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

What is the EXACT graphic cards used in the new imac?

The exact GPUs in the new iMacs are in my chart below. All of the info can be found on Nvidia's product pages and other sources such as notebookcheck.net

2012iMaccomparison.png


Please note that the MX versions are the faster versions of the M mobile GPUs. The 680MX in particular is brand new and only appeared on the Nvidia website this morning. It definitely was not there yesterday.
 
prism said:
Yeah sure, it will be beastly when it comes out, but so will the price tag. In this day and age, spending somewhere in the region of 2.5 grands for a computer no matter how stellar it may be is ludicrous! The lower end models have relatively decent GPUs but Apple decided to cripple them with anaemic VRAMs!
Click to expand...

It's sounds expensive but if you break down the components, the apple premium really isnt that much, it's one of the better value products at apple.

A PC with this kind of hardware running windows 7 is around $1100, a dell ultrasharp 27" is $800, add on kb/mouse/wireless etc.. $100. You are looking at $2000. So the imac is only $500 more expensive, but for that you get the much nicer design, monitor, osx etc...

I think it's a justifiable premium, unlike their mac pro desktops which is a joke both hardware + price.

----------
theSeb said:
The exact GPUs in the new iMacs are in my chart below. All of the info can be found on Nvidia's product pages and other sources such as notebookcheck.net

Image

Please note that the MX versions are the faster versions of the M mobile GPUs. The 680MX in particular is brand new and only appeared on the Nvidia website this morning. It definitely was not there yesterday.
Click to expand...

Very good info thanks. The difference between the 675mx and 680mx appears to be VERY significant, i hope the price for the upgrade wont be though.

I bet a lot of buyers will not be aware how much better the 680mx is over 675mx given the similarly named model names.

ps i hope you dont mind but i edited my original post with this chart so people looking for this info dont have to scroll through the pages to find it.
 
gagaliya said:
It's sounds expensive but if you break down the components, the apple premium really isnt that much, it's one of the better value products at apple.

A PC with this kind of hardware running windows 7 is around $1100, a dell ultrasharp 27" is $800, add on kb/mouse/wireless etc.. $100. You are looking at $2000. So the imac is only $500 more expensive, but for that you get the much nicer design, monitor, osx etc...

I think it's a justifiable premium, unlike their mac pro desktops which is a joke both hardware + price.
Click to expand...

If you broke down the actual Mac Pro components, such as the Xeon CPU back in 2010 when it was released, then it wasn't so much of a joke. It's a workstation with workstation grade hardware and must be compared to other workstations from the likes of Dell and HP. Unfortunately the Mac Pro has not been updated for over 2 years now and the prices are still nearly the same, bar a small reduction this year, whereas the competitors have moved on.

----------
gagaliya said:
Very good info thanks. The difference between the 675mx and 680mx appears to be VERY significant, i hope the price for the upgrade wont be though.

I bet a lot of buyers will not be aware how much better the 680mx is over 675mx given the similarly named model names.
Click to expand...

Other manufacturers are charging quite a premium for the GTX 680M. The GTX 680MX will either cost even more or the GTX 680M will move down in the price range to compete with the AMD 7970M on price and kill it. Either way, I think this will be a pricey upgrade. But if everything works as expected and Apple manages to keep the thermals down, then I'll definitely be looking to buy one of these. The 680 MX looks like a beast and is an under-clocked version of the desktop GTX 680. If you've been following video benchmarks this year, then you'll know how powerful the 680 is.

I hope to see good CUDA support in OS X apps such as FCP X.
 
forty2j said:
Generally speaking, games run at medium settings look good. At Ultra, your jaw drops at the level of detail, but at medium it's still very good and perfect playable. And of course the intensity of the game matters; casual games tend to have one setting, "works on lowest common denominator". You could run 36 copies of Angry Birds simultaneously and not have an issue.



I'm guessing 675MX -> 680MX will be about $200.
Click to expand...

Ahh ok finally all making sense to me, thanks forty2
 
I’m not really a die hard gamer and not familiar with GPU’s. But I like to play Counter strike. Will that be a problem? (also with the 650M or 660M?) Or do I need the top GPU? Or just lower my settings?
 
stijntje113 said:
I’m not really a die hard gamer and not familiar with GPU’s. But I like to play Counter strike. Will that be a problem? (also with the 650M or 660M?) Or do I need the top GPU? Or just lower my settings?
Click to expand...

you can play counterstrike on a $200 netbook, so no it wont be a problem.
 
Egg Frier?

I'm thinking that with this new ultra thin 5mm design, and the i7-3770, and the GTX 680MX that we will be able to fry eggs on the back of this new 27 inch iMac.
 
huggy55 said:
I'm thinking that with this new ultra thin 5mm design, and the i7-3770, and the GTX 680MX that we will be able to fry eggs on the back of this new 27 inch iMac.
Click to expand...

It's just 5mm at the very very edge.

The middle sticks out quite a bit.

I'm still concerned with heat, but the more I see the true profile of the machine, the less I am. Assuming that bowled back-plate is aluminum.
 
huggy55 said:
I'm thinking that with this new ultra thin 5mm design, and the i7-3770, and the GTX 680MX that we will be able to fry eggs on the back of this new 27 inch iMac.
Click to expand...
You need to realise that aluminium carrys heat very well.

The back of the iMac is being used like a very big heatsink. People complain about their imac being hot on the back. But wouldnt u want the aluminium to be warm, instead of the componets inside?

And why would u grab the back of the imac so often?

You guys are allways making this out to be an issue. But you need to realise why aluminium does what it does. And why this is a very good thing for the componets inside.
 
gagaliya said:
It's sounds expensive but if you break down the components, the apple premium really isnt that much, it's one of the better value products at apple.

A PC with this kind of hardware running windows 7 is around $1100, a dell ultrasharp 27" is $800, add on kb/mouse/wireless etc.. $100. You are looking at $2000. So the imac is only $500 more expensive, but for that you get the much nicer design, monitor, osx etc...
Click to expand...

Good point, however the big advantage of having a tower instead of an AIO is that you can configure to better match your needs. I bought a 1080p 24" Samsung LED monitor for $180 which I added to my Dell XPS 8500 with 3.4ghz i7, 12gb RAM, 2tb HD and Radeon 7870 ghz edition GPU with 2gb DDR5 VRAM that cost me $1170. Sure, it doesnt look as slick as the new imacs and I'm running Win7, but my 13" i5 SSD MBP makes up for that. So I'm a happy camper.
 
FFabian said:
How does the 675 compare to the 680? How much % faster is the 680?
Click to expand...

Based on the speccs. The gtx680mx will be alot faster then the 675

GTX 675 MX:
Cuda cores: 960
Core clock: 600
Texture fill rate: 48
Memory Clock: 1800mhz
Memory bandwith: 115.2GB/s

GTX 680M
Cuda cores: 1337
core clock: 720
Texture fill rate: 80.6
Memory clock: 1800mhz
Memory bandwith: 115.2 GB/s

GTX680MX
cuda cores: 1536
core clock: 770
texture fill rate: 92,2
Memory clock: 2500mhz
memory bandwith: 160GB/s
 
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