Show some 675MX love!

Discussion in 'iMac' started by flavr, Jun 11, 2013.

  1. flavr macrumors 6502

    flavr

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2011
    #1
    anybody else get the 675mx or just me...? its all about the 680mx on here but the 675mx in the iMac is a custom card thats a rebranded 680m, cuda core count is identical and higher than the non iMac 675mx...so the 680mx offers a 17% performance increase. not bad but not that much, especially as both these cards age and the performance gap between them and new cards widened but a large margin

    this is not to hate on the680mx but to give the 675mx a little discussion time...so lets hear some 675mx love!
     
  2. MeatRocket macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2013
    Location:
    In the Sandbox
    #2
    Not exactly sure where you got your numbers, but the benchmarks aggregation site below shows a big difference between the two. Personally, since it's SOLDERED to the motherboard and you're never going to be able to upgrade it, I'd spend the extra $$ if I had it.

    http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html
     
  3. flavr, Jun 11, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2013

    flavr thread starter macrumors 6502

    flavr

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2011
    #3
    Those are benchmarks for the PC 657mx...Like I said the iMac 675mx is custom for Apple, its a 680m

    here is iMac 675mx specs

    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1568279

    on contrast the specs you pointed us to are for the 675mx for PC shown here. this is NOT the 675mx in our iMacs. just compare cuda cores...

    http://www.geforce.com/hardware/notebook-gpus/geforce-gtx-675mx/specifications

    here is 680m

    http://www.geforce.com/hardware/notebook-gpus/geforce-gtx-680m/specifications

    675mx PC: 960 cuda
    675mx iMac: 1344 cuda
    680m PC: 1344 cuda
    680mx iMac/PC: 1536 cuda
     
  4. smiddlehurst macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    #4
    And of course the 680mx also comes with 2Gb of VRAM which is the real difference between the two. Frankly if you're serious about gaming on an iMac and aren't planning on changing it for the next few years I'd go for the 680MX. As good as the 675 is you're already going to find yourself hitting that limit today even at 1080p, as the next gen of consoles pushes graphics quality on it could become a real problem if you want decent results.
     
  5. MeatRocket macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2013
    Location:
    In the Sandbox
    #5
    Hmm...I'm giong to take your assessment as accurate, seems pretty legit. Still, if you look at the benchmarks comparing the 680MX to the 680M, it's still 19% faster. At such high resolutions, that extra 1GB VRAM has got to make a difference.
     
  6. Beaverman3001 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    #6
    People don't talk about it because if you are spending that much already it would be dumb to not get the 680mx.
     
  7. Outrigger macrumors 68000

    Outrigger

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    #7
    what discussion about the 675mx are you specifically looking for? its all about the 680 due to gamers shelling out the dough for its performance over the 675. it sounds like you're trying to make yourself feel better about your purchase by downplaying the 680 and up the 675. Personally, I could care less about the cuda cores and the Ghz and the Mhz. As long as the games perform the way it was promised, thats all I care. I went for the 680 for that reason.
     
  8. flavr thread starter macrumors 6502

    flavr

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2011
    #8
    You are right...you got me. I feel terrible about my iMac and myself...Im going to just leave now :(
     

Share This Page