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.
680MX Benchmarks please
- Thread starter tacokisses
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I will be playing with OCing tomorrow evening. See how far I can push the clocks/see what temperature I get to. I know whoever is Karamazovmm at NBR will appreciate this
hehehehe I will, thanks! much appreciated!
Haha, no, it's for running FCP X, Motion 5, Blender, InDesign, Photoshop and various other pro apps
Must have been the native 1440p resolution, which I never seem to be able to memorize myself either (2500ish x 1400something).
I used boot camp for the first time yesterday, since this is my first Apple and ironically I never had such a smooth installation process with Windows, ever ; ) Not one single error message, no problems at all.
You were lucky. Took me several hours. After the first try of installing bootcamp in windows, the keyboard and mouse wouldn't work after restarting. Had to use system restore and go back before bootcamp install. Then I only installed keyboard and trackpad drivers. Ran all windows updates, and then installed bootcamp package again.
Speaking of Apple and Adobe pro apps, I posted these test pages during the last two days. They feature GPU intensive and well as CPU intensive functions on the Core i7 3.4GHz iMac with 680MX vs five other recent Macs.
http://barefeats.com/imac12p1.html
and
http://barefeats.com/imac12p2.html
I know, yours sounds like the regular Windows experience ; ) Even though I have to say, Win 7 is the best Windows so far for my liking, had been using it since it came out, until I switched to OSX, 2 days ago. I don't know if it's because it's just new to me, but OSX just seems so much better, love this platform
On the iMac 27" w/680MX, I ran Diablo III under OS X with FPS displayed (2560x1440, Fullscreen, High Texture Quality, Medium Shadow Quality, High Physics, High Clutter Density, NO Anti-aliasing, Max Foreground FPS 200). Frame rates were averaging 100.
The same settings on the Retina MBP 2.7 w/650M ran 30-40 FPS.
----------
Nice. I gotta try that.
Yeah, Diablo does run very well. Like I said in my previous posts, I maxed out everything and was still getting near 100 in the dungeon. What settings were you using for vsync and background FPS?
Barefeats, I would be interested to see what happens when you compare your i7 680MX results with what AndiS is finding out in his thread seeking benchmarks for the i5 with the 680MX: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1509171/
In your results so far, the i7 is trouncing the iMac 2.9 = 'late 2012' (21.5") iMac 2.9GHz Quad-Core i5, GeForce GT 650M GPU pretty thoroughly.
Based on the arstechnica articles that came up in AndiS's thread, I made the same choice AndiS did: an i5 with the 680MX. I'm expecting that the i5 v i7 will not be a big deal for gaming. The size of the differences between your iMac 2.9 and your iMac 3.4 have made start to worry a bit because they're bigger than I expected.
Cinebench and Geekbench seem particularly suited at highlighting the i7's advantages (which is a good thing), but I am wondering about day to day work (MS Word, Stata) and light gaming (Blizzard games for me, maybe Eve Online).
It's a neat opportunity to isolate which performance differences are coming from the CPU and which are from the GPU.
The Heaven results and Diablo 3 are pretty much identical, Far Cry 3 runs great (don't know how to check for FPS) and I got 6446 in 3DMark, which has a specific CPU test. So far it looks like the i7 will have no advantage in gaming, aside from the slightly higher clock speed - which is pretty much just saying what the Arstechnica article has showed in depth. I just benchmark game related stuff, since gaming is the only thing I got the 680MX for, but if somebody is curious I can do Geekbench etc., where the i7 will clearly show it's advantages. For every day use, Word etc. you don't even need an i5 from what I understand ; )
ANY modern discrete GPU (even entry-level ones) can do that and still have 60+ fps, dude =)
Could be great AndiS !
Let's Geekbench, ...bench, ...bench, ...
The real question is: will you have time to make the most of your iMac with all those benchs
Sorry can't get benchmarks yet D:
The USB drive didn't work to install Windows 7 off. Kept turning itself off.
Sooo I have to wait till I have new USB stick!
The USB drive didn't work to install Windows 7 off. Kept turning itself off.
Sooo I have to wait till I have new USB stick!
Still planning on OCing tongiht and seeing how far I can push the card, but I tried GW2 out this morning.
2560x1440, every setting on high/ultra except no FXAA (don't like what it does to trees/foliage), vsync on: 60fps capped. That's in Frostforge Gorge running around and fighting random things. Didn't drop below.
For reference, my RMBP w/ 650m struggled with the game. ~45fps if I was lucky on a variety of low settings at 1680x1050. This also caused a ridiculous amount of heat and 5,000+ RPM fans and severe throttling after playing for a while.
Very substantial upgrade for me
2560x1440, every setting on high/ultra except no FXAA (don't like what it does to trees/foliage), vsync on: 60fps capped. That's in Frostforge Gorge running around and fighting random things. Didn't drop below.
For reference, my RMBP w/ 650m struggled with the game. ~45fps if I was lucky on a variety of low settings at 1680x1050. This also caused a ridiculous amount of heat and 5,000+ RPM fans and severe throttling after playing for a while.
Very substantial upgrade for me
Mine was delivered last night: i5 3.2ghz, 8GB RAM, 680MX, 3TB HDD.
After I downloaded a couple games that I play: World of Warcraft and Counter-Strike:GO. These aren't any kind of official software numbers, but I used addons in Warcraft and console in CS:GO to see the numbers. All of these numbers were achieved with 10 programs running at once, with multiple background downloads occurring.
World of Warcraft: 2560x1440 with all settings at Ultra
Counter-Strike:Global Offensive: 2560x1440 with all settings Ultra
I am guessing 25-man "Looking For Raid" Raids are going to stress running full native resolution... but when I say stress, I mean it might dip into the low 40's or high 30's. I'm going to test it tonight.
EDIT: By the way, the fan never kicked on once. I haven't even heard the machine. So far, it's really quiet.
Starcraft II and Diablo III should be finished downloading by the time I get home from work. I can't wait to see what they can do.
After I downloaded a couple games that I play: World of Warcraft and Counter-Strike:GO. These aren't any kind of official software numbers, but I used addons in Warcraft and console in CS:GO to see the numbers. All of these numbers were achieved with 10 programs running at once, with multiple background downloads occurring.
World of Warcraft: 2560x1440 with all settings at Ultra
- Run and fly around outside Shrine of the Seven Stars with players all over:
45-50fps
- Run around inside Shrine of the Seven Stars with players all around:
80-90fps
- Run and fly around Stormwind:
100-110fps
- Solo questing in Pandaria and Wandering Isle:
110-120fps
Counter-Strike:Global Offensive: 2560x1440 with all settings Ultra
- Playing gun game with 9 other players:
100+ fps all the time with minor dips into the 80's and 90's
I am guessing 25-man "Looking For Raid" Raids are going to stress running full native resolution... but when I say stress, I mean it might dip into the low 40's or high 30's. I'm going to test it tonight.
EDIT: By the way, the fan never kicked on once. I haven't even heard the machine. So far, it's really quiet.
Starcraft II and Diablo III should be finished downloading by the time I get home from work. I can't wait to see what they can do.
Last edited:
Hi barefeats, I had posted a message to you earlier in this thread (part of it included below), I was getting a little confused about running Adobe Premiere/Photoshop/After Effect CS6 and what the performance differences would be with the following options:
From the various searches I have done it appears that in some cases CUDA is quicker and in others OpenCL is quicker. I have made an assumption that that both CUDA and OpenCL are quicker than software.
Which did you use when you ran your tests?
Are you able to re-run the Adobe tests with the opposite acceleration to see if there is a difference?
I also found the following which indicates most functions have been accelerated in OpenCL with the exception of 4 as they couldnt get a performance increase over the software rendering.
OSX (10.8.x): OpenCL vs CUDA
From the various searches I have done it appears that in some cases CUDA is quicker and in others OpenCL is quicker. I have made an assumption that that both CUDA and OpenCL are quicker than software.
Which did you use when you ran your tests?
Are you able to re-run the Adobe tests with the opposite acceleration to see if there is a difference?
I also found the following which indicates most functions have been accelerated in OpenCL with the exception of 4 as they couldnt get a performance increase over the software rendering.
Could be great AndiS !
Let's Geekbench, ...bench, ...bench, ...
The real question is: will you have time to make the most of your iMac with all those benchs
Yes, time is a factor ; ) I just saw that I would have to buy a license to run the 64-Bit Geekbench, so I opted to run the Geeks3D GPU test which resulted in the same 31 FPS as barefeats - no surprise, since it's a GPU test
Are there any other FREE benchmarks I could try?
Let us know the results of 25-man raiding. That's the more stressfull part of WoW atm.
Hi everyone.
Just a few videos with the iMac 27 core i7 3.4Ghz and GTX 680 MX.
Most games I installed turns max in 2560*1440.
Battlefield 3 :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hAZlSHVqw8
Just a few videos with the iMac 27 core i7 3.4Ghz and GTX 680 MX.
Most games I installed turns max in 2560*1440.
Battlefield 3 :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hAZlSHVqw8
Last edited: