What is the desktop equivalent of the iMacs 750m

MartinAppleGuy

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Sep 27, 2013
2,243
888
What is the desktop equivalent to the GT 750m w/ 1GB of GDDR5 VRAM? Almost every comparison site uses the GDDR3 version so I'm finding it had to tell.

And could you answer with the Nvidia desktop GPU. I read that the GDDR5 750m is almost on par with a 670m, but what about a desktop GPU?
 

flopticalcube

macrumors G4

yjchua95

macrumors 604
Apr 23, 2011
6,725
230
GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
What is the desktop equivalent to the GT 750m w/ 1GB of GDDR5 VRAM? Almost every comparison site uses the GDDR3 version so I'm finding it had to tell.

And could you answer with the Nvidia desktop GPU. I read that the GDDR5 750m is almost on par with a 670m, but what about a desktop GPU?
It's better than a GTX660M and slightly below the GT755M.

Both are available in GDDR5 flavors only.

I normally use the 755M's results and reduce the figures by around 5%
 

MartinAppleGuy

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Sep 27, 2013
2,243
888
I doubt that.

The R7 250 is a low-end GDDR5 desktop card, bringing it on par with mid-range notebook GPUs like the GT 755M.

Look up Notebookcheck's statement on the R7 250.
I only said what I said above because I am amazed at how well the 750m holds up. It's no 780m, but playing X-Plane 10 at 1080p with 4X AA, 4X AF, textures at very high or extreme, every box checked apart from HDR, I achieve a low of 45fps and a high of around 90fps (not including those moments where you are up in the sky at cruising alt. and you get over 150fps).
 

mikeo007

macrumors 65816
Mar 18, 2010
1,371
121
According to this chart, about the same neighbourhood as the GTS 450. I didn't realize that mobile cards were this weak; I always assumed they were similar in performance to their desktop namesakes. In reality, they're more comparable to a mid-range desktop card from ~4 years ago.
 

MartinAppleGuy

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Sep 27, 2013
2,243
888
According to this chart, about the same neighbourhood as the GTS 450. I didn't realize that mobile cards were this weak; I always assumed they were similar in performance to their desktop namesakes. In reality, they're more comparable to a mid-range desktop card from ~4 years ago.
That is for the DDR3 version. The GDDR5 version in all Macs is much faster. As someone above said, it is better to use the 755m for reference as they are really identical and the 755m only comes in GDDR5.
 

flopticalcube

macrumors G4
According to this chart, about the same neighbourhood as the GTS 450. I didn't realize that mobile cards were this weak; I always assumed they were similar in performance to their desktop namesakes. In reality, they're more comparable to a mid-range desktop card from ~4 years ago.
They are all based off desktop chips these days with the voltage lowered and the clocks dropped. A 770M, for example, is the same chip used in the 660 desktop (GK106/960 cores) just lower speed. Mobile variants compensate in a small way by usually having more VRAM.
 

mikeo007

macrumors 65816
Mar 18, 2010
1,371
121
That is for the DDR3 version. The GDDR5 version in all Macs is much faster. As someone above said, it is better to use the 755m for reference as they are really identical and the 755m only comes in GDDR5.
Fair enough, but still not much better. The 755 is right in line with the 5770 which I currently have in my 4 year old "gaming" PC. Still disappointingly weak (for me anyway) considering that I thought these gpus performed closer to their desktop counterparts.
 
Last edited:

MartinAppleGuy

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Sep 27, 2013
2,243
888
Fair enough, but still not much better. The 755 is right in line with the 5770 which I currently have in my 4 year old "gaming" PC. Still disappointingly weak (for me anyway) considering that I thought these gpus performed closer to their desktop counterparts.
Well could you try the X-Plane demo and see if it gets the same fps. I will give you the settings.
 

MartinAppleGuy

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Sep 27, 2013
2,243
888
Sure, what settings should I use?
Very high texture detail, 1080p, 4X AA, 4X AF, traffic set to Chicago , shadows set to overlay, all boxes ticked apart from show dear and birds on nice days and HDR. Set trees to lots and set building to lots. I get around 45fps when sitting in the 3D cockpit of the 747 at Seattle International Airport during the day with clouds set to 50%.
 
Nov 28, 2010
22,668
27
located
I am currently downloading the latest X-Plane demo and am wondering why the installer makes the Menu Bar disappear. Does anyone know?


I just wanted to try it and give some test results for the GTX 670 I have in my Hackintosh.
 

MartinAppleGuy

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Sep 27, 2013
2,243
888
I am currently downloading the latest X-Plane demo and am wondering why the installer makes the Menu Bar disappear. Does anyone know?


I just wanted to try it and give some test results for the GTX 670 I have in my Hackintosh.
Thats normal, if you go to the settings and tick the box next to resolution when it is installed, it will run full screen.
 
Nov 28, 2010
22,668
27
located
These are my results:

Settings

CPU and GPU usage

Two Screenshots, first standard airport probably, second chosen upon restart of the application

 

MartinAppleGuy

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Sep 27, 2013
2,243
888
These are my results:

Settings

CPU and GPU usage

Two Screenshots, first standard airport probably, second chosen upon restart of the application

Right, so you are getting slightly lower FPS than my 750m (you are using the 2.5d cockpit though). Try the same config in a 747 (found in the mega planes folder I believe) then hover your mouse to get the top bar up during gameplay, and click view, then 3D cockpit. Then go to display and set the Lateral Field of View to around 0.850. Tell me what you get then. I get 45 when sitting on the runway in these settings.

Is this a driver issue for the GTX 670 in OS X? What is your CPU/RAM config?
 
Last edited: