GTX 775M... and why it's the right choice

[MikeChicago]

So, we can all easily get carried away with the upgrades but is the top choice always necessary or even a good value? Let's consider the available graphics upgrades in the 27 inch iMac lineup.

The base GT 755 is a nice and capable GPU. However, the bump in performance when moving up to GTX 775M is significant (103% better performance). So, the first $200 literarily doubles your graphics power, which still doesn't mean you should buy it unless you feel you need it. Although the value is certainly there.

http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/inde...9&compare=geforce-gt-755m-vs-geforce-gtx-775m

Now, the next $150 spent to upgrade to GTX 780M gives a more incremental increase in performance (24% better). While this is a significant increase as far as graphic cards are concerned, it comes at a much higher relative premium.

So, is the GTX 775M slow and must be upgraded? I don't think so... The performance is described on Notebookcheck.com.

"The graphics performance of the GeForce GTX 775M should be almost identical to the GTX 680M, making it somewhat faster than the Radeon HD 7970M. The GPU has enough power to run demanding games of 2012 and 2013 fluently with Full HD resolution and maxed out graphical settings. Only extremely demanding titles like The Witcher 2 will not run fluently in ultra settings. Battlefield 3, Skyrim, and Crysis 2, for example, are playable at the highest detail settings."

In real life performance, an average user will be able to run just about any game or application with terrific results on ultra setting except for a FEW very demanding games which will still look and play great but at maybe at a VERY HIGH setting instead. The GTX 780M will ensure that ALL games can run with absolutely no trouble at ultra setting. The question again, is the $150 premium worth such minor real world performance gain?

I guess everyone has to answer that question based on their own needs/wants, but I would suggest that GTX 775M strikes the perfect balance between power and value.

 

[luffytubby]

Why am I getting the feeling that you bought an IMac with a 775, and now that you are second guessing yourself about your purchase, you're seeking external validation from people here to reassure you that you made the right choice?

There is no right or wrong answer to this mate. Based on income, needs, availability, price of upgrades for different stores, amount of work you would need the extra horsepower.. Grass is always greener!

 

[leman]

The problem is though that 27 iMac is not Full HD resolution, its WQHD. If you want to play demanding games in the native resolution, the 780M is a very reasonable choice.

 

[MikeChicago]

Why am I getting the feeling that you bought an IMac with a 775, and now that you are second guessing yourself about your purchase, you're seeking external validation from people here to reassure you that you made the right choice?

There is no right or wrong answer to this mate. Based on income, needs, availability, price of upgrades for different stores, amount of work you would need the extra horsepower.. Grass is always greener!

Nope, you got it wrong. I could have easily spent the extra $130 (edu discount) on the GTX 780 and decided after the analysis I outlined in the original post to go with the GTX 775. Just sharing my opinion on how I determined the right choice for me.

 

[Serban]

So, we can all easily get carried away with the upgrades but is the top choice always necessary or even a good value? Let's consider the available graphics upgrades in the 27 inch iMac lineup.

The base GT 755 is a nice and capable GPU. However, the bump in performance when moving up to GTX 775M is significant (103% better performance). So, the first $200 literarily doubles your graphics power, which still doesn't mean you should buy it unless you feel you need it. Although the value is certainly there.

http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/inde...9&compare=geforce-gt-755m-vs-geforce-gtx-775m

Now, the next $150 spent to upgrade to GTX 780M gives a more incremental increase in performance (24% better). While this is a significant increase as far as graphic cards are concerned, it comes at a much higher relative premium.

So, is the GTX 775M slow and must be upgraded? I don't think so... The performance is described on Notebookcheck.com.

"The graphics performance of the GeForce GTX 775M should be almost identical to the GTX 680M, making it somewhat faster than the Radeon HD 7970M. The GPU has enough power to run demanding games of 2012 and 2013 fluently with Full HD resolution and maxed out graphical settings. Only extremely demanding titles like The Witcher 2 will not run fluently in ultra settings. Battlefield 3, Skyrim, and Crysis 2, for example, are playable at the highest detail settings."

In real life performance, an average user will be able to run just about any game or application with terrific results on ultra setting except for a FEW very demanding games which will still look and play great but at maybe at a VERY HIGH setting instead. The GTX 780M will ensure that ALL games can run with absolutely no trouble at ultra setting. The question again, is the $150 premium worth such minor real world performance gain?

I guess everyone has to answer that question based on their own needs/wants, but I would suggest that GTX 775M strikes the perfect balance between power and value.

Notebookcheck is always testing on ultra 1080p, so yes for that resoulution a 775M is enough, but we have here a 27" display at 1440p so..i higher resolution demands a higher and better dGPU, and for 150$ is future proof...775M in 2 years (games released in 2015) you will have run almost any game at 1080p high settings OR 1440p with low+medium settings depends of the game

 

[MacsRgr8]

If you play X-Plane then the 780M is an absolute must!

To each his own...

 

[MikeChicago]

The resolution being higher on the iMac is a very valid point. It also seems that many people are hardcore gamers, but I am not. At least not on the mac. Those types of games are best played on the PS3 (soon to be PS4) I have.

So, the way I see it is based on the cost/value offered by each option. Spending extra $150 on a purchase over $2000 seems like a good idea, but I'm not sure about it. Maybe there is a critical threshold the relatively small bump in performance pushes you over that makes all the difference. I just don't see it.

By the way, only games I play on my Mac are Civilization 5 and XCOM, plus other strategy/simulation games. I also use Aperture. That's it.

----------

Notebookcheck is always testing on ultra 1080p, so yes for that resoulution a 775M is enough, but we have here a 27" display at 1440p so..i higher resolution demands a higher and better dGPU, and for 150$ is future proof...775M in 2 years (games released in 2015) you will have run almost any game at 1080p high settings OR 1440p with low+medium settings depends of the game

This is a valid point, indeed. I'm thinking about what you wrote and I wonder just how much more demanding 1440P is over 1080P in real life usage. More pixels to push definitely means lower FPS, but how much lower I wonder.

 

[Serban]

at the same settings i think at least 20 FPS difference between 1080p and 1440p

----------

but i think along with Maveriks the 680MX along with the 775M will be better cards

 

[Bear]

...
Now, the next $150 spent to upgrade to GTX 780M gives a more incremental increase in performance (24% better). While this is a significant increase as far as graphic cards are concerned, it comes at a much higher relative premium.
...

But is the premium really that much higher (relatively speaking)? Let's say the iMac you're buying is the higher end base model plus 1TB Fusion Drive - that's $2200+tax. And let's say you can get 4 years of use before the programs you run need a better graphics card - that works out to being $550 a year. And what if upgrading to the 780M lets you use the system another year - that's a $2350 iMac which over 5 years, comes out to $470 a year. Which works out to a better deal? Of course it depends on what you use your system for. And if it's a 3 year vs 4 years of useability that is $733.33 vs 587.50. As it stands the main reason I will be replacing my iMac is the graphics.

And that's just for personal use. Once you get to business uses the 780M would save time with some video editing programs, and time saved means more money.

 

[X-Ravin]

I also think a big advantage to the 780 is the extra VRAM. That will help scale better with the 1440p resolution with future games. I think if you plan to seriously game on an iMac, the extra cost for the 780 is quite easily justified.

 

[MikeChicago]

I think if you plan to seriously game on an iMac, the extra cost for the 780 is quite easily justified.

Agreed. If you plan on being a serious gamer on the Mac, then the upgrade makes sense. But if you are a casual gamer or feel content with high or very high setting but not the absolute highest possible setting you must agree the GTX 775M is quite capable.

See, there is always a need for the absolute power you can squeeze out of the latest technology but not in most cases. I determined what works for me, but I suspect that quite a few people overestimate their needs. They buy more out of fear of not having enough down the road (as in the future-proofing argument). Some user certainly assess their needs and opt for the addition graphics power because it makes sense for them.

----------

But is the premium really that much higher (relatively speaking)? Let's say the iMac you're buying is the higher end base model plus 1TB Fusion Drive - that's $2200+tax. And let's say you can get 4 years of use before the programs you run need a better graphics card - that works out to being $550 a year. And what if upgrading to the 780M lets you use the system another year - that's a $2350 iMac which over 5 years, comes out to $470 a year. Which works out to a better deal? Of course it depends on what you use your system for. And if it's a 3 year vs 4 years of useability that is $733.33 vs 587.50. As it stands the main reason I will be replacing my iMac is the graphics.

And that's just for personal use. Once you get to business uses the 780M would save time with some video editing programs, and time saved means more money.

I like when people make logical calculation to make an argument. Point well taken. There is definitely a need for the absolute high end cards (as you mentioned, with professionals using graphics intense applications). Those who truly need it will benefit from the speed and safe time and time is money.

I honestly don't think there will be a game that the 775M won't play at reasonable speeds within the next five years. The 780M may do a better job, but I doubt the comparison will be 775M being absolute and 780M still very much relevant. Then again, breaking the cost of $150 over assumed 4 or 5 year ownership is a drop in the bucket. On the other hand, saving $150 now (and considering the time value of money) you could very well be $200+ closer to your next upgrade, which is likely to offer much better performance at a lower price point.

 

[Bear]

...
See, there is always a need for the absolute power you can squeeze out of the latest technology but not in most cases. I determined what works for me, but I suspect that quite a few people overestimate their needs. They buy more out of fear of not having enough down the road (as in the future-proofing argument). Some user certainly assess their needs and opt for the addition graphics power because it makes sense for them.

The same could be said with the i5 vs i7 argument. In my case the i7 is not really needed, but the 780M is. Once every month or 2 I do run something that would make use of an i7, but it's easy enough to let it run while I'm not near my computer. I still might wind up with an i7 when I buy if there's a refurbished model that meets my needs but has an i7 and costs less than buying what I need new which might happen based on what late 2012 configurations were available refurbished.

 

[X-Ravin]

I think we should all just agree that we wouldn't all be so damn worried about future-proofing if we could actually upgrade the machine

 

[AaronM5670]

I got the 775M, but what you have to remember is the vast majority of people don't buy a Mac for games, they buy it for work.

 

[MikeChicago]

The same could be said with the i5 vs i7 argument. In my case the i7 is not really needed, but the 780M is. Once every month or 2 I do run something that would make use of an i7, but it's easy enough to let it run while I'm not near my computer. I still might wind up with an i7 when I buy if there's a refurbished model that meets my needs but has an i7 and costs less than buying what I need new which might happen based on what late 2012 configurations were available refurbished.

Yup, exactly. This brings the discussion back to the point of cost/value relationship. In relationship to the overall cost of the machine the i7 seems like a no brainer, but considering you may use the extra power twice a month makes it much less of a value add. I feel this way about the 780M.

----------

I got the 775M, but what you have to remember is the vast majority of people don't buy a Mac for games, they buy it for work.

Agreed, although the 775M is quite capable of running latest games.

 

[cycledance]

the i7 is not worth it imo. only very specific apps (programmed for hyperthreading) under heavy load go beyond the typical 3% speed advantage of the 3.5ghz i7 over the 3.4ghz i5.

the 780m is much stronger than the 775m and 4gb vram is finally enough for the 1440p display.

i think the 2gb vram is a joke for gamers on 1440p. high vram will be in great demand, now that ps4 has 8gb gddr5 (vram). battlefield 4 system requirements recommend 3gb vram.
i fully expect gpus with 16gb vram in 5 years, when 4k will be a well known standard.

i think when the mac pro will be showed again in 2 weeks it will be accompanied with a 30" 4k apple display. the imac will be switched to 4k as well in the next 2 years cause apple will want to be the first to make 4k content and retina-like resolutions a standard.

 

[MikeChicago]

i think the 2gb vram is a joke for gamers on 1440p.

No, I respectfully disagree. 512MB on some of the models in 2013 was a joke, but 2GB is far from being a joke. In most applications I would say that, based on everything I've read, it's more than enough.

 

[MultiFinder17]

Ah, graphics, the eternal debate. For what it's worth, as a non-hardcore gamer at all, I'm still absolutely loving the performance of the 512MB Radeon HD 6750M in my 2011 iMac. Until early this year, I was loving the Nvidia 9400M in my 2009 mini

Basically all I really play on my iMac is WoW, and it runs it beautifully; if you're not a hardcore gamer, the base can be just peachy

 

[cycledance]

No, I respectfully disagree. 512MB on some of the models in 2013 was a joke, but 2GB is far from being a joke. In most applications I would say that, based on everything I've read, it's more than enough.

would u also say that for the next 5 years?

 

[Glen Quagmire]

Nope, you got it wrong. I could have easily spent the extra $130 (edu discount) on the GTX 780 and decided after the analysis I outlined in the original post to go with the GTX 775. Just sharing my opinion on how I determined the right choice for me.

Perhaps you should have added "for me" to the thread title, then. Otherwise it makes it seem like you think the 775 is the right card for everyone. Unless you know everyone and their needs, that's not a realistic assumption to make.

 

[luffytubby]

I'm glad we can all agree that 775m is great for casual gaming, while 780m being the choice for the "hardcore gamer".


What I still want to know, is if the 780m GTX can actually handle 4GB of very, very fast GDDR5 Vram. Because the card has a bus speed of 256-bit.


Basically, the bus speed (as far as I understand) is basically the transfer speed per second for Ram to the system. So the idea being that it doesn't matter that a video card has a lot of Ram to give to the game application, if it can't give it fast enough.


Back in 06-08 days during the horrible days of Geforce 8600 and 8400 - Two notorious mainstream laptop graphics cards that where notorious for overheating and dying in laptops from all manufactureres, many of the cards were applied with a lot of ram.

Basically many low-medium computers would come with a Geforce 8600 GT with 512 MB DDR2.
But as it truned out, a similar card, Geforce 8600 GT with 256 GDDR3 would actually peform better, because the ram speed was faster.

So whats the problem with that? Basically companies who make laptops often don't write this important information and basically just go with the show-big-numbers. It's one of many ways how numbers can trick us.
What we do know, is that the higher resolution you go in, the more Video Ram you need. Pixels get sharper, so you need more ram power. But at lower resolutions, your game won't depend on your ram so much.

---------------



The Watch Dogs PC specifications were announced yesterday. Recommended specs? A 8 core CPU... with a minimum of a Quadcore.

Watch Dogs is not the most visually impressive game ever made, but it might be one of the most detailed, object and polygon filled worlds so far.

Not only does this mark the beginning of the end for dual core, but it also means that the next generation of games based alongside the architecture of PS4/XB1 will utilize post-quads much more.

 

[richard13]

The question again, is the $150 premium worth such minor real world performance gain?

I wouldn't consider twice the VRAM, minor. I guess for you the answer is that the price difference was not worth it. That's cool. But saying this is the "right" choice in general is just plain wrong.

Perhaps you should have added "for me" to the thread title, then. Otherwise it makes it seem like you think the 775 is the right card for everyone. Unless you know everyone and their needs, that's not a realistic assumption to make.

Agreed.

I'm glad we can all agree that 775m is great for casual gaming, while 780m being the choice for the "hardcore gamer".


What I still want to know, is if the 780m GTX can actually handle 4GB of very, very fast GDDR5 Vram. Because the card has a bus speed of 256-bit.


Basically, the bus speed (as far as I understand) is basically the transfer speed per second for Ram to the system. So the idea being that it doesn't matter that a video card has a lot of Ram to give to the game application, if it can't give it fast enough.

I think you are confusing memory bus speed with bus width here. The 780M has a 160GB/s to 115.2GB/s advantage over the 775M. I believe both cards would be capable of keeping 4GB filled.

 

[MikeChicago]

Perhaps you should have added "for me" to the thread title, then. Otherwise it makes it seem like you think the 775 is the right card for everyone. Unless you know everyone and their needs, that's not a realistic assumption to make.

The title is fine. I am merely expressing an opinion on why, in terms of performance to cost analysis, the GTX 775M is the right choice. There are always people who NEED the highest GPU performance they can get. Just as there are people who need very little performance. It's a standard distribution curve as with anything else. All I am suggesting is that the cost to performance of the GTX 775M offers the best bang for the buck. And I also suggest that for most people, those in the middle of the curve, will be more than satisfied with the GPU's performance.

I hope this makes sense. I obviously don't know everyone's needs

 

[Bear]

The title is fine. I am merely expressing an opinion on why, in terms of performance to cost analysis, the GTX 775M is the right choice. There are always people who NEED the highest GPU performance they can get. Just as there are people who need very little performance. It's a standard distribution curve as with anything else. All I am suggesting is that the cost to performance of the GTX 775M offers the best bang for the buck. And I also suggest that for most people, those in the middle of the curve, will be more than satisfied with the GPU's performance.

I hope this makes sense. I obviously don't know everyone's needs

If not "for me" than maybe "for most" would've been a better addition to the title of the thread. You made the title as a flat out statement as if it applied to everyone.

 

[MikeChicago]

I wanted to add a quick note on the performance of the GTX 775M based on the few weeks of playing various games with it.

I posted basic benchmarks in another thread, so I won't repost them here.

However, I'm happy to report that every game played thus far ran smoothly on maximum setting. Civilization 5, XCOM ENEMY UNKNOWN, Metro: Last Light, Portal 2, Endless Space ran very smoothly with highest settings selected.

I also installed Windows 7 on the iMac to play some Windows games. I haven't tried any newer games yet (I've been playing the older titles I have, like Battlefield 2). I will report back on newer, more demanding games.

So far, I'm incline to say the GTX 775M will handle just about any game with more than adequate results. It may not remain as relevant as the higher end graphic card down the road but I believe it will hold its own for some time to come.