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

GTX 680MX is practically a Desktop 680

forty2j said:
.. never mind, misread

----------



Given that bootcamp is Windows running directly on the hardware, I don't see how it could slow anything down...

Surely you weren't thinking it was virtualization?
Click to expand...

lol no, i misread as WINE haha xD d'oh. but i imagine using an OS on a partition won't be ideal, though i have only used bootcamp 1-2 times, and can't judge on that particular case.

----------

additionally, even if macs had games like BF3(one day :( ), the performance @1080 is kinda low, and if you ran it at a 27 in imacs native res (2600x1440?) it would be well below 30fps (threshold to be considered smooth)
 
Last edited:
GPUFreak said:
Apple will also most likely under clock it further, due to the fact that the new iMac has HORRIBLE ventilation, and is inadequate to cool a card of this power at stock speeds.

Macs CANT be a gaming machine as they don't have games to play(lol).

Another point, no mac game will require anything more than the 660m in the base 27 in, or at the most, the 675MX will max any mac game.
Click to expand...

"new iMac has HORRIBLE ventilation"
Please provide the source of this... I'll be surprised to get a response.

"don't have games to play"
Check out Steam some day.

"675MX will max any mac game"
There are plenty of heavy hitting games native to OSX... The Witcher 2 will chew up and spit out the 680MX like it is nothing!

The majority of what you said in your post holds no water... these are just a few examples.
 
GTC 690>590>680>670>660ti>580>680mx>660>680m

idk about 680mx, but maybe it is above 580, the 580 and 660 are around 5-10% apart, so maybe i misjudged on that one.
 
GPUFreak said:
true, but we actually do know clocks of 680mx, and its pretty low tbh,.... i love macs for general use, but if you try to game on it, it will generally end in headaches.

besides most ppl are unfairly biased against windows, they compare their 1k macs with 400$, outdated machines with limited security. After getting a pc for gaming, and then protecting it properly, i find they both work equally as well, and it comes down to preferance. Most of the ppl who despise windows have had no good experience with a pc.
Click to expand...
I don't man, I've built my own PC/Hackintosh.

Gaming in Windows 8 results in weird crashes and freezes.
Gaming in OS X results in slower performance due to worse drivers and optimizations.

As a result I'll just watch TV instead. :rolleyes:
 
MojoRisinSD said:
"new iMac has HORRIBLE ventilation"
Please provide the source of this... I'll be surprised to get a response.

"don't have games to play"
Check out Steam some day.

"675MX will max any mac game"
There are plenty of heavy hitting games native to OSX... The Witcher 2 will chew up and spit out the 680MX like it is nothing!

The majority of what you said in your post holds no water... these are just a few examples.
Click to expand...

"based on what i've seen and can assume"

"compared to pc I mean, you won't see more than maybe 1 high end game, which steam doesn't have much of"

"witcher 2 on mac? :eek: touche there but thats only 1"

----------
omenatarhuri said:
I don't man, I've built my own PC/Hackintosh.

Gaming in Windows 8 results in weird crashes and freezes.
Gaming in OS X results in slower performance due to worse drivers and optimizations.

As a result I'll just watch TV instead. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

w8 = crap
 
GPUFreak said:
]additionally, even if macs had games like BF3(one day :( ), the performance @1080 is kinda low, and if you ran it at a 27 in imacs native res (2600x1440?) it would be well below 30fps (threshold to be considered smooth)
Click to expand...

It will of course depend on the game and the settings. On the 680M (because that's the easiest comparison I can pull up), BF3 came in at 36fps on Ultra at 1080p. That should be around 40fps for the 680MX, and then moving to 1440p would seem to be right around 30fps. This would be in Bootcamp of course.. you do still pay a small performance penalty for OpenGL in OS X, which many gamers (like myself) are happy to pay if given the opportunity to not use Windows. Going to merely high instead of ultra gets you to 74fps at 1080p on the 680M.
 
forty2j said:
It will of course depend on the game and the settings. On the 680M (because that's the easiest comparison I can pull up), BF3 came in at 36fps on Ultra at 1080p. That should be around 40fps for the 680MX, and then moving to 1440p would seem to be right around 30fps. This would be in Bootcamp of course.. you do still pay a small performance penalty for OpenGL in OS X, which many gamers (like myself) are happy to pay if given the opportunity to not use Windows. Going to merely high instead of ultra gets you to 74fps at 1080p on the 680M.
Click to expand...
Means from ultra @ 4AA to high no AA, so not straight comparison. But I see your point.

I still fail to see the windows hate. Yes OSX is better but windows certainly isn't bad If you know how to use it.
 
GPUFreak said:
lol no, i misread as WINE haha xD d'oh. but i imagine using an OS on a partition won't be ideal, though i have only used bootcamp 1-2 times, and can't judge on that particular case.

----------

additionally, even if macs had games like BF3(one day :( ), the performance @1080 is kinda low, and if you ran it at a 27 in imacs native res (2600x1440?) it would be well below 30fps (threshold to be considered smooth)
Click to expand...

I watched some game videos on youtube, and there's this guy playing BF3 on a stock 2011 iMac with 12GB RAM. It looked pretty good to me.
 
GPUFreak said:
Means from ultra @ 4AA to high no AA, so not straight comparison. But I see your point.

I still fail to see the windows hate. Yes OSX is better but windows certainly isn't bad If you know how to use it.
Click to expand...

I had to use my wife's Windows box for Civ this past weekend because my old iMac is still dead and my new iMac isn't ordered yet. I wanted to scream and poke my eyes out at the same time, just fending off the army of browser toolbars so I could get drivers updated etc.

Windows is definitely more flexible if you're willing to put the time into it. I'm not. I want my time on my computer to be using it, not administrating it. With rare exception my Macs just run themselves without me needing to intervene.
 
mganai said:
You can get a Dell or NEC monitor.
Click to expand...
Not one that looks as nice, is as thin, and is fully laminated. I think the last one will make the image on this pop more than before. Haven't seen one yet, but looking forward to it. Factory calibrationsjould also be good for us without calibrationgear.

I have 24" dell and 30" LG now and id trade both in for one of these 27" models.
 
Dirtyharry50 said:
Here is your customized Mach V system configuration.


System Details

Chassis
ICON2 Exotix - Any Single Color
Chassis Logo Insert
White Light
Chassis Fan Kit
Performance Fan Pack
Sound Dampening
AcoustiPack Sound Dampening Foam
Power Supply
1500 Watt Modular
Motherboard
Rampage IV Extreme
Processor
Intel® Core™ i7 3960X 3.3GHz
Processor Cooler
Liquid Cooling - Mach V
Processor Overclock
No Processor Overclock
Memory
Elite 1866MHz 64GB (8x8GB)
Video Card
Quadro 6000 (6GB)
Video Card 2
Quadro 6000 (6GB)
Video Card 3
Quadro 6000 (6GB)
Monitor
30" 2560x1600
Sound Card
On-Board Audio
Speakers
Z-523 2.1
Networking
On-Board Ethernet
Hard Drive
m4 SSD - 512GB
Hard Drive 2
m4 SSD - 512GB
Optical Drive
24x DVD Writer
64-Bit Operating System
Windows 8 Standard
Office Software
Office Professional 2010
Warranty
3 Year Warranty - Mach V

Shipping options

UPS Ground : $240.10
UPS 2-Day : $624.03
UPS Overnight : $966.24
USPS (APO Only) : $915.00
UPS 3 DAY : $366.00

Total System Price: $17140.75

(OS X).
Click to expand...

All that money and it still only runs boring old Windows in an ugly plastic box.

Pass.
 
Last edited:
GPUFreak said:
Who cares about low settings
Click to expand...

The ones I had seen were played with high or max settings, I believe some even in native resolution, and it was still playable. Speaking about caring, I personally don't, when it comes to Battlefield 3.

Edit: never mind, I read up on your previous posts, I had initially thought you were somebody concerned he couldn't play his game on the new iMacs. Now I realize that you're obviously a computer engineer, who worked on designing the new iMacs. Thanks for all those unbiased tips on what's best for people : )
 
Last edited:
^^ Intel Extreme Edition CPUs are for bragging rights only. Not to mention everything else. Sheer excess.

All you need for gaming are a 3570k, something in the neighborhood of a 7950/660Ti/670, and a good SSD/HDD combo.

Would upgrade to a new PC, but temptation to wait for Haswell is too strong, and there's also the matter of a separate monitor.

If nothing else, iMacs have great resell. I'm tempted to go for the 680MX. The real question for me is whether or not the new iMacs can be taken in and drive swapped. I want an SSD as a boot drive but don't want Fusion (won't dualboot on SSD from what I hear) so I'm thinking of using the HDD externally to get around it.
 
rainbowsofwhite said:
All that money and it still only runs boring old Windows in an ugly plastic box.

Pass.
Click to expand...

Macs do look nice, but you have to face the facts: a $1000 desktop PC can outperform the $2500 iMac. Maybe if they didn't decide to try and make the beast as thin as possible, it could use something besides mobile GPUs. Heat is and always will be the #1 problem with them. Oh and BTW I have a 2011 iMac 27" so I'm no hater. I just enjoy running OS X on my tri-screen PC as well.
 
mateo124 said:
Macs do look nice, but you have to face the facts: a $1000 desktop PC can outperform the $2500 iMac. Maybe if they didn't decide to try and make the beast as thin as possible, it could use something besides mobile GPUs. Heat is and always will be the #1 problem with them. Oh and BTW I have a 2011 iMac 27" so I'm no hater. I just enjoy running OS X on my tri-screen PC as well.
Click to expand...

Not when you factor in a comparable display
 
mateo124 said:
Macs do look nice, but you have to face the facts: a $1000 desktop PC can outperform the $2500 iMac. Maybe if they didn't decide to try and make the beast as thin as possible, it could use something besides mobile GPUs. Heat is and always will be the #1 problem with them. Oh and BTW I have a 2011 iMac 27" so I'm no hater. I just enjoy running OS X on my tri-screen PC as well.
Click to expand...

I was trying to configure a PC before the iMacs were announced, but always landed at around 1,300 - 1,600, without the display. I wasn't seriously looking into the PC option though, since I've been wanting to switch to OSX and have a desktop again.

If games had been my priority I probably would have ended up building a PC, but the iMac has so many advantages for me, that anything else wouldn't provide me the same value. I get a gorgeous and huge display, a great current CPU, fusion drive, OSX, the currently fastest mobile GPU which will let me play current and future games at high resolutions and settings plus the option to still use Windows 7. I've had a 16" Laptop (which actually was quite awesome, sold it in anticipation of iMacs at the time) until June and am currently "working" with a Chromebook. So for me, this machine is a vast improvement. A 2011 low-end 27 would have been. For somebody with a tri-SLI 680 System and a oc'd CPU ... not so much ; )
 
omenatarhuri said:
Not one that looks as nice, is as thin, and is fully laminated. I think the last one will make the image on this pop more than before. Haven't seen one yet, but looking forward to it. Factory calibrationsjould also be good for us without calibrationgear.

I have 24" dell and 30" LG now and id trade both in for one of these 27" models.
Click to expand...

All displays are calibrated to some degree at the factory. If this wasn't the case, you wouldn't be able to get usable results even with a colorimeter. Factory grade equipment is much more accurate than a $100-200 consumer device. Also displays far better than that one are still calibrated or profiled on a regular basis if you want to maintain a semi consistent target. You are just speculating on all of that.
 
The 680 video card for the PC from what I have read/reviewed does become very warm/hot - requiring heavy circulation and adequate case capacity.
Perhaps, the above could be due to the driver code not optimized but I imagine it would be somewhat similar for the new iMac.
Additionally, In time via the forum we will gain a better understanding from users.
 
mganai said:
^^ Intel Extreme Edition CPUs are for bragging rights only. Not to mention everything else. Sheer excess.

All you need for gaming are a 3570k, something in the neighborhood of a 7950/660Ti/670, and a good SSD/HDD combo.

...
Click to expand...


SSD/HDD combo; like Fusion? ;)
 
thekev said:
All displays are calibrated to some degree at the factory. If this wasn't the case, you wouldn't be able to get usable results even with a colorimeter. Factory grade equipment is much more accurate than a $100-200 consumer device. Also displays far better than that one are still calibrated or profiled on a regular basis if you want to maintain a semi consistent target. You are just speculating on all of that.
Click to expand...
Likewise. Can't wait for a technical review from somebody like Anandtech.
 
NJelect said:
The 680 video card for the PC from what I have read/reviewed does become very warm/hot - requiring heavy circulation and adequate case capacity.
Click to expand...

Link?

When you say "680" with no letters after it, that's the Desktop card. And yes, you could probably make toast on it.
 
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