noticeable difference nvidia 775m and 780m?

If you are a home user, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 775M is enough. It will give you the performance you need, so there's no need to go for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M.

However, if you need the best performance with Final Cut Pro, you should consider the option of getting an iMac with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M, but I would recommend it only if you are a professional user

You are right. You will notice better performance with video editing applications or games, because performance for home tasks is the same

I would want to specify Keith's question according to my personal case:

I am a musician and I use Logic. Sometimes, a warning message means me that my video memory is saturated: that Logic cannot refresh any more the visual depiction of what I hear, which allows me to think that even a mixing and audio editing software needs a strong video card.

Here are my questions:

- Is the 775 sufficient for professional audio use (knowing that I have to work on soundtracks for games or films)?

- If it is sufficient today, it will be in two years, for example?

Thanks

I ask myself the same question and found the answer on the manufacturer's website:

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/notebook-gpus/geforce-gtx-780m/performance

According to the performance comparison, the GTX 780m is ~50% faster.

Another comparison (both with 4GB memory) rates the two cards 10/10, but the 780m has 50% better results.

http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/index.php?gid=1769&gid2=1242&compare=geforce-gtx- 775m-vs-geforce-gtx-780m

That being said, I have no idea if I will experience the 50% myself. I am no expert and I'm sure it depends on your use.

I will use it for Rhinoceros 5 and Autodesk 3ds Max (Design) and when it comes to GPU they say: The bigger the better!

- Rhinoceros: "Buy a card that supports Rhino's display features: Generally this means good OpenGL support. Also the more video memory you have the more efficient Rhino will be with its display features. However the more video memory on the card, the more expensive the price of the card." - http://wiki.mcneel.com/rhino/hardwarebaseline

The price difference is only $150. Personally I'm gonna go for the 4GB in order to avoid changing any parts the next years. In general, I think it is a good idea to updating your computer's hardware when it is well on in years, but I really want to avoid that with this beautiful all-in-one iMac.

Hi I have exactly the same question - but the primary use for my machine is (will be) fcpx. Would it be better to go with the 4gb GPU or spend the extra money on the i7 version? $$ dictates I can't do both!

Also does putting in 3rd party RAM void AppleCare?

I'm not sure, but according to this link, it wil NOT:http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=446438

Fiddlemcwiddle :

If you are a fervent user of fcpx, the core i7 will be the best choice, by a far margin. I'm on 2011 imac with a i7 at 3,4, and it's often the bottleneck, despite the fact that I'm on a lower end graphic card. So with a 775, you are definitely safe, it won't be the slow point on heavy computations. I'm on a 2 monitors setup too, and only got 2 of memory.

Added to this, the faster processor will be usefull for anything else not related to fcpx.

I wish I got your answer 10 days ago! Ordered the i5 with 4gb GPU 16gb ram and fusion. Bummer

I believe that the specs/benchmarks you are quoting from geforce.com is the 780M vs the 770M and older. For some reason, the 775M specs are missing on the geforce.com site.

I did find some benchmarks of both the 775M and 780M on the Passmark site.

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

The 780M gets a 4242.

The 775M gets a 4102.

Less than a 4% advantage from the 780M

This seems like more accurate numbers since there doesn't seem to be a major chipset difference between the 2. Of course you do have 4GB vs 2GB, but the extra GDDR5 memory is really only good for specific applications. From the benchmarks I've found, it doesn't increase frame rates much, if at all.

Great SteKos,

I think your answer is the most correct one. I did my best, but I'm not into computer hardware. Do you know if it makes a difference when rendering 3d? I probably could have saved 150$ but that's too late :/

It totally depends on which 3D application you're using. You will get the power/speed bump from the faster hardware. From what I've read, there is almost no benefit at all to the extra VRAM, but that is from pure gaming forums and benchmarks, I can't comment on 3D rendering.

Looks like NVIDIA finally added the 780M to it's web site.

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/notebook-gpus/geforce-gtx-780m

Comparing the 770M to the 780M. 780M shows roughly 50% boost.

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/notebook-gpus/geforce-gtx-780m/performance

Still nothing on the 775, which is listed as the standard on the high end 27". Weird.

Things continue to change . The newest version of FCPX was updated for the new MacPro to use more of the GPU. That "may" allow you to take advantage of the memory and faster GPU that you purchased. In addition, the memory speed in the 780M is 1250MHz vs 960MHz in the 775M. For anything that uses the GPU, that will give you better performance. As SteKos noted above the 780M can give you quite a bit of boost for some things. Now the i5 only has 4 threads and the i7 has hyperthreading (sort of like 8 threads but 4 at a time) for most applications in editing the i5 will be as fast as the i7. The places you will loose a little performance are in rendering and media transcoding. On the other hand the Fusion drive was brilliant. You will notice that every day loading applications and switiching applications. In the long run, I suspect you will be happy with the 4GB 780M. The dicision to get at least 16GB of RAM was good. I use FCPX, and when I get three or four editing tools open I fill the 16GB on my MacPro every time. Just sitting here on the web with 11 application open (and no big ones) and I am using 11GB.

Please come back after you get some experience with the new machine, and put some comments on this thread. I am going to be looking for a machine that can handle 4K sometime soon and we will want to hear how the iMac worked out. By the way the 775M and 780M should both be able to handle a 4K display but the 780M would be a lot better with the larger display. (3840 x 2160 or 4-times 1080P) I'd like a new MacPro but I may only have an iMac budget. However, that 27-inch iMac looks pretty good for editing. If anyone has the chance to hook a 4K display to a 780M and the 775M, I'd really like to hear about it.

My iMac: 27" i7, 1GB fusion drive, 780M, bought with 8GB, upgraded to 16GB.

I've had my iMac for about 2 months now. This is the first Mac desktop I've owned since I purchased a Mac Plus back in 1987, I've had exclusively laptops since 2000. I switched from laptop to desktop since Apple has pretty much abandoned the idea of the "Workstation" laptop. I use my iMac for gaming and photo editing/managing.

The iMac is about 2 months new, and I love it so far. The benefits of the fusion drive are immediately obvious. I wanted to try to "maximize" the Fusion drive by installing the apps I would use most often, first. Not sure if that really makes much of a difference, but overall access times are impressive. From hitting the power button to hitting the login icon is about 15-20 seconds. Amazing. My frequently used games and photo apps also load very quickly.

I went with the 780M primarily because of the GPU upgrade, the memory doesn't seem to make much of a difference yet, but from what I've read, the 4GB should be able to be much more of a benefit in the near future. I am running a secondary 2560x1540 display, making use of the inanely large desktop space to have multiple photo apps open at the same time.

I did upgrade the RAM to 16GB myself about 2 weeks ago. The difference wasn't immediately noticable. But after "loading up" the system with 5 different photo apps to setup a workflow destop, and working with both RAW and JPG images at the same time with multiple editors, there's a huge difference the speed of switching apps, and manipulating images. It wasn't exactly slow when I was running 8GB, but I can basically open every app I might need, at once, and switch seamlessly between them. I know that there are "issues" with how Mavericks handles memory, and it's insanely high use of RAM for file cache, so it's really hard to say how much real RAM I was using at the peak, but I never maxed it out, so I could have pushed it much farther, but I just ran out of "real world" apps to load up. So, 8GB is definitely useable, but 16GB is a monster.