Show us your CUDA cores in 675mx in iMac

Discussion in 'iMac' started by flavr, Apr 9, 2013.

  1. flavr macrumors 6502

    flavr

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2011
    #1
    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!
     
  2. ssdaytona macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    #2
    Mine is a march build and it has the higher cores, 1344 I believe.

    You don't need windows to run the program. There's a program that works on osx. You do have to install the cuda drivers though.
     
  3. zuri, Apr 9, 2013
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2013

    zuri macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2013
    #3

    Confirmed, 1344 cores

    [​IMG]

    I add a memory screenshot, it has 2500MHz clocks and not only 1800MHz as nVidia says.

    [​IMG]

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

    same clock speed and cores
     
  4. iF34R, Apr 9, 2013
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2013

    iF34R macrumors 6502a

    iF34R

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Location:
    South Carolina
    #4
    Here's a couple of shots of the GTX 680MX to compare with that 675...

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    (mine is a march 2013 build)
     
  5. Reverendrun macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    #5
    Only difference I'm seeing is the cuda cores and memory amount.

    Is that correct?
     
  6. iF34R macrumors 6502a

    iF34R

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Location:
    South Carolina
    #6
    Solely based on these shots, yep.
     
  7. iSayuSay macrumors 68030

    iSayuSay

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2011
    #7
    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?
     
  8. flavr thread starter macrumors 6502

    flavr

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2011
    #8
    This is great news! Our 675mx cards are much more powerful than advertised and much closer in performance to the 680mx than previously thought!
     
  9. dan5.5 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    #9
  10. Quazimojo macrumors regular

    Quazimojo

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Location:
    Auburn Hills,Mi
    #10
    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 :)
     
  11. antoniopll macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Location:
    Madrid (Spain)
    #11
    Anyone can upload screenshots of 660M? It is really much better 675MX?
     
  12. ninja2000 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    #12
    the 675mx is at least twice as good as the 660m! the 660m only has 384 cores and 128bit bus.
     
  13. iF34R macrumors 6502a

    iF34R

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Location:
    South Carolina
    #13
    Here is the info from my Asus G75vw:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  14. flavr thread starter macrumors 6502

    flavr

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2011
    #14
    WOW the 375mx has 1000 CUDA CORES more than the 660m but only 200 less than the 680MX!!
     
  15. iF34R macrumors 6502a

    iF34R

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Location:
    South Carolina
    #15
    ... its a lower clock speed and has half the vram than the 660m. I'm guessing though, that the 675mx has better performance lol.
     
  16. flavr thread starter macrumors 6502

    flavr

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2011
    #16
    The 660m in the iMac has 512mb the 675mx has 1GB
     
  17. iF34R macrumors 6502a

    iF34R

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Location:
    South Carolina
    #17
    OUCH. I was still on the PC config lol.
     
  18. Wreckie macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    #18
    You guys are talking about your iMac production time, so early 675MX-s are not as powerful as the later ones?
     
  19. All Taken macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    #19
    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.
     
  20. Wreckie macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    #20
    One very important area is VRAM?
     
  21. kaellar macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    #21
    How did you guess?:eek:
    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.
     
  22. flavr thread starter macrumors 6502

    flavr

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2011
    #22
    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...
     
  23. kaellar macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    #23
    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.
     
  24. Arfdog macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2013
    #24
    Just wondering, since I have a 680MX, but why is 2GB a must for 1440p?
     
  25. kaellar macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    #25
    the answer is the first quoted sentense, dude. modern games require more than 1gb of vRAM for 1080p, not to mention 1440p.
     

Share This Page