm thinking of skipping the 680MX and going low end iMac. Then getting a custom Mini-ITX gaming PC or the next Xbox/PS4.
For those interested, weighing up whether they should pay £300 to upgrade their iMac to game, or save the cash to instead buy the new Xbox/ Ps3 , this is a good article.
I strongly suspect that the mobile 680 will be struggling with high end Unreal 4 in a couple of years' time, whereas the new consoles look to have serious power under the hood. See the Video on the site to see what high end cards will be capable of under Unreal 4 http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/gaming/...rs-you-need-to-know-on-next-gen-hardware.html
I strongly suspect that the mobile 680 will be struggling with high end Unreal 4 in a couple of years' time, whereas the new consoles look to have serious power under the hood. See the Video on the site to see what high end cards will be capable of under Unreal 4 http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/gaming/...rs-you-need-to-know-on-next-gen-hardware.html
It's not really an ideal machine for this. Even with correct firmware, designs change between generations. Not many people do this, so there aren't numerous details all over the web. Even then you spend quite a lot for what you get, as the imac is limited to 100W or so cards. The faster ones are quite expensive. Most people just assume it can't be done. I'd say that it's impractical for most people. If they want to update gpus more frequently than the other core components, there are machines that allow this with less tedium.