Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Nvidia GTX 680m available

boto said:
Looks like the new GTX 680m got benchmarked and is a bit below in performance compared to the AMD 7970m :confused:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-680M.72679.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Computer-Games-on-Laptop-Graphic-Cards.13849.0.html

Although the framerates are below what is expected, I believe it's due to the over-clocking feature disabled. Nvidia mentioned somewhere in their new 680m features that it carries a 15% increase in performance whenever heavy duty gaming was needed. Otherwise, I hope the drivers won't disappoint.
Click to expand...

The GeForce is 7% faster than the Radeon, according to your first link? Maybe you're confusing the Crossfire version of the Radeon with the regular one?
 
Also remember to always look at the highest possible resolution in the benches. Its 1920 and above when the real differences kick in.
 
Also, consider who has the more mature drivers....right now I think nvidia is the definite leader.

Now that I've actually compared the performance on the "m" cards, the cards seem to be almost equal or equal enough to accept either card.

It really boils down to driver maturity, but not to the point where I would pay a couple hundred more for the 680. Having said that, if it's a choice between the 670 and the 680....I'm going to pony up for the 680 (as I mentioned earlier).

If it's the 7970 with an option for the 680....I'll take the 7970 if the 680 is a couple hundred dollars higher.
 
boto said:
Looks like the new GTX 680m got benchmarked and is a bit below in performance compared to the AMD 7970m :confused:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-680M.72679.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Computer-Games-on-Laptop-Graphic-Cards.13849.0.html

Although the framerates are below what is expected, I believe it's due to the over-clocking feature disabled. Nvidia mentioned somewhere in their new 680m features that it carries a 15% increase in performance whenever heavy duty gaming was needed. Otherwise, I hope the drivers won't disappoint.
Click to expand...

There's been a few conflicting reports. General consensus is that they're both really good cards, and the Nvidia is a tiny bit better.
 
bogatyr said:
The higher end GPU iMac has a $400 premium in the price. Also the 2GB model has another $100 premium making the total extra $500. I wouldn't expect a price hike as it is already built into the current pricing.
Click to expand...

Yep. The high end model has flexibility in the price point to allow for some components costing more while others may cost less .... the price can stay the same so you may overpay/underpay as a matter of course, but the price point can remain steady.
 
Icy1007 said:
No, it would not be worth it simply because it is an AMD card. Apple needs to drop AMD cards from all of their products. NVidia is so much better.
Click to expand...

yep but Apple looks are pricing rather than performance :p
 
turtlez said:
yep but Apple looks are pricing rather than performance :p
Click to expand...

I see Apple transitioning to NVidia for all their desecrate GPU needs. They already put the GT 650M in the MBP. The next iMac update will likely have the GT 650M in the 21" and at least the 675M in the higher-end 27". Hopefully though they put the 680M in it.
 
If apple go with Nvidia, which seems very likely, 680M will most likely be possible as a BTO option....and I will definitely buy that :)
 
Icy1007 said:
I see Apple transitioning to NVidia for all their desecrate GPU needs. They already put the GT 650M in the MBP. The next iMac update will likely have the GT 650M in the 21" and at least the 675M in the higher-end 27". Hopefully though they put the 680M in it.
Click to expand...

yes i wish for the 680m as well
 
theSeb said:
Isn't the base 27" $1699?
Click to expand...

Yeah, my mistake. So the price premium on the base high end GPU is $300 and on the fully loaded high end GPU is $400. Though there is a processor bump too in the $300 that I noticed later on - I don't really look at CPUs since my ULV MBA CPU is never taxed - just the GPU.
 
bogatyr said:
Yeah, my mistake. So the price premium on the base high end GPU is $300 and on the fully loaded high end GPU is $400. Though there is a processor bump too in the $300 that I noticed later on - I don't really look at CPUs since my ULV MBA CPU is never taxed - just the GPU.
Click to expand...

Nah, the CPU "bump" is not actually a bump. They are priced at pretty much the same level. Frankly, one has to wonder why Apple chose the 3.1 in the "upper" 27" model since it's not actually better than the 2.7 in the base. The 3.4 is a beast though.
 
German review: 680M vs 7970M - very detailed review and lotsa benchmarks:
http://www.notebookcheck.com/Test-GeForce-GTX-680M-vs-Radeon-HD-7970M.77072.0.html

Battlefield 3: 1920x1080 ultra AA:4x MS AF:16x
GTX 680M (Schenker XMG P702)
33.8 fps ∼50%
HD 7970M (Schenker XMG P702)
37.9 fps ∼56% +12%
HD 7970M (Alienware M17x R4)
34.7 fps ∼51% +3%
GTX 675M (Schenker XMG P702)
24.2 fps ∼36% -28%
HD 6990M (Schenker XMG P501)
21.9 fps ∼32% -35%
 
Last edited:
Arni99 said:
German review: 680M vs 7970M - very detailed review and lotsa benchmarks:
http://www.notebookcheck.com/Test-GeForce-GTX-680M-vs-Radeon-HD-7970M.77072.0.html

Battlefield 3: 1920x1080 ultra AA:4x MS AF:16x
GTX 680M (Schenker XMG P702)
33.8 fps ∼50%
HD 7970M (Schenker XMG P702)
37.9 fps ∼56% +12%
HD 7970M (Alienware M17x R4)
34.7 fps ∼51% +3%
GTX 675M (Schenker XMG P702)
24.2 fps ∼36% -28%
HD 6990M (Schenker XMG P501)
21.9 fps ∼32% -35%
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting that. After plowing through Google Translate, the main takeaway seems to be that the 680M driver needs some help. Ah, Nvidia.
 
I want the crossfire in the new IMac. It's about time they set the bar even higher. I don't care if it makes the thing an energy hog or even thicker. Make the new iMac with a real video card, not the crap mobile ones tht they've been putting in there for years. Come on Johnny Ive, earn that 60,000,000.00 theyre paying you.
 
Treebs said:
I want the crossfire in the new IMac. It's about time they set the bar even higher. I don't care if it makes the thing an energy hog or even thicker. Make the new iMac with a real video card, not the crap mobile ones tht they've been putting in there for years. Come on Johnny Ive, earn that 60,000,000.00 theyre paying you.
Click to expand...

Certainly possible, but that'd add either LOADS more money for an even better/bigger/extensive heat sink, or fans, which would add quite alot of noise (relatively speaking).
 
Treebs said:
I want the crossfire in the new IMac. It's about time they set the bar even higher. I don't care if it makes the thing an energy hog or even thicker. Make the new iMac with a real video card, not the crap mobile ones tht they've been putting in there for years. Come on Johnny Ive, earn that 60,000,000.00 theyre paying you.
Click to expand...

You can't change the laws of physics, Jim.

Anyway, both 7970M and 680M are more than enough for moderately serious gaming for years to come.
 
turtlez said:
yep but Apple looks are pricing rather than performance :p
Click to expand...

Since when?
- Phones made out of glass
- High density IPS displays
- quad-core imagination technologies PowerVR GPUs for A5X
- intel xeon in mac pros

the list goes on.

----------
Mister Bumbo said:
Certainly possible, but that'd add either LOADS more money for an even better/bigger/extensive heat sink, or fans, which would add quite alot of noise (relatively speaking).
Click to expand...

They are setting high margins. Crossfire AMD cards would just minimize their margins.
 
You sure it's the 680m?

Hey all,

I know the 680m is the top spec mobile nVidia card and SHOULD be iMac bound (either that or the 7970m from AMD), but why are you all so convinced that it will be the 680m and not the 675m? I was just looking here and am thinking that this (the 675m) will be the top STANDARD card instead for the 27". Now according to this site it was originally released in March, which may beg the question, why would it not have been released if it's been available for the past 3-4 months? The answer, I believe, is that the 680m is still going to be made available but only as a pricey BTO option instead and is holding everything up.

To further substantiate this claim, let's look at some of the important facts here. To do this, we'll have to compare to the current top end GPU (the AMD 6970m) and see what advancements will be made.

TDP: Same. 100 watts both (although 6970 claims 75-100 range)
Tech: Same. Both 40nm.
Memory: Same. GDDR5 with 2GB maximum.
Memory Bus: Same. 256 bit.

So why would apple put in a card that is nearly identical (from a broader perspective) to the one already being used? I think to further differentiate this card from the previous, we'll see them use the 2GB version of the 675m instead. This will help offset the small performance gains while still having something to "tout". For Example: "Introducing the all new iMac, with TWICE the graphics memory of the previous generation for all your textures." Sounds EXACTLY like apple to me. Small performance gain, exaggerated marketing jargin, a few fringe benefits (read: CUDA). Plus, this way they can still pass on the astronomical expense of a 680m to the consumer via BTO prices and maintain a high profit margin.

Combine all of this with the fact that the new MBPs are switching from AMD to nVidia and I think we have our answer. Either all that, or they'll just stick in a 7970m. But if they do that, what will be the BTO? 1GB as standard and 2GB BTO? In any event, it's going to be small changes this year... big ones come next year with a redesign.

Give me your thoughts please, I'm very interested to see what you all think. Hellhammer, any thoughts my friend? You've been quiet lately!

Regards,
Luvin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back