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

[Arfdog]

Your little temper tantrum is not warranted, and I wasn't trying to be condescending.

I did read your thread and the fact is you are wrong, misinformed and can't handle the critisim that comes with it. The trouble with your post is that you could have potentionaly misguided someone into not making the correct choice when it comes to a very good upgrade deal of $150 to the 780M

You talk about the 755m as the base GPU for the 27" but that only comes with the i5 3.2 with no upgrade path to either the 775m or the 780m. The 27" i5 3.4 starts with the 775m and you have a cpu option of the 3.5 i7 and the gpu option of the 780m. So you are already confused about the base options and upgrade options.

And it wasn't your opinion it was your suggestion and not a very good one at that.



I'm sorry you are feeling how you are feeling but those are the breaks when you publicly suggest something that others disagree with









this whole thread all you have done was try and backpedal and defend your logic, but never taking the time to realize you may be wrong and learn something from other peoples insights.

And on that note I am also done here.

You sound like a Tea Partier. The OP is obviously the type who likes efficiency and optimization, and probably has the mind of a manager.

I posted a graphic I made when buying my 2012. It is the kind of cost/benefit analysis the OP was trying to do. And he was correct to do so.

Instead all he gets is accusations of trying to justify not spending stupidly for marginal increases in performance.

 

[luffytubby]

You probably are just bad at math and don't understand ratios.

I am bad at math.

 

[inhalexhale1]

You sound like a Tea Partier. The OP is obviously the type who likes efficiency and optimization, and probably has the mind of a manager.

I posted a graphic I made when buying my 2012. It is the kind of cost/benefit analysis the OP was trying to do. And he was correct to do so.

Instead all he gets is accusations of trying to justify not spending stupidly for marginal increases in performance.

I think I'd rather just pay the $135 extra and be done with it, rather than obsess over it to the point of graphs, cost analysis, needing external validation, etc.

 

[violst]

I posted a graphic I made when buying my 2012. It is the kind of cost/benefit analysis the OP was trying to do.

You couldn't have made that awesome chart without the raw GPU power of the 780m:

Maybe the OP couldn't do it because he got the 775m instead of the 780M, or maybe the problem is I'm bad at math to.

Anyway you cut it that chart is Awesome.

 

[Tanax]

Sorry for being rude a bit, but there's actually nothing to discuss here. Your entire POV is ridiculous. You're forgetting one simple thing: Apple offers a GPU BTO for those who NEED it! Why on Earth have you even got the idea that your opinion could be true and objective since you're not even the target audience of that BTO option??

775m works fine for you since you're not-that-hardcore gamer? I'm really glad for ya, but some people won't even look at an iMac config without the 4gb 780m. It's just 150$ extra, and it's less than 10% off the iMac's price, while its graphics performance will grow more than 10%! As simple as that!

p.s. I really found no "analysis" from you, though I've read the discussion carefully. Re-read Bear's first post once again, to have an idea of what "analysis" may actually look like.

While I agree with you, I also agree with Mike.

I think a lot of people are not very well-informed and just get "the best" to make the computer last longer, even if they will never even come close to needing that type of performance for the duration of their computer's life-span.

I see a lot of threads on this forum where people ask what they should get and almost always they are advised to get the 780M with arguments like "it's only 150$" and "it'll make your computer more future proof". I can't help but think that a lot of these people probably don't need it.

With that said, you are of course correct in that there will be people who actually do need the BTO upgrade and you are also correct in that it's a very marginal upgrade price for the performance increase for those who need it.

 

[kaellar]

While I agree with you, I also agree with Mike.

I think a lot of people are not very well-informed and just get "the best" to make the computer last longer, even if they will never even come close to needing that type of performance for the duration of their computer's life-span.

I see a lot of threads on this forum where people ask what they should get and almost always they are advised to get the 780M with arguments like "it's only 150$" and "it'll make your computer more future proof". I can't help but think that a lot of these people probably don't need it.

With that said, you are of course correct in that there will be people who actually do need the BTO upgrade and you are also correct in that it's a very marginal upgrade price for the performance increase for those who need it.

I think I should add some explanation of my standpoint to make it clear.

If a hypothetical iMac customer will never even come close to needing that type of performance, it's better for them to buy the 755m one, since for not-a-gamer it's a plenty. If you play games occasionally and will benefit from getting 775m over 755m, you will benefit from getting 780m over 775m as well, especially in terms of future-proofing. Games that casual gamers play from time to time are also becoming more grapics-intense over time, as everyone is aware of.

That being said, I'd love to know Mike's opinion two or three years from this moment, when his 775m's performance will be surprisingly not enough for his casual gaming, which 780m would still handle well enough.

 

[Tanax]

I think I should add some explanation of my standpoint to make it clear.

If a hypothetical iMac customer will never even come close to needing that type of performance, it's better for them to buy the 755m one, since for not-a-gamer it's a plenty. If you play games occasionally and will benefit from getting 775m over 755m, you will benefit from getting 780m over 775m as well, especially in terms of future-proofing. Games that casual gamers play from time to time are also becoming more grapics-intense over time, as everyone is aware of.

That being said, I'd love to know Mike's opinion two or three years from this moment, when his 775m's performance will be surprisingly not enough for his casual gaming, which 780m would still handle well enough.

I think this depends on how you define "casual gaming".

a) Someone who plays the latest GPU-demanding games like Battlefield, Crysis, Skyrim, etc. but can't play very often due to having other things to do.

b) Someone who plays non-GPU demanding games like SimCity, Civ 5, Facebook games or older games like Age of Empires, Stronghold Crusader, Anno-series, etc.

If you fall into category "a", then you are correct. 780M will definitely bring a better and more enjoyable gaming-experience and I agree on all points that you make. If you fall into category "b" though, which is the gray-zone IMO, you'll probably make due with the 775M or perhaps even the 755M and will continue to have a good and enjoyable gaming-experience throughout the life-span of your iMac (if you keep the iMac for about 3 years). Games from category "b" won't be THAT much more demanding in 3 years than the games today, at least not GPU-wise.

On top of that, if you notice that you won't be able to play the games you want to play in 3 years, with a 755M or a 775M, that year's iMac GPU (which most likely will be some sort of GTX 1055M) will beat the crap out of the 780M anyway, which brings me back to my original point; If you don't need the power today (but might in the future), it'll probably be better to get the lesser GPU and then just get a new iMac in 3 years. Selling the old one will most likely bring in at least 1/4 or perhaps even 1/3 of the cost of a new iMac, depending on in which country you live in.

Also, you will most likely want to get a new iMac (or any computer) after 3 years with your current one any way since the iMac in 3 years will probably have so much new stuff that you want like a better screen, faster CPU, faster SSD, faster graphics, Thunderbolt 2 (3?), USB 3.1 - overall just a lot better. If you're gonna upgrade in 3 years any way, regardless of which GPU you get today, it only makes my point regarding category "b" even more valid, IMO.

 

[kaellar]

Tanax, man, with a little correction of "not-a-gamer"->"browser-games-gamer" your statement doesn't differ from mine
Btw, I wouldn't call Civ5 or SimCity an easy job for the GPU. On highest settings both would beat all the **** out of the 755m easily.

 

[Tanax]

Tanax, man, with a little correction of "not-a-gamer"->"browser-games-gamer" your statement doesn't differ from mine
Btw, I wouldn't call Civ5 or SimCity an easy job for the GPU. On highest settings both would beat all the **** out of the 755m easily.

True. Like I said, it all depends on how you define "casual gamer" I'd definitely say that "browser-games-gamer" is the same as a casual gamer but each to his own

Civ5 and SimCity are mostly CPU intensive but true enough, if you bump all GPU settings to max, it'll be quite taxing for a 755M. The 775M compares quite evenly to my GTX 570 (not the M-version) in my gaming PC and that PC plays all of the games I mentioned very easily on highest settings so the 775M will most likely be able to do the same.

Perhaps the 755M was a bit of a stretch but the 775M will definitely be enough for the category "b" of casual gamers

 

[n-evo]

I had no idea people could become so emotional over a €130 BTO option. Wow.

 

[Bear]

I had no idea people could become so emotional over a €130 BTO option. Wow.

This is the internet. People can become emotional over nothing.

 

[MikeChicago]

You sound like a Tea Partier. The OP is obviously the type who likes efficiency and optimization, and probably has the mind of a manager.

I posted a graphic I made when buying my 2012. It is the kind of cost/benefit analysis the OP was trying to do. And he was correct to do so.

Instead all he gets is accusations of trying to justify not spending stupidly for marginal increases in performance.

I just have to say the chart is pretty awesome. I'm a consultant, by the way, and always do think in terms of efficiency and optimization.

I see nothing wrong with it.

One thing people seem to ignore when they talk about the nominal cost of the upgrade is the time value of money. The $150 upgrade to GTX 780M isn't a lot of cash, I agree. If you need it, just go for it. I've said it before. If you don't really need it thought or are trying to figure out the best value for your money today consider this:

The $150 is really $162 or more because you still have to pay the additional tax on your purchase. I keep computers for about five years, so I'll base the following on these assumptions. If I keep the $162 instead and invest the money in the stock market with an average annual return of about 9-10% (historical average) then the $162 will grow to be about $250 - $260. There is inflation to consider, I understand, but I would be willing to bet that technology cost will decline by a value greater than the annual rate of inflation, which has by the way been flat. Plus, your money will have a better "value" because you'll be buying a more capable technology. And if you finance your purchase with a credit card, which I'm sure some of you do, then the value proposition here would be exponentially more advantageous because you avoid the additional compounding interest charged on the $162 by your credit card. I hope that makes sense.

So, by simply analyzing how I'll use the machine over the next few years and not blowing the money on something else, I can be $260 closer to the next upgrade. I don't think anyone will recoup $260 in resale value on a computer that is five years old. At that time, it won't really matter that the GPU was 24% faster at the time of your purchase. It will be, by then modern standards, as outdated and as slow as the 775M. You could say this is the alternative way to future-proof your purchase.

Sorry, no chart

 

[violst]

So, by simply analyzing how I'll use the machine over the next few years and not blowing the money on something else, I can be $260 closer to the next upgrade. I don't think anyone will recoup $260 in resale value on a computer that is five years old. At that time, it won't really matter that the GPU was 24% faster at the time of your purchase. It will be, by then modern standards, as outdated and as slow as the 775M. You could say this is the alternative way to future-proof your purchase:

You are grasping at straws here. no one is going to invest $162 in the stock market because they didn't upgrade their GPU.

I think this is what it boils down to

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?

A lot of people talk about price vs performance, But I think it is some what implied that if you are going to step up to the very highest end of the iMac line-up that is exactly what you are looking for, top shelf performance. e.g. core i7 3.5 and the 780M as hi-end options. with that being said if you don't need the 775m or the 780m or the core i7 then apple has a lower end 27" with the 755m, so you have a lot of options to chose from.

The problem I have with the thread is when someones blanket statement opinion is that the 775m was the way to go and forget about the 780m as an option which couldn't be further from the truth when you are looking at the hi-end iMac for its performance options. Also when people post their made up fictitious charts as fact and there is no basis of fact behind them, dissuading others from taking a smart future proof upgrade path, and yes future proofing your iMac is critical, you have very little wiggle room for error because what you get is what you are stuck with, there is no after market upgrade path for these things. I know a lot of people who moved over to the iMac and a year later were kicking themselves because they should have gotten the best options at the time of purchase but now they are stuck with what they got, an under preforming system.

From every past experience with my former Macs I noticed the GPU was the first thing to show its age. So when ordering my new 2013 iMac I didn't get the GeForce GTX 780M for today, but for the years to come. On top of that I got the option for €99, so why not.

 

[Bear]

...
The $150 is really $162 or more because you still have to pay the additional tax on your purchase. I keep computers for about five years, so I'll base the following on these assumptions.
...

I try and keep computers for 4 or 5 years. It all depends on when my needs exceed what my current computer can handle. So lets do a little math. A 3.4GHz i5/775M/1 TB Fusion Drive is $2149 and that computer with a 780M instead is $2349. Let's say that the 775M model will be usable for me for 4 years and comes to 537.25 a year. And if I get the 780M the iMac is usable for 5 years for $469.80 a year. So the difference is 67.45 (+tax) a year for the useful (to me) life of the iMac. And if it winds up being 3 years vs 4 years, the difference is $129.08 (+tax) a year. So for some, investing teh money in the upgrade is cost effective.

You're right that some people may not need the better graphics, but this type of comparison applies for any part(s) that they might upgrade during the initial purchase. Some people need the better graphics, some need an i7, and some need large all SSD. Of course there are those that will get along fine with one of Apples standard configurations.

 

[Tanax]

I try and keep computers for 4 or 5 years. It all depends on when my needs exceed what my current computer can handle. So lets do a little math. A 3.4GHz i5/775M/1 TB Fusion Drive is $2149 and that computer with a 780M instead is $2349. Let's say that the 775M model will be usable for me for 4 years and comes to 537.25 a year. And if I get the 780M the iMac is usable for 5 years for $469.80 a year. So the difference is 67.45 (+tax) a year for the useful (to me) life of the iMac. And if it winds up being 3 years vs 4 years, the difference is $129.08 (+tax) a year. So for some, investing teh money in the upgrade is cost effective.

You're right that some people may not need the better graphics, but this type of comparison applies for any part(s) that they might upgrade during the initial purchase. Some people need the better graphics, some need an i7, and some need large all SSD. Of course there are those that will get along fine with one of Apples standard configurations.

What would you advise someone who wants to keep a 2-3 year refresh cycle regardless of what GPU they have? I feel like even if I get the GTX 780M, I would still want to upgrade to a new iMac in about 2 years anyway to get more up-to-date tech. And if that is the case, the 775M is cheaper, thus less money per year.

 

[Bear]

What would you advise someone who wants to keep a 2-3 year refresh cycle regardless of what GPU they have? I feel like even if I get the GTX 780M, I would still want to upgrade to a new iMac in about 2 years anyway to get more up-to-date tech. And if that is the case, the 775M is cheaper, thus less money per year.

It all depends on what they will be using their computer for. Same thing for i5 vs i7. And who knows what the tech will bring in 2 years, it might not be worth an upgrade. And I wouldn't necessarily advise someone who was keeping their iMac for 5 years to get a 780M. It all depends on what they use their computer for.

 

[MikeChicago]

I try and keep computers for 4 or 5 years. It all depends on when my needs exceed what my current computer can handle. So lets do a little math. A 3.4GHz i5/775M/1 TB Fusion Drive is $2149 and that computer with a 780M instead is $2349. Let's say that the 775M model will be usable for me for 4 years and comes to 537.25 a year. And if I get the 780M the iMac is usable for 5 years for $469.80 a year. So the difference is 67.45 (+tax) a year for the useful (to me) life of the iMac. And if it winds up being 3 years vs 4 years, the difference is $129.08 (+tax) a year. So for some, investing teh money in the upgrade is cost effective.

You're right that some people may not need the better graphics, but this type of comparison applies for any part(s) that they might upgrade during the initial purchase. Some people need the better graphics, some need an i7, and some need large all SSD. Of course there are those that will get along fine with one of Apples standard configurations.

Yes, if you need the extra performance there is no question you should purchase it. Everyone will have different needs. As for the calculation showing how the prolonged useful life of the machine benefits from the upgrade, I think it is a very compelling argument and a good alternative way in determining the best bang for the buck when buying the machine.

 

[caneman]

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

To each his own...

Are you "flying" xplane on the new high end iMac ... and if so, what kind of fps are you getting?

 

[malvicus]

That being said, I'd love to know Mike's opinion two or three years from this moment, when his 775m's performance will be surprisingly not enough for his casual gaming, which 780m would still handle well enough.

This is the kind of prepubescent logic that ruffles my feathers. In order for this statement to be true, a casual game like Blizzard's Hearthstone would bring a 2011 iMac (to use your statement regarding an iMac's capabilities after 2 years) to its knees... and that is definitely not true, man. Let's not deal with absolutes, please, unless you can support with cold facts. Again, aside from the title, this thread is more an opinion. A lot of us are waiting for more performance results... that's essentially what's driving the interest in threads like these. Post a video of your iMac doing amazing things and then we can talk constructively.

(god, I hope someone posts a video of an iMac skydiving or something)

----------

This is the internet. People can become emotional over nothing.

It's only a matter of time before Hitler gets a mention.

 

[kaellar]

This is the kind of prepubescent logic that ruffles my feathers. In order for this statement to be true, a casual game like Blizzard's Hearthstone would bring a 2011 iMac (to use your statement regarding an iMac's capabilities after 2 years) to its knees... and that is definitely not true, man. Let's not deal with absolutes, please, unless you can support with cold facts. Again, aside from the title, this thread is more an opinion. A lot of us are waiting for more performance results... that's essentially what's driving the interest in threads like these. Post a video of your iMac doing amazing things and then we can talk constructively.

Where the hell have you got that Hearthstone thing from? Mike specifically mentioned the games he played at his iMac. That being said, Civ5 and Metro LL (as the games from his list) can easily punish 2011 iMac, not to mention 2009-2010 models. Try reading my posts first please, if you're going to insult me.

 

[malvicus]

Where the hell have you got that Hearthstone thing from? Mike specifically mentioned the games he played at his iMac. That being said, Civ5 and Metro LL (as the games from his list) can easily punish 2011 iMac, not to mention 2009-2010 models. Try reading my posts first please, if you're going to insult me.

The emboldened statement in this quote is patently false. Civ 5 can still be enjoyed on a 2011 iMac.

----------

In another less heated thread, there's a link to barefeats that kind of reinforces my feelings on the 780M. Are you getting enough of an upgrade for $150 bucks? It's really hard to say yes. I can't even see how the card can future proof my purchase when it doesn't give a significant difference over the 2012 maxxed-out model.

 

[kaellar]

that replying at the specific parts of my posts artificially making them looking silly starts bugging me a bit. go and find another victim for your throlling.

 

[Arfdog]

Where the hell have you got that Hearthstone thing from? Mike specifically mentioned the games he played at his iMac. That being said, Civ5 and Metro LL (as the games from his list) can easily punish 2011 iMac, not to mention 2009-2010 models. Try reading my posts first please, if you're going to insult me.

My friend and I play Civ 5. I casually play on max detail with my "out of date" 2012. He plays on very high detail with his 2011. What part of the definition of "punish" don't you understand? Sorry, this ruffles my feathers too. You're just throwing out all kinds of unnecessarily dramatic and false scenarios.

 

[neteng101]

These are laptop parts guys... even the 780M can't compare to the desktop GPUs... so no, the 775M is NOT the right choice for gaming. Either get the 780M or get a PC.

 

[Arfdog]

You are grasping at straws here. no one is going to invest $162 in the stock market because they didn't upgrade their GPU.

I think this is what it boils down to



A lot of people talk about price vs performance, But I think it is some what implied that if you are going to step up to the very highest end of the iMac line-up that is exactly what you are looking for, top shelf performance. e.g. core i7 3.5 and the 780M as hi-end options. with that being said if you don't need the 775m or the 780m or the core i7 then apple has a lower end 27" with the 755m, so you have a lot of options to chose from.

The problem I have with the thread is when someones blanket statement opinion is that the 775m was the way to go and forget about the 780m as an option which couldn't be further from the truth when you are looking at the hi-end iMac for its performance options. Also when people post their made up fictitious charts as fact and there is no basis of fact behind them, dissuading others from taking a smart future proof upgrade path, and yes future proofing your iMac is critical, you have very little wiggle room for error because what you get is what you are stuck with, there is no after market upgrade path for these things. I know a lot of people who moved over to the iMac and a year later were kicking themselves because they should have gotten the best options at the time of purchase but now they are stuck with what they got, an under preforming system.

If you are referring to my "fictitious" chart... you better be able to back up your claim of fictitious. I got those performance differences from various websites who tested each component, GPU, Fusion/Nonfusion, CPU. If they are way off, feel free to respectfully let me know. It may even change the chart's conclusion that the Fusion drive and GPU upgrades provided the most bang for the buck in a 2012 iMac.

Also, doesn't' matter if the OP invests or not. Just saving the money is an investment. By saving $160, the OP will be able to put that money towards the purchase of tech that is 8x more powerful in 4-5 years. That is way more bang for the buck.

$360 for a 151% improvement 775M over base 755M vs $200 for 103% improvement 780M over base is about linear. So you don't get much more bang for the buck getting the 775 vs the 780.

----------

These are laptop parts guys... even the 780M can't compare to the desktop GPUs... so no, the 775M is NOT the right choice for gaming. Either get the 780M or get a PC.

http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/inde...pare=geforce-gtx-680-sli-vs-geforce-gtx-680mx

680 SLI only 46% better than the equivalent laptop 680 MX version.