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 680MX is practically a Desktop 680
- Thread starter boto
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually it isn't that great. The character detail looked a little lacking up close; of course it isn't officially released yet, but I don't expect them to change that -- for a console, the graphics are great.
You shouldn't think the GTX 680MX is capable of less though. It's more powerful than what the PS4 is using, from my understanding. I'd expect it to be able to run that game at 60 FPS at 1080p, if not 1440p.
I'd be willing to bet you that wouldn't be the case. Case in point: Far Cry 3. I can't run that at 1440p at 60fps. Not even close. I get less than half that frame-rate at 1440p. Yep, less than 30fps at 1440p with everything on. It actually might be under 20fps, but I don't recall. I'd have to check again. Either way, very low frame-rate. At 1080p I can't even get 60fps solid with settings on medium/high, with no AA or HDAO!
The 680 in these iMacs is very powerful, but I really don't think anyone should be thinking it will be a match for the PS4 when it is released later this year. I'm certainly not believing that for a second. But I'd loved to be proved wrong.
...while remembering that the console versions of any given game are tweaked and designed around the capabilities (or constrictions) of the console. Recent games released across PS3, 360 and PC bare that out, assuming of course the PC version isn't a mere port.
You can't compare the graphics quality of difference games like that in order to determine which GPU is more powerful.I'd be willing to bet you that wouldn't be the case. Case in point: Far Cry 3. I can't run that at 1440p at 60fps. Not even close. I get less than half that frame-rate at 1440p. Yep, less than 30fps at 1440p with everything on. It actually might be under 20fps, but I don't recall. I'd have to check again. Either way, very low frame-rate. At 1080p I can't even get 60fps solid with settings on medium/high, with no AA or HDAO!
The 680 in these iMacs is very powerful, but I really don't think anyone should be thinking it will be a match for the PS4 when it is released later this year. I'm certainly not believing that for a second. But I'd loved to be proved wrong.
From what I've read, it's said the PS4's GPU is similar to the desktop 7850 which would mean the GTX 680MX is at the very least similar in power, if not more powerful. It's only 4.5x more powerful than what the PS3 used, so it's a significant improvement but the desktop GPUs we have today are more powerful than that.
Far Cry 3 is an intensive game. The GTX 680M can't even get 30 FPS at 1080p on Ultra. The MX should get ~30-35 FPS on those settings.
By your logic, you simply cannot compare the graphics quality of a console that's dedicated to gaming to that of a PC graphics card. Remember, the XBOX 360 was released in 2005! How many PCs from 2005 are running Far Cry 3? My point is that Killzone on the PS4 is the tip of the iceberg. We'll see even better from the PS4 as time goes by, just as we have done with the 360/PS3. We can disagree all day long, but when the PS4 comes out, you'll likely see what I mean.
That's different to what I said. I'm aware consoles are much more optimised and that developers will be able to squeeze more and more out of it as time passes. This is only a first generation game on a pre-release system.
I'm certain that the GTX 680MX is capable of producing the same kind of graphics as the PS4. Whether such a game should come about, is another thing entirely.
Time will tell.
I think youre all missing one vital point the GTX680MX is available today the PS4 isnt I'm sure in another year there will be a better GPU available for the imac which will about the time the PS4 is released...
I'm sure in another year there will be a better GPU available for the imac which will about the time the PS4 is released...
I think youre all missing one vital point the GTX680MX is available today the PS4 isnt
Yep. Theres no way the PS4/Nextbox can beat high-end GPU. It will be close at first, but in a couple years, forgettaboutit.
Dedicated consoles, like the PS and Xbox (whichever #), get a huge boost from optimization. The console needs to run just 1 thing: The GAME. No operating system, processes, countless device drivers, etc. Also, the game is coded and optimized just for that single system setup.
In theory, if all computers in the world were iMacs, each running the exact same hardware setup, then you'd see computer games look 2x as good for the same hardware too based on game coding alone.
Plus, lets not forget what is acceptable to console gamers is not accpetable to computer gamers. Forget that "the human eye cant detect over 30 fps, bla bla bla" which is false and misleading. 60 fps is generally demanded for first person shooter and similar interfaces for computer gamers. Console gamers need only 30, and even then many big name games slow down to 15 fps on some scenes.
In the PC world, that is unacceptable performance and the gamer re-adjusts the details, post processing, or resolution.
So enough. Comparing computer and console graphics performance just by looking at the video card is nonsensical. You'll see graphics from Sony's 7850 equivalent that will, in a year or so, be on par with what you perceive from an 8990 or higher when it eventually comes out.
In theory, if all computers in the world were iMacs, each running the exact same hardware setup, then you'd see computer games look 2x as good for the same hardware too based on game coding alone.
Plus, lets not forget what is acceptable to console gamers is not accpetable to computer gamers. Forget that "the human eye cant detect over 30 fps, bla bla bla" which is false and misleading. 60 fps is generally demanded for first person shooter and similar interfaces for computer gamers. Console gamers need only 30, and even then many big name games slow down to 15 fps on some scenes.
In the PC world, that is unacceptable performance and the gamer re-adjusts the details, post processing, or resolution.
So enough. Comparing computer and console graphics performance just by looking at the video card is nonsensical. You'll see graphics from Sony's 7850 equivalent that will, in a year or so, be on par with what you perceive from an 8990 or higher when it eventually comes out.
Temperatures
I have the I7 with 32GB ram and the GTX680MX. 27 inch
I use it mainly for CS6. It does this easily without breaking sweat.
yesterday I put Guildwars 2 on. I noticed that running Native resolution and with high setting (looks great) the temperatures easily and quickly get up to the mid 85C. The fans obviously increase. All seems fine and the setup runs this easily at very high frame rates.
To me the issues isnt about how good/powerful the setup is as it seems great but about how hot it runs and if it causes issues if used at the temperatures for long periods of time. I am sure the 85C temperature on mine is typical of all as its a new machine (non boot camped)
So does long term gaming at these temperatures create a problem ? Personally I would imagine its fine. But I read some people saying they are running hugely intensive games at 70C. I find this ********.
Ta Carlo
I have the I7 with 32GB ram and the GTX680MX. 27 inch
I use it mainly for CS6. It does this easily without breaking sweat.
yesterday I put Guildwars 2 on. I noticed that running Native resolution and with high setting (looks great) the temperatures easily and quickly get up to the mid 85C. The fans obviously increase. All seems fine and the setup runs this easily at very high frame rates.
To me the issues isnt about how good/powerful the setup is as it seems great but about how hot it runs and if it causes issues if used at the temperatures for long periods of time. I am sure the 85C temperature on mine is typical of all as its a new machine (non boot camped)
So does long term gaming at these temperatures create a problem ? Personally I would imagine its fine. But I read some people saying they are running hugely intensive games at 70C. I find this ********.
Ta Carlo
Tough to say. A while back, anything over 70 used to be very troubling. Then, a few years ago, both ATI and Nvidia started making their cards extremely power hungry, but also able to operate at temps approaching the high 90s and even 100 "without being cause for concern."
I think you're probably ok. I also think you should keep an eye on it, since the drivers on the osx side might not be as optimized as on the PC side. An example could be the old menu rendering bug in starcraft 2, where the gpu would render the menu at unlimited frames per second... a simple 2D image being pushed thousands of FPS, causing overheating issues. Even then, however, blizzard claimed that the affected machines were improperly ventilated or had latent hardware issues to begin with. (these were home built PCs)
bottom line is, I think you're probably fine. at 85C, is your fan going fairly strong?
I think you're probably ok. I also think you should keep an eye on it, since the drivers on the osx side might not be as optimized as on the PC side. An example could be the old menu rendering bug in starcraft 2, where the gpu would render the menu at unlimited frames per second... a simple 2D image being pushed thousands of FPS, causing overheating issues. Even then, however, blizzard claimed that the affected machines were improperly ventilated or had latent hardware issues to begin with. (these were home built PCs)
bottom line is, I think you're probably fine. at 85C, is your fan going fairly strong?
Sorted : Set Guildwars to 50fps and vertical sync on. Dropped by about 10C. Dont need to let it work by running at 100fps
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.
As silent as the iMac is, it could be dead quiet if the heat sinks got help from the biggest heat sink there, the case. Of course conducting the heat from the CPUs to the case is a design challenge. I wonder if they could weld those copper pipes to the case.
The outer chassis of an iMac does not work as a large heat-sink as many people claimed. It's simply heat convection and excessive heat spread out across the surface through the air, not direct contact.
Also there are reasons heat-sink made of sharp and lots of fins and not smooth bulky surface, it helps concentrate the heat on the tip instead of spread them out like the smooth surface of an iMac case.
LaCie BigDisk products are a good sample how if you want the outer case to really work as heat-sink.
Well you just repeated yourself and I responded.
But your fin explanation is not correct. Heat sinks have fins and pins because it creates more surface area to convect the heat away. The heat doesn't concentrate on the tip, in fact it concentrates at the base of the fin or pin. The heat flow gets funneled from the source to the smaller area of the fin, increasing temperature at the base. Tip temperature is the lowest because heat is dissipated before it gets there, that's why the longest fins don't necessarily help.
The smooth surface of a Mac is not that smooth. Microscopically it is rather rough, and therefore it will have great radiative heat transfer. I'd be interested to see Apple conduct more heat to the case and see how much heat transfer they get. I bet they could get 20% of what the finned heat sink gets.
All I'm saying is the fins useful for distributing and channeling heat into small tips and increase surface area for radiation.
Just because the outer case is getting hot does not mean it helps cooling the innards. Regular desktop outer case does not get hot at all under load, yet it has way better cooling system than any iMac/Macbook could.
In contrary, I once had a extremely hot outer case on an old Macbook Air and guess what, it literally melts the whole system down.
So the chassis gets hot doesn't indicate the aluminum case "works"
Unless you have a Titan-SLI setup or something, never feel like you have to max out every settings in dx10/11 games. It almost seems like most games have some unoptimised extreme quality settings that punish the GPU just to convince gamers to buy newer graphics cards, though giving only a minimal visual difference.
Btw., the 680MX iMac can easily be faster than GTX670 @ stock speed without heat issues, as 680MX uses a mature GPU chip which was designed to run at a much higher frequency. I use +285/+425 nearly all the time (when necessary), and it gives a huge boost in framerate. If you worry about heat, just use a higher static fanspeed and disable CPU turbo boost. Easy to do, and then you have no worries..
Btw., the 680MX iMac can easily be faster than GTX670 @ stock speed without heat issues, as 680MX uses a mature GPU chip which was designed to run at a much higher frequency. I use +285/+425 nearly all the time (when necessary), and it gives a huge boost in framerate. If you worry about heat, just use a higher static fanspeed and disable CPU turbo boost. Easy to do, and then you have no worries..
Last edited:
It depends on how the chassis obtains the heat. If it's not designed to be a heat sink (heat transferred via convention and radiation from components), then if it does get hot, it means the inner components are probably way too hot.
If it is designed to be a heat sink, via conduction from the hot components, then if it gets hot, that tells you it's working to take heat away.
Me too. However even the best card can't fix bad/inefficient coding, which Metro 2033 dx11 is a prime example of.. I really hope Metro Last Light lives up to the hype, esp. since STALKER 2 was pulled. Metro is to me a poor man's STALKER, without the openess and depth, but still a very good game in it's own right. The STALKER games are just so unique, they're in their own league. It's such a tradegy that the STALKER team was closed down. Instead we get dumbed down console games which holds the hand of the gamer through the entire game, and there's no real depth. Ugh..