Ok, there are conflicting reports that the actual CUDA cores in the iMac version of the 675mx are closer to the 680m, and that the 675mx used in the iMac is a rebaged 680m...which brings it much closer to the 680mx in terms of performance. can ANYBODY confirm? It would require using windows under bootcamp with a card specs app. Im more interested in someone who has a more recent iMac with 675mx (Feb-March+ build), please post a screenshot for us, thanks!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Show us your CUDA cores in 675mx in iMac
- Thread starter flavr
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Confirmed, 1344 cores
I add a memory screenshot, it has 2500MHz clocks and not only 1800MHz as nVidia says.
In addition
geforce 680m
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/notebook-gpus/geforce-gtx-680m/specifications
same clock speed and cores
Last edited:
Here's a couple of shots of the GTX 680MX to compare with that 675...
![680cude.png]()
![cuda680mem.png]()
(mine is a march 2013 build)
(mine is a march 2013 build)
Last edited:
For $150 extra, what can you really get by Apple standard? I knew it's not going to be that huge of a difference.
It only doubles the VRAM, and a mere extra 150 (1536 instead 1386) CUDA cores (which might even be activated by a simple tweak).
I remember back then lots of people raging over 680MX for being 50% more performance over 675MX for extra $150 ..
Fact is? Meh, 680MX is not that much better than 675MX.
The same company that would sell you a USB wall charger for $30 won't give you a lot for $150. Who are you kidding?
It only doubles the VRAM, and a mere extra 150 (1536 instead 1386) CUDA cores (which might even be activated by a simple tweak).
I remember back then lots of people raging over 680MX for being 50% more performance over 675MX for extra $150 ..
Fact is? Meh, 680MX is not that much better than 675MX.
The same company that would sell you a USB wall charger for $30 won't give you a lot for $150. Who are you kidding?
Confirmed, 1344 cores
![6tukGMz.png]()
I add a memory screenshot, it has 2500MHz clocks and not only 1800MHz as nVidia says.
![ncUgvJg.png]()
In addition
geforce 680m
http://www.geforce.com/hardware/notebook-gpus/geforce-gtx-680m/specifications
same clock speed and cores
Mine is the same! April Build date
Yeah its really more about the VRAM which at 2560x1440 and gaming or other tasks can make a difference.
It is a stretch to fit that much stuff into 1024 Vram at that resolution and even 2gigs can be pushing it close in some games like Skyrim on Ultra or Max Payne.
The 675mx in the iMac should prove to be a monster overclocker though
It is a stretch to fit that much stuff into 1024 Vram at that resolution and even 2gigs can be pushing it close in some games like Skyrim on Ultra or Max Payne.
The 675mx in the iMac should prove to be a monster overclocker though
the 675mx is at least twice as good as the 660m! the 660m only has 384 cores and 128bit bus.
WOW the 375mx has 1000 CUDA CORES more than the 660m but only 200 less than the 680MX!!
... its a lower clock speed and has half the vram than the 660m. I'm guessing though, that the 675mx has better performance lol.
That's not true, they're all the same, some can over clock 2-5% higher than other production runs - just like processors but the specification is the same. It comes down to people with a 675MX wanting their cards to be 680MX's but without the naming. Fact is they will never be as powerful and are twice as poor in one very important area. They're nice cards but this is partial buyers remorse and partial 'mine is bigger' syndrome.
How did you guess?
Well, there's nothing to discuss here - for such a decent GPU and 1440p display 2GB of vRAM is a MUST.
p.s. I wish Apple offered 2GB 675MX base and 4GB 680MX bto. Would definitely pick the first option if looked for 27incher.
How did you guess?
Well, there's nothing to discuss here - for such a decent GPU and 1440p display 2GB of vRAM is a MUST.
p.s. I wish Apple offered 2GB 675MX base and 4GB 680MX bto. Would definitely pick the first option if looked for 27incher.
On 1440p Id say 512MB VRAM is too little, 1GB is a MUST and 2GB is gravy...
I would speculate this will def be the last time 512MB VRAM is offered on a 27 inch iMac...1GB will be the minimum next refresh...
Most of today's games require about 1GB vRAM and more for 1080p already. For 1440p 2GB is a must, no "if"s are suitable here.
the answer is the first quoted sentense, dude. modern games require more than 1gb of vRAM for 1080p, not to mention 1440p.