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 may have to give in eventually, and build a PC just for games. Damn you Apple.
i was just kidding...i think it an be played native resolution at 50-60fps bu not all at high...but still
Haha, I thought so! I guess the real question is, how close is BF4 going to look to versions maxed out on PC at 60fps? Meh, I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.
Zero chance of that. BF3 doesn't even run at 50-60fps at native res with even "some" high settings.
I ran FRAPPS with BF3 on my iMac, native resolution, all setting on ultra and averaged around 55 fps.
In multiplayer? I don't get anywhere near that. As I recall it was more like half of that.
I'm pretty sure I get 55-60FPS in multiplayer at native res on Ultra settings, without AA of course. I think there is a setting called Post-AA or something, which I do have on - From what I can recall it's basically AA without the FPS hit, at least that's what it seemed like to me...
Anyways! I do overclock too, so if you're not overclocking then I guess you won't be getting the same FPS.
A month ago I had run Fraps for a long time playing BF3 multiplayer and remember getting around 55 fps average. So after your post I ran Fraps again to be sure. I Ran Fraps separately for a number of different maps to get a more accurate read.
iMac 27" with the 680mx and the i7.
BF3 all settings on Ultra. Antialiasing deferred off. Native resolution 1440
Did NOT overclock
Played Rush and each match was fairly long, should provide a good reading.
Karg Island: average FPS: 49
Operation Firestorm: Average FPS 48
Damavand Peak: Average fps 55
Caspian Border: Average fps 43
Operation Metro: Average fps 56
That sounds more like it. I only played Caspian border last month and it was more like that ~40 fps you got.
It clearly depends on the map you play, so If I had ran Fraps the whole 2 hours my average would be 50.2. That isn't bad IMO and much better than you had suggested "getting only half" of 55 fps.
Overall I'm happy so far with the iMac and gaming. The 680mx is #14 (recently dropped from #10) on the PassMark Video card benchmark list whereas my 5770 that I had in my 2006 MacPro is #81, so it's a huge step up for me.
Sure. But personally I'm not happy with 43fps or 50.2fps. Either is not acceptable to me. Why? Because it means that on AVERAGE it ran at that speed across ALL the maps. I know for sure that at times the frame-rate dipped into the 30s depending on the map. Sure, when I'm hiding in a corner or spending time in a bunker the frame-rate pegs at 60fps, but what does that matter if at times I'm struggling to maintain 30-35fps in some areas of other maps? That drop bothers me a huge amount. I understand this is subjective, but for me those numbers aren't good enough (for me!). The average frames per second is useful, but I seriously want to know what that "low" is, because at times it can be pretty awful.
In any case, this all comes back the point that our iMacs are not going to be running BF4 at high settings, native resolution, at 60fps. No chance.
And yes, there's no question the GTX 680MX is a huge upgrade from the 5770. Think about poor ol' me, who upgraded from a 2009 27" iMac with the AMD 4850 512MB. How about THAT for an upgrade!
Sure. But personally I'm not happy with 43fps or 50.2fps. Either is not acceptable to me. Why? Because it means that on AVERAGE it ran at that speed across ALL the maps. I know for sure that at times the frame-rate dipped into the 30s depending on the map. Sure, when I'm hiding in a corner or spending time in a bunker the frame-rate pegs at 60fps, but what does that matter if at times I'm struggling to maintain 30-35fps in some areas of other maps? That drop bothers me a huge amount. I understand this is subjective, but for me those numbers aren't good enough (for me!). The average frames per second is useful, but I seriously want to know what that "low" is, because at times it can be pretty awful.
In any case, this all comes back the point that our iMacs are not going to be running BF4 at high settings, native resolution, at 60fps. No chance.
And yes, there's no question the GTX 680MX is a huge upgrade from the 5770. Think about poor ol' me, who upgraded from a 2009 27" iMac with the AMD 4850 512MB. How about THAT for an upgrade!
I just ran BF3 at high setting instead of ultra, and basically all the FPS on all the maps that I had listed before gained 4-5 FPS per second. So Karg Island was 54 fps on high and 49 on ultra.
Maybe I've never played a multiplayer game at a consistent 60fps, because BF3 averaging 40-55 seems great, I rarely (and I want to stress rarely) notice the frame rate drop. So maybe I just never experienced what it's like to compare. The lows were in the 30's, but the highs were in the 80's. Comes down to how it feels, and I can say that I'm having a blast and never feel like I'm missing shots due to my frame rate. I notice ping occasionally, if my ping is high then i dont get the drop on players as often, but a good ping and i'm golden in that game.
Yea, your old GPU sucked even worse than mine, I feel your pain, so congrats on the upgrade.
Hehe, thanks!
Yeah the frame-rate stuff is VERY subjective. For me, a swing of 30fps to 80fps is just.... crazy. But others (yourself included) are not so sensitive. Sometimes I wish I could be that way.
More often than not I'll just turn down some graphical settings to achieve a solid 60fps. You should probably turn on vsync since you'll get screen tearing above 60fps anyway on these 60hz displays. There's zero benefit to frames per second that can't be displayed, and it just causes higher GPU temps.
And yes, there's no question the GTX 680MX is a huge upgrade from the 5770. Think about poor ol' me, who upgraded from a 2009 27" iMac with the AMD 4850 512MB. How about THAT for an upgrade!
Man, you have no idea how happy I am with the 680MX. I upgraded from a mid 2008 Macbook Pro with an 8600M GT 256MB. How about THAT!?
Man, you have no idea how happy I am with the 680MX. I upgraded from a mid 2008 Macbook Pro with an 8600M GT 256MB. How about THAT!?
Oh I'm sure. There's no question the iMac's GTX 680MX is an extremely competent card that will play games for quite a while. I bet you're huuuugely happy coming from the 8600.
We'll have to see. If it's a significant upgrade I'd be tempted to sell mine and buy a new one, but I get the feeling it might be a while till we see a big upgrade.
Apparently the problem was that I hadn't yet purchased the "Rise of the Hutt Cartel" expansion. Once purchased, the GeForce Experience app lets you optimize it.
How so?? At 1080p the 680mx can drive games to over 60fps with no problems. The GPU's in the PS4 and Xbone are not as powerful as the 680mx. The difference will be developers will optimize games for the PS4 and Xbone hardware, even still the more powerful 680mx will still runs the games just as well, i have no doubt about this.
Yes, the 680MX can drive most (not all) games at 60fps @ 1080p at high settings. But you must remember that most games on the PC are just ports of console games, - consoles that are incredibly old now. Developers know all the money is in the console market, so it makes no sense to develop PC games separately which is why PC graphics for the most part haven't advanced. Pick pretty much any PC game, and it's obvious that it was developed on the consoles. There are of course exceptions: Max Payne 3 was not ported to the PC; it's its own version, and it shows, because it's hard to hit 60fps in that title even at 1080p...
When the next-gen games come out, you'll see the 680MX start to lag behind more quickly as developers dedicate themselves to the more advanced hardware. Just wait and see.
At that point I won't care anyway, as my gaming will switch back to the consoles. I simply don't believe the current high-end iMac will run the next-gen console games as well, either through lack of optimization from developers for the PC platform (i.e. crappy ports), or other reasons. That's NOT to say the iMac won't run the games at all, of course. I just think the consoles will be the superior platform.
But that's my point, the 680mx is MORE advanced and powerful then the graphics card in the new Xbox and PS4, even the CPU in the new consoles is not even close to the i7 in an iMac. Im a console gamer and i wish the Xbone would have used a more powerful GPU. Whatever game the PS4 and Xbone can run the 2012 iMac with 680mx will be able to run aswell if not better. The fact the next gen consoles run on the same architecture as PC's backs this up.
Last edited: