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

[luffytubby]

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.

I call BS on that website. Here is some benchmarks from BF4; http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/


Notice something interesting?

660 ti(a 780m like that in iMac) scales almost 100% at imacs native resolution. But it cannot keep up at. If you want to hit 60 frames per second during multiplayer, you will absolutely, have to drop settings and resolution.


At 1080p 660 ti(780m) still cannot play ball at Ultra. You will need to stay at high in 1080p for imac to be with. According to these benchmarks 680 SLI is much more powerful than 46%. It's actually getting over 3 times the framerate in several installations at 1080p.


reducing the resolution to 1080p lets you achieve 91 average FPS on SLI 780 GTX.
660 ti cannot achieve 30(it stands at 27).





Now. To blow my horn I would expect the 780m despite being roughly the same generally speaking to perform better. Why? Because 780m in iMac has 4 gigs of GDDR5. But it still comes through a 256-bit bus (speed of which ram can travel) so you are still limited. But at these higher resolutions vRam matters more.

Secondly, I see no shame in playing at 1080p, but everyone who talks about high end needs to understand, that *that* has nothing to do with top end or high end specs when you are talking pc performance. Ultra at the native rez is always the thing.
If you look at playstation 4, it achieves it's graphical capabillities well in BF4, but a HDTV(since 4K is not a factor yet) only outputs to 1080p.



But let's be real here. In actual gaming performance for a lot of beautiful games, you need really powerful GPUs. Many of these GPUs are thicker than most of the new iMacs body. What do people expect?

 

[Serban]

so with 780M i can play this game at 1440p+mediu and some high settings in multiplayer?

 

[MikeChicago]

I'm not sure you got the numbers right. The bang for the buck comparison is as follows:

755M ---> 775M = 103% performance gain plus CPU upgrade for $200 (plus tax)
775M ---> 780M = 24% performance gain for $150 (plus tax)

Alternatively if you consider the base to 775M or 780M, then the numbers are:

755M ---> 775M = 103% performance gain plus CPU upgrade for $200 (plus tax)
755M ---> 780M = 151% performance gain plus CPU upgrade for $350 (plus tax)

Either way, the performance/price curve here isn't linear. No matter how you slice it, the 775M offers the better bang for the buck. But it makes perfect sense that it would. We see this every year. The top choice is usually at the forefront of the technology available at the time, so it carries a higher price. There is a premium associated with the latest and greatest.

 

[etichi]

This thread reminds me of TomsHardware or AnandTech threads. For years, and even today, people bag on Apple because it is not cost effective. Everyone knows you can build a superior spec'd PC for way less. With that definition in play; We all (including myself) got screwed the moment we went with Apple.

 

[Arfdog]

I'm not sure you got the numbers right. The bang for the buck comparison is as follows:

755M ---> 775M = 103% performance gain plus CPU upgrade for $200 (plus tax)
775M ---> 780M = 24% performance gain for $150 (plus tax)

Alternatively if you consider the base to 775M or 780M, then the numbers are:

755M ---> 775M = 103% performance gain plus CPU upgrade for $200 (plus tax)
755M ---> 780M = 151% performance gain plus CPU upgrade for $350 (plus tax)

Either way, the performance/price curve here isn't linear. No matter how you slice it, the 775M offers the better bang for the buck. But it makes perfect sense that it would. We see this every year. The top choice is usually at the forefront of the technology available at the time, so it carries a higher price. There is a premium associated with the latest and greatest.

Lol. I was sleeping when I wrote this. That's my excuse. Your bullet points are much clearer. And now I have made a new graph.

You do indeed get a better deal with the 775M. But for 2012, I was saying the 680 was way more powerful for the money, as shown by being way above the trend line from the base 660 to 675.

 

[MikeChicago]

Lol. I was sleeping when I wrote this. That's my excuse. Your bullet points are much clearer. And now I have made a new graph.

You do indeed get a better deal with the 775M. But for 2012, I was saying the 680 was way more powerful for the money, as shown by being way above the trend line from the base 660 to 675.

A shiny new graph! Wooohoo! Is it Christmas morning already? LOL

Seriously though, one thing everyone here can agree on is that Fusion drive is one solid bang for the buck. If there is one must upgrade, Fusion drive is it... and now let's hear it from all the people who think I'm a nut for thinking that and how the SSD is the only viable option.

 

[Tanax]

A shiny new graph! Wooohoo! Is it Christmas morning already? LOL

Seriously though, one thing everyone here can agree on is that Fusion drive is one solid bang for the buck. If there is one must upgrade, Fusion drive is it... and now let's hear it from all the people who think I'm a nut for thinking that and how the SSD is the only viable option.

I think that depends on the person buying it.
I'm leaning more towards pure-SSD now. Fusion drive increases point of failure, has spinning disk in it which will age much faster than the SSD part, will sound more (albeit questionally noticeable).

 

[violst]

And now I have made a new graph..

Good so its decided the 780m is the GPU to get.

looking at your chart the 780M looks to me like its at the most optimal point in your vector. You made it not me.

I was thinking about making a chart of your charts and then I thought my time was better spent understanding the value of superior technology then making charts to convince myself otherwise.The real world GPU performance of the 780m will easily out class the 775m and its a better long term investment and value, and no one needs a chart to understand that formula.

 

[MikeChicago]

Good so its decided the 780m is the GPU to get.

looking at your chart the 780M looks to me like its at the most optimal point in your vector. You made it not me.

I was thinking about making a chart of your charts and then I thought my time was better spent understanding the value of superior technology then making charts to convince myself otherwise.The real world GPU performance of the 780m will easily out class the 775m and its a better long term investment and value, and no one needs a chart to understand that formula.

You clearly missed the entire point of this thread...

For folks like you it will always be a d*** measuring contest. I'm happy you like your upgraded GPU. I just wish you'd understand the underlying concept here.

And you may want to look up the word "investment" because this new shiny iMac we all bought is nothing more than an expense. A depreciating asset. But if calling it an "investment" makes you sleep better at night, I understand.

 

[MacOG728893]

You clearly missed the entire point of this thread...

For folks like you it will always be a d*** measuring contest. I'm happy you like your upgraded GPU. I just wish you'd understand the underlying concept here.

And you may want to look up the word "investment" because this new shiny iMac we all bought is nothing more than an expense. A depreciating asset. But if calling it an "investment" makes you sleep better at night, I understand.

If saving some dollars by not upgrading your GPU makes you happy, then good for you!

 

[violst]

For folks like you it will always be a d*** measuring contest.

You know MikeChicago you are a whiner, who doesn't like to be wrong.

You are wrong about the GPU and you are also wrong about the fusion drive. Right off the bat you got push back on that. Tanax is right on the money with his comment.

I think that depends on the person buying it.
I'm leaning more towards pure-SSD now. Fusion drive increases point of failure, has spinning disk in it which will age much faster than the SSD part, will sound more (albeit questionally noticeable)..

A computer is an investment for a lot of professionals who use their systems to make money, and a hell of a lot more money then they spend on their computer, its called an ROI and the better your system the faster, better and more work you can do the better your ROI. And unlike a mac pro which you can continue to upgrade, you are stuck with what you get with an iMac so you had better think long and hard about your GPU and CPU choices. If you get an internal SSD you can get a fast and large TB extenal raid as your work drive. If you get a crappy GPU now you're stuck with a crappy GPU. Do you understand? If someone doesn't need that kind of horsepower then you get the base model 27" iMac i5 3.2 and 755m and if thats the case then thats the best bang for someones buck.

 

[MikeChicago]

You know MikeChicago you are a whiner, who doesn't like to be wrong.

You are wrong about the GPU and you are also wrong about the fusion drive. Right off the bat you got push back on that. Tanax is right on the money with his comment.



A computer is an investment for a lot of professionals who use their systems to make money, and a hell of a lot more money then they spend on their computer, its called an ROI and the better your system the faster, better and more work you can do the better your ROI. And unlike a mac pro which you can continue to upgrade, you are stuck with what you get with an iMac so you had better think long and hard about your GPU and CPU choices. If you get an internal SSD you can get a fast and large TB extenal raid as your work drive. If you get a crappy GPU now you're stuck with a crappy GPU. Do you understand? If someone doesn't need that kind of horsepower then you get the base model 27" iMac i5 3.2 and 755m and if thats the case then thats the best bang for someones buck.

Oh, I see the 775M has now been demoted to "crappy GPU" and the Fusion drive is ****, too. So, the only option for the sake of humanity and the only one that can actually run anything at all is the 780M in combination with the reasonably priced 1TB SSD drive, of course. Ok, sounds reasonable.

Any other insightful advice based on reality you would like to share?

 

[cledet]

I think that depends on the person buying it.
I'm leaning more towards pure-SSD now. Fusion drive increases point of failure, has spinning disk in it which will age much faster than the SSD part, will sound more (albeit questionally noticeable).

You're paying a huge premium for that larger SSD though. Your HDD failing shouldn't be a problem if your iMac is still under AppleCare, correct? If not, you're only paying for a HDD replacement afterwards.

 

[violst]

Oh, I see the 775M has now been demoted to "crappy GPU" and the Fusion drive is ****, too. So, the only option for the sake of humanity and the only one that can actually run anything at all is the 780M in combination with the reasonably priced 1TB SSD drive, of course. Ok, sounds reasonable.

First of all I never said the fusion drive was crappy, I was just responding to some more of your nonsense, and not the only one who disagreed with you.

Seriously though, one thing everyone here can agree on is that Fusion drive is one solid bang for the buck. If there is one must upgrade, Fusion drive is it... and now let's hear it from all the people who think I'm a nut for thinking that and how the SSD is the only viable option.

Second for the most part a mobile GPU is crappy compared to its desktop counterpart, and understanding that is what drives so many people to be excited about the iMac 780m GPU upgrade. When people were speculating about the release of the new iMac most didn't believe that apple would offer the 780m but there were a few who stood by the hope that apple would because it was a long shot. So when apple did most people who understand what there are getting were very, very excited about that option.

The problem is you're the one who doesn't get it, the 780m GPU upgrade for the iMac is impressive, the 775m is what was expected.

You don't understand how to utilize an iMac to squeeze the most out of it and an iMac needs to be squeezed, you try and get the best you can buy: i7 3.5, 780m, SSD for OS and apps and external TB for work files. Now thats an iMac that has some legs. Thats an iMac you can get some pretty hardcore stuff done with. And if you want to unwind and play some hardcore games it can handle that to. If thats not your cup of tea and you don't need that fire power then get the 27" i5 3.2 755m, and save yourself a bundle of money or better yet the 21.5 i5 2.9 with the 750m. it goes on and on.

Like I've said in an earlier post if you are going to step up to the highest end iMac then you should take advantage of the upgrades that apple offers you $200 for the i7 3.5 with turbo boost up to 3.9 and hyper-threading to 8 cores. and $150 for the 4gig 780m are good deals. So bang for the buck you take the good deals. If there were an option to buy that stuff after market it would be much, much more expensive. And hey there's another point with the iMac, you are stuck with what you are stuck with but I don't see you debating that point?

And PS that link that you provided isn't even the correct 775m. It states that the 775m they are testing has 4gig of vram and the imac 775m only has 2gigs. So now test the 775m with 2gig vs the 780m with 4 and see what the results are? yea thanks for the great advice

 

[Tanax]

You're paying a huge premium for that larger SSD though. Your HDD failing shouldn't be a problem if your iMac is still under AppleCare, correct? If not, you're only paying for a HDD replacement afterwards.

The SSD is the same price as the Fusion Drive so I don't see the premium you're referring to?

You're correct, if it's under AppleCare, you'll have to carry your large and rather bulky (it's slimmer but it's still bulky, especially the 27") to an Apple Store to have them replace the HDD. Alternative is that they come home to you and fix it but then you'll have to be free from work/school/whatever in order for them to be able to come in.

If your HDD fails outside of your AppleCare warranty, you'll have to open up your iMac yourself and replace it - which is not preferable.

On top of all that, an SSD feels "new" a LOT longer than a HDD. A HDD gets slower and slower every year and after 2-3 years, it'll give you spinning rainbows just by starting your iMac or even an application. That doesn't happen with an SSD, or at least not nearly as fast as with a HDD.

I don't see any reason at all to go with Fusion Drive really. Media files (photos, music, videos and documents) should go on external HDD - preferably in a HDD Raid storage with something like RAID 1 to make it so that if a HDD fails, your data won't get lost. Library files, like large music libraries (if you're into music production), large photo/video libraries (if you're into photo/video editing) should go on external SSD so that it's easy to back up if an SSD would fail and also make it easy to bring with you out on the field. On top of that, all of this "keeping it external" will make it real easy to upgrade your storage in the future to add more space.

Only keeping your applications, core application data as well as the OS on the internal SSD will severely reduce the amount of space needed on your internal SSD - keeping costs down during purchase of your iMac. All you gotta do after that is upgrade your external storage whenever you need and whenever you have the funds. As a bonus, you won't have to pay Apple Tax on all your storage.

 

[n-evo]

[...] 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.

That's exactly it. I made a decision based on my past experiences and felt it was the right one. I don't regret for a second I paid €99 extra for the GeForce GTX 780M. That said, I'm definitely not going to drag myself in a never ending debate about it. If others feel they have enough getting the base/lesser option for the years to come, then be my guest. It's their money and their iMac, it doesn't affect me at all.

 

[MikeChicago]

And PS that link that you provided isn't even the correct 775m. It states that the 775m they are testing has 4gig of vram and the imac 775m only has 2gigs. So now test the 775m with 2gig vs the 780m with 4 and see what the results are? yea thanks for the great advice

You still don't understand the premise of this tread and I give up on trying to explain it to you.

As for the RAM on the GPU, it has no impact on the graphic cards processing performance. A GPU with 2GB will perform the same as GPU with 4GB as far as its computing power is concerned. VRAM has an impact on the amount of data that can be stored on board for the GPU to process, so the only time when there would be any degradation in performance is when the application loads a lot of textures or when you run multiple monitors. It has been shown in many tests and benchmarks that 2GB is more than sufficient in vast majority of applications, even at the higher 1440p resolution.

Check out this link as it talks about the difference between 2GB and 4GB configuration on last year's GTX 680.

http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Video-Card-Performance-2GB-vs-4GB-Memory-154/

Before you go off about future proofing and how certain games, like X-Plane 10, benefits from larger VRAM, please realize that the point being made here is that the article cited originally is valid, contrary to your suggestion, because VRAM does not have an impact on the GPU's ability to crunch numbers and process information, which is what is tested in that comparison. So, it is the right 775M. It's not the information I provided that gets in the way. It's your lack of understanding.

I give you **** because it bugs me when know it all people have an attitude instead of taking the time to understand what is being talked about. So, go ahead. Call me stupid, but bigger and more isn't automatically better or necessary.

 

[Bear]

...

I give you **** because it bugs me when know it all people have an attitude instead of taking the time to understand what is being talked about. So, go ahead. Call me stupid, but bigger and more isn't automatically better or necessary.

I understand that the 780M is not needed by a lot of people who may have bought it for whatever reason. However, it still feels like you're trying to justify you own 775M purchase instead of a 780M.

 

[MikeChicago]

I understand that the 780M is not needed by a lot of people who may have bought it for whatever reason. However, it still feels like you're trying to justify you own 775M purchase instead of a 780M.

The original posting clearly shows that this was a very informed decision for me, so I'm not sure what gave you that impression. I am very happy with the 775M and have no regrets for buying this configuration whatsoever.

 

[Bear]

The original posting clearly shows that this was a very informed decision for me, so I'm not sure what gave you that impression. I am very happy with the 775M and have no regrets for buying this configuration whatsoever.

The impression was formed by what you said in this thread and how you responded to some people. And as I recall others have had the same impression.

 

[violst]

You still don't understand the premise of this tread and I give up on trying to explain it to you.

You are dense. My point is the whole premise of this thread is based off of misinformation. There is a value difference between the 2 gig version of the 775m and the 4 gig correct? even if you don't think there is a performance difference which you are wrong about, again. With that being said the value of the 775m in the iMac is diminished because it has 2 gigs of vram and not 4. Also you said the power of the GPU is more important the the vram which then makes the 780m the better gpu just based on performance but then you add in 2 more gigs of vram and you have a solid mobile GPU. So now the 780m becomes the better bang for the buck hands down.

Now on to your link, which shows a comparison of the GTX 680 which is one of the most powerful desktops GPU's you can get for gaming, So yes maybe in a GPU with that much horsepower you won't see that much of a difference in certain games but once you punch up all the setting and add more monitors you see the vram difference. But in a mobile GPU with much, much less power you will feel the difference in vram size much faster. That was just a test of games but with the advent of 4k monitors and video editing and retina displays the more vram you have the better you will be when these new technologies become the norm. And lets not get into professional work for apps like Premiere, AE, final cut, avid, all 3d programs and so on which will push any GPU to its limits.

just give it up its clearly a losing battle for you.

 

[MikeChicago]

You are dense. My point is the whole premise of this thread is based off of misinformation. There is a value difference between the 2 gig version of the 775m and the 4 gig correct? even if you don't think there is a performance difference which you are wrong about, again. With that being said the value of the 775m in the iMac is diminished because it has 2 gigs of vram and not 4. Also you said the power of the GPU is more important the the vram which then makes the 780m the better gpu just based on performance but then you add in 2 more gigs of vram and you have a solid mobile GPU. So now the 780m becomes the better bang for the buck hands down.

Now on to your link, which shows a comparison of the GTX 680 which is one of the most powerful desktops GPU's you can get for gaming, So yes maybe in a GPU with that much horsepower you won't see that much of a difference in certain games but once you punch up all the setting and add more monitors you see the vram difference. But in a mobile GPU with much, much less power you will feel the difference in vram size much faster. That was just a test of games but with the advent of 4k monitors and video editing and retina displays the more vram you have the better you will be when these new technologies become the norm. And lets not get into professional work for apps like Premiere, AE, final cut, avid, all 3d programs and so on which will push any GPU to its limits.

just give it up its clearly a losing battle for you.

I didn't realize there was a battle to win here. You are a complete idiot and offer very little that is based in reality. The website I cited originally had nothing to do with value and everything to do with performance, which you are trying to twist around.

The iMac doesn't have a Retina Display. Yes, you can add on but how many people do? And don't just say many... find out, get back to me. Maybe you'll have a point there.

So, if am so wrong about the impact of VRAM on GPU then why don't you explain why I'm wrong. And this whole thing you wrote about Mobile GPU taking more advantage of VRAM is nonsense. Find one independent article, test, benchmark, anything to support your claim. Then, I'll certainly consider it.

And you know, I say we get into professional applications. Here are the requirements for couple of the Apps you listed:

Mac OS

Adobe Premier Pro:

• Multicore Intel processor with 64-bit support
• Mac OS X v10.7, v10.8, or v10.9
• 4GB of RAM (8GB recommended)
• 4GB of available hard-disk space for installation; additional free space required during installation (cannot install on a volume that uses a case-sensitive file system or on removable flash storage devices)
• Additional disk space required for preview files and other working files (10GB recommended)
• 1280x800 display
• 7200 RPM hard drive (multiple fast disk drives, preferably RAID 0 configured, recommended)
• QuickTime 7.6.6 software required for QuickTime features
• Optional: Adobe-certified GPU card from list below with at least 1GB VRAM for GPU accelerated-performance
• Internet connection and registration are necessary for required software activation, membership validation, and access to online services.*

Final Cut Pro:

• Mac computer with an Intel Core 2 Duo processor or better.
• 2GB of RAM (4GB of RAM recommended).
• OpenCL-capable graphics card or
• Intel HD Graphics 3000 or later.
• 256MB of VRAM (512MB of VRAM recommended).
• Display with 1280-by-768 resolution or higher.
• OS X v10.6.8 or OS X v10.7.5 or OS X v10.8.3 or later.
• 2.4GB of disk space.

So, please stop implying that the only way people can run these types of applications well is by getting a card with 4GB or VRAM (two months ago this wasn't even an option on the iMac!). You sound like a Tea-Bagger and offer no facts to support the things you say.

And when technology advances to the point where the 775M is unusable, you just go ahead and upgrade. Because the 780M will not be that much behind it (24% better isn't a world of difference).

 

[violst]

Oh my god I don't even know where to start with this utter nonsense??

Lets start with the fact that the only thing that you proved is you are good at calling people names and being insulting but not good at proving your point.

Until then, take you d**** measuring contest somewhere else.

You follow in the same dump thoughtless way of reasoning that bigger is just better

For folks like you it will always be a d*** measuring contest

You are a complete idiot

So, please stop implying that the only way people can run these types of applications well is by getting a card with 4GB or VRAM

I never implied that. Here is exeactly what I said

Like I've said in an earlier post if you are going to step up to the highest end iMac then you should take advantage of the upgrades that apple offers you $200 for the i7 3.5 with turbo boost up to 3.9 and hyper-threading to 8 cores. and $150 for the 4gig 780m are good deals. So bang for the buck you take the good deals. If there were an option to buy that stuff after market it would be much, much more expensive.

If thats not your cup of tea and you don't need that fire power then get the 27" i5 3.2 755m, and save yourself a bundle of money or better yet the 21.5 i5 2.9 with the 750m. it goes on and on.

Now lets move on to the biggest streach of the day.

And you know, I say we get into professional applications. Here are the requirements for couple of the Apps you listed:

So what you are saying is based off of the minimum requirments for these apps we should buy a system to just meet those minimum requirments? Sounds like a good idea to me

Maybe some one should tell HP, Dell, Boxx and Apple just to name a few that MikeChicago said a xeon based workstation with dual workstation GPUs crossfired or SLI-ed on the PC for massive GPU performance that it is all over kill and minimum requirments will get the job done.

Maybe we should tell Nvidia not to make the Tesla K10 with 8 gigs of vram or the Quadro 6000 with 6 gigs or lets get crazy the k6000 with 12 gigs.

These workstations and these GPUs are make for the apps I listed.

So lets get back to the point at hand it was and still is the same thing "if you are going to step up to the highest end iMac then you should take advantage of the upgrades that apple offers you $200 for the i7 3.5 with turbo boost up to 3.9 and hyper-threading to 8 cores. and $150 for the 4gig 780m are good deals.

If thats not your cup of tea and you don't need that fire power then get the 27" i5 3.2 755m, and save yourself a bundle of money or better yet the 21.5 i5 2.9 with the 750m. it goes on and on."

Its that simple

 

[propower]

Seriously though, one thing everyone here can agree on is that Fusion drive is one solid bang for the buck. If there is one must upgrade, Fusion drive is it... and now let's hear it from all the people who think I'm a nut for thinking that and how the SSD is the only viable option.

For me Fusion is only for people who have no external storage options - NAS etc..

SSD all the way... I got the 256 (total programs and OS usually ~100G - rest is super fast scratch space for light video or audio editing). NAS and off machine storage space for me is 4+TB....

 

[violst]

Seriously though, one thing everyone here can agree on is that Fusion drive is one solid bang for the buck. If there is one must upgrade, Fusion drive is it... and now let's hear it from all the people who think I'm a nut for thinking that and how the SSD is the only viable option.

This can't be right MikeChicago now three people disagree with you on your fusion drive proclamation. I guess "everyone here can't agree on it"

I think that depends on the person buying it.
I'm leaning more towards pure-SSD now. Fusion drive increases point of failure, has spinning disk in it which will age much faster than the SSD part, will sound more (albeit questionally noticeable).

For me Fusion is only for people who have no external storage options - NAS etc..

SSD all the way... I got the 256 (total programs and OS usually ~100G - rest is super fast scratch space for light video or audio editing). NAS and off machine storage space for me is 4+TB....

If you get an internal SSD you can get a fast and large TB extenal raid as your work drive.

or maybe we are...

a complete idiot