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.
6970m vs 650m !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter nlr
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
6970 will smoke the 650 in raw speed, they aren't even close... but when you have a stationary desktop that has plenty of room to use extra power and create extra heat, you can do that. Something like a 6970 just couldn't work in something as tiny and low power as a rMBP.
670m or 680m (if power/price is not an issue) or a 7970m.
Usually the midrange imacs have shared gpu models with the higher end macbook pros. The 21" imacs use the 6750m and 6770m. The 6770m was used in the late 2011 macbook pros. The 6750 was in the more expensive versions of the early 2011. The 6970m is in the top 27" option. If they follow the same pattern, you'll see 650-660m gpus in everything but the top option. I don't know if a 680m is too hot. If they go with AMD there (it's fully possible), a 7970m could always work. It consumes less power than the last generation, and it's a step up in performance.
Not everything absolutely has to be the same. Apple doesn't have to use an identical gpu brand or solder in ram in every computer. I think their choice to solder had more to do with that they don't care about losing the ability to swap it. With the imac this strategy wouldn't necessarily give them much of a gain in space if laid in the same way.
I think they'll stick with Nvidia. Nvidia is partnered with Intel. Intel will use them. It's best if they do really, as Adobe supports the GPU Acceleration from Nvidia graphics.
If an iMac had a "retina" screen, would 2x GPUs help it out? Anyone with a mind for science help out here? Would two lower powered Nvidia 660Ms, say mean that one could handle the scaling side of things, the do everything else visual?
The Apple of my eye (!) would be a Thunderbolt display that packs one of these new Nvidia GPUs, to turn my Macbook Air into a spaceport.
I'm not entirely sure, but I believe the lag that was seen when the MacBook Pro was launched was due to it being rendered through CPU and ML was written so that it was rendered through the GPU instead, that's why we've seen an improvement. So the higher resolution performance should be improved with more GPU power.
The way I look at it, the current iMac can already support it's own screen and a thunderbolt display which has total resolution of 5120x2880 (2560x1440 x2), which I imagine would roughly be the same resolution of one retina iMac screen. So I wouldn't see why even one high end mobile GPU couldn't handle it. The problem is really just the cost of the LCD.
And yes, I really believe Apple should have a powerhouse Apple Thunderbolt Display with a GPU inside. I'm not sure if a single Thunderbolt port has the capability to power a display on top of a GPU, but I know it can be done with two cables.
Feel free to correct me. lol
One 680 would be much easier with how the OS currently works and much more beneficial than two 660s.
As to the retina resolution... what would it need to be at 21 and 27" ? I think it would be so huge they may not currently be able to do it. I haven't done the math, but just as a guess... maybe 3820x2400 on 21.5" ? on 27 it would have to be more like 4096x2560 (or bigger)? maybe not this high if they think you sit at the iMac much further than the Macbook Pro
As to the retina resolution... what would it need to be at 21 and 27" ? I think it would be so huge they may not currently be able to do it. I haven't done the math, but just as a guess... maybe 3820x2400 on 21.5" ? on 27 it would have to be more like 4096x2560 (or bigger)? maybe not this high if they think you sit at the iMac much further than the Macbook Pro