Closed

EVGA Launches GeForce GTX 680 Mac Edition

The EVGA GeForce GTX 680 Mac Edition is virtually identical to Nvidia's reference GTX 680 and is intended for early 2008 (or later) Mac Pro computers.

EVGA Launches GeForce GTX 680 Mac Edition : Read more
40 answers Last reply
More about evga launches geforce gtx 680 mac edition
  1. "Hey look at Sapphire and their 7970! We should do the same..."


    My prediction:

    "Hm, what if we release a limited edition GTX Titan for the Macs as well?..."
  2. Or just buy the PC version sans boot screen (EFI) and save a bundle. Kepler cards are supported out of the box.
    http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=342955&d=1339537683
  3. Should have released GTX Titan instead, while charging 10 times the price.
  4. Do any GOOD games run on MAC, yet? What's the point?
  5. I can see the forum post now "How put this my iphone?"
  6. Good news if you have a $3000+ Mac Pro. It ain't gonna fit in an iMac.
  7. Toms late on the April fools? A Mac immune system would reject this transplant immediately... It's not white.
  8. JOSHSKORNDo any GOOD games run on MAC, yet? What's the point?

    Deus Ex Human Revolution, but my bet is that will run on intel HD 4000 :D
  9. I actually wonder why companies like EVGA are investing in this. It will only fit the Mac pro, which sells in EXTREMELY low numbers, and yet it probably costs a decent amount to develop and produce the card. Will this even turn a profit?
  10. C`mon Evga bleed those mac trolls for some green : )
  11. JOSHSKORNDo any GOOD games run on MAC, yet? What's the point?

    Gaming is pretty much moot on Apple machines, but multimedia and compute applications are not.
  12. I approve. maybe with some good cards and driver support on Mac side. plus steam now works on mac maybe we will see better gaming on mac.
  13. Jackson, doesn't that seem a little silly then, with the shitty compute performance of Kepler?

    Also, boo EVGA.. they took away the ONLY reason to buy a mac edition card... the pretty white shroud! XP
  14. It's 1mhz slower, damn macs!
  15. DarkSableJackson, doesn't that seem a little silly then, with the shitty compute performance of Kepler?Also, boo EVGA.. they took away the ONLY reason to buy a mac edition card... the pretty white shroud! XP

    Of course, but most consumers won't know that..
  16. Now if only Apple can release a new Mac to match this...
  17. JOSHSKORNDo any GOOD games run on MAC, yet? What's the point?


    Not to be THAT guy, but Borderlands 2 is available for Mac on Steam and every Source game from Valve is also available for Mac OSX.
  18. Macs are SO BEHIND in terms of 3d and gpgpu performance. One year behind with mac pro, a LIFE behind with iMacs.
    Really... the best video card available on an iMac is the same I have in my alienware laptop :-/
  19. JOSHSKORNDo any GOOD games run on MAC, yet? What's the point?

    That depends on what you consider a good game. I prefer Bethesda games like Fallout and Oblivian but if you like the Online Call of Duty stuff then...
    Since Tom's is to lazy to do any proper research and give us a price I found this at xlabs,
    "EVGA GeForce GTX 680 Mac Edition 2GB will cost much more than similar graphics adapters for Windows-based PCs. The graphics card will cost $599 and will be available shortly."
    Would love to have this in a Mac Pro but do games work on Xenon processors?
    $2.674
    One 3.2GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor
    8GB (4X2GB)
    2TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s hard drive
    ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB
  20. JOSHSKORNDo any GOOD games run on MAC, yet? What's the point?


    Boot camp. Most MAC users i know have windows installed.
  21. janetonly42Would love to have this in a Mac Pro but do games work on Xenon processors?$2.674One 3.2GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor8GB (4X2GB)2TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s hard driveATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB


    Yes. A Xeon is an Intel x86-64 CPU, you will be fine. Game away.
  22. Interesting how top of the line hardware is making it to the Mac. I hope they eventually get a bigger share of PC gaming in general and maybe bring something new to the table. Microsoft is either way out of touch or they simply do not care for PC gaming. Games for Windows Live still crashes fi you use it too quickly.
  23. -JacksonGaming is pretty much moot on Apple machines, but multimedia and compute applications are not.


    It's easy to game on mac, there are 3 games I play now that run native on OSX, Diablo 3, Eve Online, Guild Wars 2. There is also such thing as bootcamp and it works great. I used it on my Imac to play BF3.

    http://store.steampowered.com/browse/mac/
  24. Blazer1985Macs are SO BEHIND in terms of 3d and gpgpu performance. One year behind with mac pro, a LIFE behind with iMacs.Really... the best video card available on an iMac is the same I have in my alienware laptop :-/


    You are incorrect, how in the hell is a 680 mobile way behind the times ? It's current tech as of right now. Also they are no slower than a pc running 2560 x 1440.
  25. He's generally correct, aside from the 680 card. The point of a Mac is that it is made by Apple and generally not very easy to mod or user friendly to mod. Taking a Mac as it is and a similarly priced PC as it is would really show the difference

    royalcrownYou are incorrect, how in the hell is a 680 mobile way behind the times ? It's current tech as of right now. Also they are no slower than a pc running 2560 x 1440.
  26. Spooderman said:
    He's generally correct, aside from the 680 card. The point of a Mac is that it is made by Apple and generally not very easy to mod or user friendly to mod. Taking a Mac as it is and a similarly priced PC as it is would really show the difference

    royalcrownYou are incorrect, how in the hell is a 680 mobile way behind the times ? It's current tech as of right now. Also they are no slower than a pc running 2560 x 1440.



    Um they won't show as big a difference as you think. I have OSX running now on this system and it is slightly BEHIND the new 2013 Imac overall.
  27. royalcrownUm they won't show as big a difference as you think. I have OSX running now on this system and it is slightly BEHIND the new 2013 Imac overall.


    It's pretty simple: a PC at a given price point will typically smoke a Mac at the same price point.
  28. Fulgurant said:
    royalcrownUm they won't show as big a difference as you think. I have OSX running now on this system and it is slightly BEHIND the new 2013 Imac overall.


    It's pretty simple: a PC at a given price point will typically smoke a Mac at the same price point.


    Yes "typically" that is true, However with the new top of the line 2013 imac, it is not true. With Apple finally putting in reasonable GPU's it may not stay true. Now if you look at the three lower options, I agree, as they don't let one choose the good gpu.
  29. royalcrownYes "typically" that is true, However with the new top of the line 2013 imac, it is not true. With Apple finally putting in reasonable GPU's it may not stay true. Now if you look at the three lower options, I agree, as they don't let one choose the good gpu.


    How much does the top-of-the-line 2013 iMac cost? How much PC hardware could you buy for the same amount of money? If the two spec sheets work out as roughly the same, then I'll happily stand corrected, but I doubt that they do.
  30. Well my newegg reciept was over 3200 for just the computer. YES, I COULD cut back on things I wanted and spend less. Regardless, my GTX 680 was 500 and SSD pro was over 500 for the 512 so ther is a grand before cpu, mb, IPS monitor (Apple uses A grade panels, so no super cheap 27" korean models if you want to compare apples to Iapples.

    I could've spent less, but sometimes you pay more to get it your way.
  31. Nevermind. Just went to Apple's online store to refresh my memory.

    After configuring the top-end iMac for decent power use -- with an i7 3770, a GTX 680mx, 8GB of RAM, a 1TB Fusion Drive (because caching's the best available option to approximate an SSD, unless you want to spend something like $900 on a ~750GB SSD through Apple's store), etc -- I ended up with a price of $2,678.

    Granted, that price includes what is doubtlessly a very nice 1440p display, but is there seriously any doubt that anyone here could put together a comparably performing PC configuration for half the price? And what if we spent the full budget in PC hardware? Can you say LGA 2011 and SLI?

    And all of that is before we even get to all of the various annoyances that go along with high-end laptops, crammed for free into an immobile iMac platform! Awesome.

    A mobile GTX 680MX is not equivalent to a desktop GTX 680 like the one in the article, by the way. It's closer to a GTX 660 Ti -- not a bad card, certainly, but it ain't top-of-the-line purely in terms of horsepower.

    (Edited because apparently Tom's new site eats any hyperlinked text if you post from the article's page instead of from the forum thread.)
  32. royalcrown said:
    Well my newegg reciept was over 3200 for just the computer. YES, I COULD cut back on things I wanted and spend less. Regardless, my GTX 680 was 500 and SSD pro was over 500 for the 512 so ther is a grand before cpu, mb, IPS monitor (Apple uses A grade panels, so no super cheap 27" korean models if you want to compare apples to Iapples.

    I could've spent less, but sometimes you pay more to get it your way.


    Didn't see your answer before my latest one went through. Apologies if it seems like I'm purposely talking past you. Suffice to say that I disagree. You have a fair point about the monitor, but even a brand-name 1440p screen ain't gonna make up the price difference on the rest of the hardware.

    And there is a significant performance gap between a mobile 680 and a desktop 680.
  33. Don't forget to buy a motherboard at newegg with thunderbolt, because Imac has it. Tou just dropped 269 - 369 on a motherboard then. Also the CPUS IMAC uses are desktop and not mobile. 289 at newegg.

    I agree that its easy to build a faster cheaper computer than an imac, what I am saying is it's not as cheap to build a computer that is as fast as the imac AND that has THUNDERBOLT, 768GB of SSD storage...while being virtually silent until you game and then still being quieter than most pcs.

    The SSDs and the fact I wanted mine as quiet as my old imac are what made it cost 3200 at newegg. My Imac Also came out 3,249.00 so I spent more than you somehow, prob the I7 vs the I5. IS the I7 best bang for the buck nope, but I play BF3 and it likes hyperthreading.
  34. Fulgurant said:
    royalcrown said:
    Well my newegg reciept was over 3200 for just the computer. YES, I COULD cut back on things I wanted and spend less. Regardless, my GTX 680 was 500 and SSD pro was over 500 for the 512 so ther is a grand before cpu, mb, IPS monitor (Apple uses A grade panels, so no super cheap 27" korean models if you want to compare apples to Iapples.

    I could've spent less, but sometimes you pay more to get it your way.


    Didn't see your answer before my latest one went through. Apologies if it seems like I'm purposely talking past you.


    Suffice to say that I disagree. You have a fair point about the monitor, but even a brand-name 1440p screen ain't gonna make up the price difference on the rest of the hardware.

    And there is a significant performance gap between a mobile 680 and a desktop 680.


    And you are right too, but the SSD and quiet cost me as much as the imac, now if that's not important than yeah, it'd be a LOT cheaper...
  35. royalcrown said:
    Don't forget to buy a motherboard at newegg with thunderbolt, because Imac has it. Tou just dropped 269 - 369 on a motherboard then. Also the CPUS IMAC uses are desktop and not mobile. 289 at newegg.

    I agree that its easy to build a faster cheaper computer than an imac, what I am saying is it's not as cheap to build a computer that is as fast as the imac AND that has THUNDERBOLT, 768GB of SSD storage...while being virtually silent until you game and then still being quieter than most pcs.

    The SSDs and the fact I wanted mine as quiet as my old imac are what made it cost 3200 at newegg. My Imac Also came out 3,249.00 so I spent more than you somehow, prob the I7 vs the I5. IS the I7 best bang for the buck nope, but I play BF3 and it likes hyperthreading.


    Fair enough on the noise issue. I'm not saying you were wrong to buy an iMac; I just don't think it's a good value proposition for the general user.

    FWIW, I did select the i7 in the Apple Store, but I didn't select the SSD because the price seemed too high -- +$900 over the default HDD. Because I wanted to try to be fair, instead of simply selecting all of the most expensive options for the sake of making the Mac look expensive, I selected the 1TB Fusion Drive instead (which was AFAIK +$200 over the default option).

    Depending on when you bought your SSDs (for the PC), you could easily have eaten up even a fairly massive budget on storage alone. But I can only evaluate the question based on what I know today. And today, SSDs can be found for around $1/GB (give or take). By that standard, $900+ for a ~760GB SSD isn't a flat-out preposterous number, but once again we're back to the Mac's main weakness -- the lack of flexibility. What if I don't want an SSD that large? What if I don't want a 27" monitor, for that matter? What if I'd like to use a desktop-class GPU without buying a workstation? What if I don't care about Thunderbolt?

    The problem is as much philosophical as it is economic; the general PC enthusiast looks at the price tag for the iMac and automatically thinks of it in terms of an analogous (performance-wise) PC that might suit him -- perhaps a smaller or slightly-less-than-grade-A-brand-name screen, a GTX 660 Ti, a mid-tier CPU (i5 or low-end i7), a good sized SSD (say, 240 GB or even 500ish), and so on. That PC configuration would likely cost $1,200-$1,500. You're probably right when you say that such a PC wouldn't be as nice as the ~$2700 iMac, but you sure are paying through the nose for the iMac's intangible advantages. For you, the price premium may be worthwhile, but the general PC enthusiast is going to look at some of the QoL advantages you've bought with your iMac and go, "That's worth an extra $1,000+?"
  36. you are right, like cars..it's the extra 20 horsepower that kills the price, or the cool rims. I will say the quiet is worth it, SSDs in general have been over hyped IMO. Even though I own the 512 and 128 Samsung PRO's, I'd say they aren't worth the money (they did cost about a dollar a gig so the "apple tax" isn't as bad on the fusion drive vs these now. That fusion drive was $1300 a month ago...that is nuts.

    I suppose whether it's worth it or not to most gamers is no. I'd agree with you in that case.

    If yo build a pc say for 1500 and buy the apple for 2200 there are some nice things that may or may not be worth the 700 bucks IMO:

    If you get a gaming pc but don't upgrade then no need to open so:

    3 year warranty for $99 bucks, if ANYTHING breaks, it's free vs no warranty on PC

    They don't ACT up, and one patch fixes everyones issue due to same hardware config.

    No mess of cables all over floor necessary to run it, literally one cable

    Can run MAC stuff, they have some nice apps, some versions run better on osx, especially anything over a network. Not because OSX is magic, because it is based off of BSD UNIX which handles networking a million times better.

    Don't have to hide a big ass box next to your desk.

    I never set out to spend 3200 btw, or I woulda just bought the mac. I'm not saying macs are better either, just that the price difference vs pc isn't as bad once you take into account more than speed.

    I'm glad this didn't turn mean, you have a valid point on whether it's worth it....
  37. In Benchmarks the GTX 680 Mac Edition crush's the competition. Check out this review - http://www.barefeats.com/gpu680v.html
  38. royalcrown said:
    Blazer1985Macs are SO BEHIND in terms of 3d and gpgpu performance. One year behind with mac pro, a LIFE behind with iMacs.Really... the best video card available on an iMac is the same I have in my alienware laptop :-/


    You are incorrect, how in the hell is a 680 mobile way behind the times ? It's current tech as of right now. Also they are no slower than a pc running 2560 x 1440.


    Are we talking about laptops or desktops? Because my alienware is a laptop, the iMacs are desktops.
    While I'm ok with a 680m in a laptop for a desktop would be too slow compared to non-m680.
    OR I could buy a 15k mac pro to match the specs on the 1.5k pc that I have...
    So, if you can see my point now, I was correct indeed :-D
  39. Blazer1985 said:
    royalcrown said:
    Blazer1985Macs are SO BEHIND in terms of 3d and gpgpu performance. One year behind with mac pro, a LIFE behind with iMacs.Really... the best video card available on an iMac is the same I have in my alienware laptop :-/


    You are incorrect, how in the hell is a 680 mobile way behind the times ? It's current tech as of right now. Also they are no slower than a pc running 2560 x 1440.


    Are we talking about laptops or desktops? Because my alienware is a laptop, the iMacs are desktops.
    While I'm ok with a 680m in a laptop for a desktop would be too slow compared to non-m680.
    OR I could buy a 15k mac pro to match the specs on the 1.5k pc that I have...
    So, if you can see my point now, I was correct indeed :-D


    They are about equivalent to a 660, so how is that SO far behind the times ? Now if you said not the fastest, sure. Mac pros don't cost 15k either. Just go to the apple store, are they priced too high, hell yes, 15k, hell no. Considering the new Imac can match my comp except for GPU performance, that is not bad.
  40. royalcrown said:
    Blazer1985 said:
    royalcrown said:
    Blazer1985Macs are SO BEHIND in terms of 3d and gpgpu performance. One year behind with mac pro, a LIFE behind with iMacs.Really... the best video card available on an iMac is the same I have in my alienware laptop :-/


    You are incorrect, how in the hell is a 680 mobile way behind the times ? It's current tech as of right now. Also they are no slower than a pc running 2560 x 1440.


    Are we talking about laptops or desktops? Because my alienware is a laptop, the iMacs are desktops.
    While I'm ok with a 680m in a laptop for a desktop would be too slow compared to non-m680.
    OR I could buy a 15k mac pro to match the specs on the 1.5k pc that I have...
    So, if you can see my point now, I was correct indeed :-D


    They are about equivalent to a 660, so how is that SO far behind the times ? Now if you said not the fastest, sure. Mac pros don't cost 15k either. Just go to the apple store, are they priced too high, hell yes, 15k, hell no. Considering the new Imac can match my comp except for GPU performance, that is not bad.

    In my comment I said 3d and gpgpu performance. Today we have gpu accelerated render engines and having 3 gpu is kind of normal in this field (and several others). If you can't afford teslas or quadros a 3x titan is quite common so THAT is the difference in processing power I was talking about.. and it is quite enormous.
    Regarding the mac pro I got to 5.6k with only a radeon 5870.
    And 5.6k are equal to a pc with 3x titan plus some change to buy an expensive dinner to celebrate :-D
    15k was a real price, reached for fun back in the days when they had some good hardware on which apply the apple tax ^_^
Ask a new question

Read More

Build Your Own Graphics Cards