GTX 680MX is practically a Desktop 680

[henrikrox]

Sigh.

There is so much false information in this thread.

People complaining about ventilation, when they know nothing about the materials used in the iMac, and why thats good.

People mixing up the desktop cards with the mobile cards.

The new 6series is cooler and more efficient then the last gen models anyways.

Also you have to know why aluminium is a good thing to house a computer in. The back of the iMac funcions as a large heatsink, that draws heat away from the components. And therefor when people hold their hand on the back of an iMac, it will be warm. But thats a very good thing, that means the "aluminium is working".

I rather have the alu be warm then the gpu and cpu.

Consumers come here for advice, so if you dont know what you are talking about, posing a gaming pc with x4 nvidia quadro (good luck with that) and alot of other bs, just stop it.

 

[MojoRisinSD]

Sigh.

There is so much false information in this thread.

People complaining about ventilation, when they know nothing about the materials used in the iMac, and why thats good.

People mixing up the desktop cards with the mobile cards.

The new 6series is cooler and more efficient then the last gen models anyways.

Also you have to know why aluminium is a good thing to house a computer in. The back of the iMac funcions as a large heatsink, that draws heat away from the components. And therefor when people hold their hand on the back of an iMac, it will be warm. But thats a very good thing, that means the "aluminium is working".

I rather have the alu be warm then the gpu and cpu.

Consumers come here for advice, so if you dont know what you are talking about, posing a gaming pc with x4 nvidia quadro (good luck with that) and alot of other bs, just stop it.

This!

I am looking forward to a new thread once the 27" starts shipping.

 

[thekev]

Likewise. Can't wait for a technical review from somebody like Anandtech.

Well here's the upside to that. LED does lose less brightness over time. It still drifts a bit, but I find it to to be somewhat less problematic in that regard. I'm just saying even the most expensive displays on the market use colorimeters. Some bundle them.

 

[CoreyLahey]

Sigh.

There is so much false information in this thread.

People complaining about ventilation, when they know nothing about the materials used in the iMac, and why thats good.

People mixing up the desktop cards with the mobile cards.

The new 6series is cooler and more efficient then the last gen models anyways.

Also you have to know why aluminium is a good thing to house a computer in. The back of the iMac funcions as a large heatsink, that draws heat away from the components. And therefor when people hold their hand on the back of an iMac, it will be warm. But thats a very good thing, that means the "aluminium is working".

I rather have the alu be warm then the gpu and cpu.

Consumers come here for advice, so if you dont know what you are talking about, posing a gaming pc with x4 nvidia quadro (good luck with that) and alot of other bs, just stop it.

That's the Internet ; ) Some good points anyways. People do come here for advice.

 

[mateo124]

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.

The GTX 680 and GTX 680mx are not comparable performance wise, so the 680mx should run nowhere near as hot as the GTX 680. Now the 680mx may just be an underclocked GTX 680, but it still is a mobile chip so it should be able to make due with the heatsink the iMac has.

 

[jeremy5561]

If you look at this spec sheet on Nvidia's website, you will notice the value of cuda cores is the same as the desktop version. This will ultimately make the iMac top of the line model a true gaming machine. Sure, Apple will probably underclock the settings, but it will perform somewhat equivalent to a desktop 680, which is a big deal in my opinion. I'm very surprised Apple would offer an even higher graphics card that just recently released, rather than using the GTX 680m, which we all expected.

I hope we see more details of this GPU. It would be interesting to see the benchmark comparison between this and the GTX 680m, although Nvidia claims it is up to 30% faster than the AMD 7970m so we can expect maybe 5~7 FPS game increases for intensive games like BF3. Nonetheless, it is incredible that Apple has figured out a way to manage a high-end GPU in such a slim design.

Despite having similar specs as a desktop 680, the performance will be closer to a desktop 580, according to notebookcheck. The 580 is slower than the desktop 660TI. For $1999 you can buy a much better computer, though it won't be an AIO.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

To the point made earlier in the thread about games being generally more optimized for the PC than the Mac (we are talking mainstream games), there seems to be some truth to that.

A good example I've observed recently is Borderlands 2. I noticed it was dual platform in steam so I downloaded it for the Mac (had been playing it booted up in Win 7, same machine obviously) and there was a significant difference in not only general performance of the game but also the fact that there is no support for Physx on the Mac side (which made a nice difference visually).

It will definitely be interesting to see how the 680MX benches when it is in peoples hands. It's not too often (if ever) that Apple puts a gfx chip in a new machine that is at the top of the line.

 

[janisar]

I am planning to replace my 15" MBP with a maxed out 27" iMac, because I need the display and performance for work, but I will use it for games too. I can't see how such a configuration won't be enough, even though I call myself a hardcore gamer (but not one without a live ).

I play most of my games on consoles, but until the new generation will come out, I want a Mac that can handle those games where you have a much better experience on PC. I'm pretty sure the 680MX will be able to display most games on higher settings with a decent framerate, especially if you play them on non native resolutions or a HDTV (which will still look pretty good).

Some people just don't get that a lot of gamers don't care if they have 40 or 56fps, as long as everything looks good (and let's be honest, most people can't see significant differences between medium and higher graphics settings) and runs at a decent framerate.
If you split your budget to buy a separate pc just for gaming, it doesn't make much sense either. The performance difference at 1080p between a maxed out iMac and a PC build with a limited budget won't be that big for a casual gamer, and not big enough for performance junkies...

 

[nutritious]

Sigh.

There is so much false information in this thread.

People complaining about ventilation, when they know nothing about the materials used in the iMac, and why thats good.

People mixing up the desktop cards with the mobile cards.

The new 6series is cooler and more efficient then the last gen models anyways.

Also you have to know why aluminium is a good thing to house a computer in. The back of the iMac funcions as a large heatsink, that draws heat away from the components. And therefor when people hold their hand on the back of an iMac, it will be warm. But thats a very good thing, that means the "aluminium is working".

I rather have the alu be warm then the gpu and cpu.

Consumers come here for advice, so if you dont know what you are talking about, posing a gaming pc with x4 nvidia quadro (good luck with that) and alot of other bs, just stop it.

Aluminum casing acting as a heat sink is a myth. Talk about false information

Here's an article explaining the myth:

http://www.procooling.com/index.php?func=articles&disp=71


Basically, airflow and the quality of the heatsinks are what truly play a role in temperatures. If your iMac feels very hot, it is largely a reflection of the internal temps of the iMac. There are no heatpipes or thermal compound connecting the processors or ram of the iMac that connects them to the casing of the iMac. So there is no real way for the heat to truly be transferred to the casing of the iMac. The processors have their own heat sinks. Once the heat is transferred to the heatsink, the airflow exhausts the heat off the heatsink and then later outside of the iMac through the vents. If your iMac feels very hot, it is largely a reflection of the internal temps of the iMac.

Notice when a MacBook Pro feels very hot, the gpu and CPU tempuratures are usually pretty high. If the casing were truly acting as a heatsink and taking in all the heat, the CPU and GPU temps would never have been that high in the first place. Again, how hot the casing feels is usually an indicator of the internal temps.

 

[Sovetskysoyuz]

Aluminum casing acting as a heat sink is a myth. Talk about false information

Here's an article explaining the myth:

http://www.procooling.com/index.php?func=articles&disp=71


Basically, airflow and the quality of the heatsinks are what truly play a role in temperatures. If your iMac feels very hot, it is largely a reflection of the internal temps of the iMac. There are no heatpipes or thermal compound connecting the processors or ram of the iMac that connects them to the casing of the iMac. So there is no real way for the heat to truly be transferred to the casing of the iMac. The processors have their own heat sinks. Once the heat is transferred to the heatsink, the airflow exhausts the heat off the heatsink and then later outside of the iMac through the vents. If your iMac feels very hot, it is largely a reflection of the internal temps of the iMac.

Notice when a MacBook Pro feels very hot, the gpu and CPU tempuratures are usually pretty high. If the casing were truly acting as a heatsink and taking in all the heat, the CPU and GPU temps would never have been that high in the first place. Again, how hot the casing feels is usually an indicator of the internal temps.

The real difference is in airflow: the heatsinks on the components have fans blowing air over them, so they can effectively transfer energy through convection; the case has very little convection or conduction available and can only radiate energy (unless you put your hand on it, in which case your hand is now a heatsink).

Presumably you could point fans to blow along the case and convect energy away. If the case is heating up then it is clearly receiving heat from inside, it just has no way to dissipate it.

Tech credentials: nil. But I am an engineer so I know a bit about heat transfer.

Closer to the topic of the thread: it was mentioned earlier that the CPU upgrade is not needed for gaming. I'm still planning on getting it for my 27", because some of the games that I play (particularly Dwarf Fortress, Hearts of Iron III, and Crusader Kings 2) are limited by CPU capacity, not graphics card power).

 

[nutritious]

The real difference is in airflow.

Exactly. Yeah, the casing of the iMac can feel hot, but that's cause the airflow is not exhausting the heat out of the iMac fast enough to not feel so hot.

 

[jeremy5561]

I am planning to replace my 15" MBP with a maxed out 27" iMac, because I need the display and performance for work, but I will use it for games too. I can't see how such a configuration won't be enough, even though I call myself a hardcore gamer (but not one without a live ).

I play most of my games on consoles, but until the new generation will come out, I want a Mac that can handle those games where you have a much better experience on PC. I'm pretty sure the 680MX will be able to display most games on higher settings with a decent framerate, especially if you play them on non native resolutions or a HDTV (which will still look pretty good).

Some people just don't get that a lot of gamers don't care if they have 40 or 56fps, as long as everything looks good (and let's be honest, most people can't see significant differences between medium and higher graphics settings) and runs at a decent framerate.
If you split your budget to buy a separate pc just for gaming, it doesn't make much sense either. The performance difference at 1080p between a maxed out iMac and a PC build with a limited budget won't be that big for a casual gamer, and not big enough for performance junkies...

The difference between 40 and 56 fps is huge. In a FPS theres a huge difference, and 40 is almost unplayable for multiplayer.

I see a lot of ppl turning up all their settings and getting 40 fps in battlefield 3 and sucking and then turning it down to raise the framerate to 60fps and then doing much much better.

The 680mx was benchmarked by someone else on the forum http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5212798. At a score of 6800 It's far below the 660ti, with a score of about 8500 i hear, just above the 580 at about 6000. It is miles below the GTX 680 with a score of almost 10000

With the computers me and my friends own, I have the benchmarks for the 560 TI and the Desktop GTX 680-,(these were done on older drivers too) both similar specs to the mac. From a benchmark POV the 680mx is a bit dissapointing, not even close to matching the desktop 660 (i'm a person who uses a lot of desktops so I compare to desktop cards). But the GTX 680mx isn't even close to being practically a desktop 680.

I really don't like Windows so i've been waiting a while for a good gaming mac, but I won't known until someone gets framerates. My cousin's 680 build costs lesss than $1700 though, and the maxed out build this guy did looks like it costs more than $2600

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The difference between 40 and 56 fps is huge. In a FPS theres a huge difference, and 40 is almost unplayable for multiplayer.

I see a lot of ppl turning up all their settings and getting 40 fps in battlefield 3 and sucking and then turning it down to raise the framerate to 60fps and then doing much much better.

The 680mx was benchmarked by someone else on the forum http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5212798. At a score of 6800 It's far below the 660ti, with a score of about 8500 i hear, just above the 580 at about 6000. It is miles below the GTX 680 with a score of almost 10000

With the computers me and my friends own, I have the benchmarks for the 560 TI and the Desktop GTX 680-,(these were done on older drivers too) both similar specs to the mac. From a benchmark POV the 680mx is a bit dissapointing, not even close to matching the desktop 660 (i'm a person who uses a lot of desktops so I compare to desktop cards). But the GTX 680mx isn't even close to being practically a desktop 680.

I really don't like Windows so i've been waiting a while for a good gaming mac, but I won't known until someone gets framerates. My cousin's 680 build costs lesss than $1700 though, and the maxed out build this guy did looks like it costs more than $2600

Thanks for posting the link to the 680MX benchmarks, definitely confirms it is nowhere near the 680. For reference, my GTX 670 gets the following results:

Desktop GTX 670 Benchmark

I'm also getting 19K+ Geekbench (23K+ in Win7), and as you mentioned, all in a build that I have not quite $1800 in including a 27" IPS display.

 

[Lasweetlife]

A better point of comparison for the 680mx is the desktop GTX 660 (not the ti). The have about the same scores for 3d Mark 11.

 

[Mac32]

Hopefully there's room for improvement with official drivers from Nvidia for 680MX. (When will Nvidia release these for Windows?) I also hoped that 680MX would be equal to 660ti. That 680mx score is a bit disappointing.

 

[Rlnplehshalo]

When I saw this going through the custom build options yesterday I was shocked and so thankful that I waited for this design instead of jumping on the last model

Nvidia says it's the most powerful mobile GPU

Definitely getting the GTX 680MX 2GB option when I get this! Hope some benchmarks are up soon, can't wait!

 

[cosmicjoke]

A better point of comparison for the 680mx is the desktop GTX 660 (not the ti). The have about the same scores for 3d Mark 11.

This... would be a great card for an all in one if the iMac was 1080p.... alas, @ 1440p even a 680mx is not ideal for gaming at native res on the higher end games... will kick games like d3 and wow's butt though at native res w/ high settings... other games you'll have to knock down a lot of settings or even lower resolution to hold 60fps (60fps is very important to many gamers, myself included)... that's just gaming life for an iMac... would figure most people would know this by now.

 

[Rlnplehshalo]

I was browsing the NVIDIA page for the 680MX and noticed that it was SLI compatible so maybe for the next gen iMacs SLI could be a real possibility and a sure way to achieve 60 fps at native resolution.

 

[Lasweetlife]

This... would be a great card for an all in one if the iMac was 1080p.... alas, @ 1440p even a 680mx is not ideal for gaming at native res on the higher end games... will kick games like d3 and wow's butt though at native res w/ high settings... other games you'll have to knock down a lot of settings or even lower resolution to hold 60fps (60fps is very important to many gamers, myself included)... that's just gaming life for an iMac... would figure most people would know this by now.

I think this is a fundamental limitation with regards to all-in-ones. The 680MX is by far the best GPU offered in any all-in-one by any company. No other company offers even a 680M or a 675MX, let alone a desktop GPU, in an all-in-one. Therefore, as buyers of all-in-ones, we have to live with this reality. Me personally, I have been gaming exclusively on laptops for the last 8 or 9 years so I have basically reduced my "expectations" from 60 fps to 30 fps. Anything above 35 fps or so for me at this point is pure gravy. Therefore I look forward to playing games via bootcamp on the iMac at full res at the highest settings. As long as the minimum fps in any game stays above 30, I don't foresee myself lowering the settings or the resolutions. But I can't lie though, 60 fps, especially in FPSs, would be sweet.

 

[cosmicjoke]

I think this is a fundamental limitation with regards to all-in-ones. The 680MX is by far the best GPU offered in any all-in-one by any company. No other company offers even a 680M or a 675MX, let alone a desktop GPU, in an all-in-one. Therefore, as buyers of all-in-ones, we have to live with this reality. Me personally, I have been gaming exclusively on laptops for the last 8 or 9 years so I have basically reduced my "expectations" from 60 fps to 30 fps. Anything above 35 fps or so for me at this point is pure gravy. Therefore I look forward to playing games via bootcamp on the iMac at full res at the highest settings. As long as the minimum fps in any game stays above 30, I don't foresee myself lowering the settings or the resolutions. But I can't lie though, 60 fps, especially in FPSs, would be sweet.

For sure, everyone needs to figure out what works for themselves.

 

[boto]

No other company offers even a 680M or a 675MX, let alone a desktop GPU, in an all-in-one. Therefore, as buyers of all-in-ones, we have to live with this reality.

What about Maingear's 24" AIO? http://www.maingear.com/custom/desktops/alpha24/techspecs.php

 

[Lasweetlife]

What about Maingear's 24" AIO? http://www.maingear.com/custom/desktops/alpha24/techspecs.php

I have to admit I stand corrected in regards to the 680M but my larger point remains the same since it is a sub-680MX mobile card and not a desktop card.

 

[cosmicjoke]

I have to admit I stand corrected in regards to the 680M but my larger point remains the same since it is a sub-680MX mobile card and not a desktop card.

but it also doesn't drive a 1440p panel, so i'm sure it gets better native res performance. it sure is one ugly little beast though lol

 

[torana355]

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.

Blah Blah blah, ive been playing Far Cry 3 on my new iMac at 1440p at over 60FPS, seems like a gaming machine to me. (Yes ive been there and done that with purpose built gaming rigs and in the end they are just a pita)

 

[Ddyracer]

but it also doesn't drive a 1440p panel, so i'm sure it gets better native res performance. it sure is one ugly little beast though lol

I think it has a desktop 680 in there with bto. Saw 4gb of ram and no sign of an m badge except on the main page.