New MBP 650M vs 5870M

Just wondering if anyone can give me an idea on whether it would be an upgrade in terms of graphics to go from Radeon 5870M to the new 650M on the mbp. Thanks.

 

moderate downgrade

 

How moderate?

 

moderately moderate

 

Oof.
Are there comparisons and/or benchmarks on the 650?

 

Actually, according to notebookcheck, 650M is about 10~20% faster than 5870M.

Mobile Graphics Cards - Benchmark List - Notebookcheck.net Tech

 

Not to mention the 650M has optimus for more battery life plus it's much more efficient in every other conceivable aspect thanks to its 28nm process.

 

I'm hesitant to believe this.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

Reason? Notebookcheck.com has been widely referenced, as it is one of the most informative and neutral sites on the internet.

 

I agree with viberabyss.

Also if I may add my 50 cents, I've briefly had the M14x r2 with the 650m last month, and I got the exact same results I got on the NBC website. I also happen to have the G73 w/ 5870m and I got the results that NBC got.

From what I can tell NBC scores are accurate. How you interpret the scores is a different argument.

 

Not if you're running Boot Camp.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

informative? depends...

reliable? not at all.

The 650m is going to be a little bit faster than the 5870m, since it was quite on par to the 560m, and basically the 650m is a little bit faster than the 560m.

Actually the 650m with DDR3 is already faster than the 560m, the 650m with GDDR5 is going to be more.

 

How is the 560 slower, it has 192 bit bus width.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

bus width aint the make or break. if it were the 660m would also be slower with its 128 bit bus. And the 280m would still be king with its 256bit bus.

kepler is a great arch (for gaming), simple as that.

 

And where are the information that this sentence is based on?

 

Common knowledge. besides, reliability should be demonstrated, not taken for granted.

If I was wrong about the 650m, let's just find a few benchmarks and figure it out, but not rely exclusively on notebookcheck. Let's not make this a notebookcheck debate, instead lets focus on this 650m vs mobility 5870 situation

 

exactly. Lets go to the hp pavillion forums and check those benchies and gaming figures!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ktar2gheacA&feature=youtu.be

 

So the takeaway is that the new Macbook pro is capable of matching the first gen G73's performance? I don't know how the G73 does on Skyrim maxed out.

I think the MBP has a better CPU as well, which helps.

 

here are some threads with some interesting numbers

http://forum.notebookreview.com/sag...-clevo-w110er-sager-np6110-owners-lounge.html

http://forum.notebookreview.com/sag...er-np6110-clevo-w110er-first-look-review.html

http://forum.notebookreview.com/sag...clevo-w150erq-sager-np5165-owners-lounge.html

http://forum.notebookreview.com/gaming-software-graphics-cards/670304-nvidia-gt-650m-benchmarks.html

remember to diferentiate the DDR3 (w110er/np6110) to the GDDR5 (w150erq) versions

but basically, its a good mid range gpu.

 

Then are you implying the 6750m/6770m are low end?

If you're going by model numbers, the 650m will be a mid end GPU by definition.

If you're going by performance relative other GPUs, I think it's pretty safe to call it high end.

 

not at all, since the 6700m class is actually now the 7600m class, thus still mid range, however being less powerful than what the 650m provides, then now being considered entry mid range if you want.

and your high end wont come close to what high end is, the 7970m is more than 100% faster and the 680m as well, thats high end. if you want to compare the rebadges from fermi, 670m and the 675m, the 650m is still far behind, albeit much less than it was last year.

 

Middle class notebooks GPUs are really equivalent to entry level desktop GPUs (128-bit GDDR5 cards). High end notebook GPUs are what I would consider mid range for gaming. Especially if you're pushing out fps in high resolution (FHD).

 

I dont consider anything, im playing on the HD 3000, its extremely low end as it is.

The bandwidth as i said, is important, but it aint make or break.

the performance of the 650m is basically the 5770 or 450, and those are still mid range cards, considering that even the 7750 is still around that ballpark, we gained much in the high end cards like the 7970 and the 670, the mid range improved on the power consumption and tdp usage, not that the high end didnt improved on that as well.

But still notebooks are limited to 100W tdp, and simple as that the 670 and the 7870 is the best that they can deliver. What makes me smile is that the possible performance of the 7870m is can be around what the 6970m was, consuming much less.

 

Yes or no would work as well.

Based on the benchmarks I'm seeing, though I lack confirmation, it appears that a notebook that's less than an inch thick and which weighs almost 5 pounds would more than give my laptop, which is over an inch thick and weighs 10 pounds, a very convincing run for its money.

In which case, purchasing the new macbook would not be unwise as a replacement for my old G73, correct?

 

that is up for you to decide. It should still be a little bit faster, if you are satisified with what you have now, and you think that it should not be much worse in the future than yes.

You have to see your priorities.

for example, im thinking really hard if I should give this RMBP a go, I have a 2011 mbp 13, for me the size aint so much troublesome as the weight, since they weigh basically the same thing it should be a good upgrade. What i do is run some VMs, code something here and there, run some trader platforms... For me it would be overkill since I rarely game, but I still dig the 95wh battery and the screen should help me on the trader platforms.

 

But if we are comparing rebadges, the 650m is equivalent... even higher than the old GTX 560m.

Basically the way I see it, the 650m is FAR closer to the clearly high end 660m than the clearly mid-end 640m.

 

you may see or dont want to see it, but they are the same chip. the 640m LE/640m/650m/660m, there are variances of GDDR5 or DDR3, the higher performing parts are the ones equipped with GDDR5 and all of them can be equipped with it.


the 560m is the 460m, which is based on gts 450, its by no means a miracle for they to be finally surpassed 2 years after it was launched.

 

I understand they are the same chip, we're using the exact same references.

The 560m was a 60-70w part iirc, that is a high end chip.

Fact is, the 650m is "suppose" to be a middle end chip, but turned out epic.

 

the 560m is a 75w tdp.

650m is currently unknown I doubt we would discover it.

the 660m is also 75w tdp as well.

670m is 80w, 675m is 100w, 680m is 100w, but you need 2 675m to beat it and it wont be by much.

6990m is 100w 7970m is 100w, you need to 2 6990m to beat the 7970m

die shrink made wonders for the gpus, the new archs aint shabby as well.

You need almost 2 650m to beat a 675m/6990m

 

650m is a 35-45w chip I'm sure.

I'd honestly put mid-range cards starting at where the old 525m/540m was. The 6770m is a healthy step up from that, and the 650m is simply not comparable.

In any case, this is purely a subjective thing. Can we agree that it's on the very cusp of high-endedness and call it a day?

 

yes we can call it a day.

but the 425m/430m/435m/525m/540m/550m/555m where just too used albeit getting a sliht clock bump. I remember that the difference from my 4670m to the 430m was meaningless, granted I had the GDDR3 one.

But sincerely, I was expecting more improvements for the mid range, given the extreme performance increase that the high end got in the past 2 years (counting this one)

 

Precisely, those were midrange cards.

And this one was SUPPOSE to be. But then they decided to give the (high end) 650m a tremendous 36% clock boost. The old line consisted of much more condensed performance.

I guess if you want to nitpick, the lesser 650s are mid, but the high end is definitely into upper territory.

 

point of advice: don't argue about things you haven't defined

everyone has their own idea of what "mid-range" and "high-end" mean, and so it's often hard to come to an agreement about these types of things (not just comparing GPUs and not just these terms - this is general advice), and yet we're sitting here with the actual performance figures which give us all the relevant information.

 

How is the weather for you guys today?

 

I'd say it's mid-range. Pretty close to high-end though.

 

Should have seen that one coming!

 

The important point people seem to be missing...

The latest generation of mobile GPUs have bumped everything a notch up.

The 650m is considerably better comparatively than anything put in a MBP since the Nvidia 8600m GT.

However the "high end" of mobile gaming is now much higher than ever before. A 7970m is quite literally an underclocked 7870 desktop GPU. The "high end" of mobile GPU can embarrass previous near-top-of-the-line DESKTOP GPUs. (a 7970m beats a desktop 570, and overclocked competes with a desktop 580)

The 650m is a desktop 640, which performs somewhere between a desktop 440 and 450GTS. Considering where the "high-end" of mobile gpus is (desktop 570-580-level) I'll let everyone decide for themselves how close to "high-end" the 650m is...

The new macbooks with a 650m will be no slouch and will indeed perform like a low-end gaming mobile GPU from 1 year ago (650m GDDR5 is roughly equal to the 560m/5870m) which is a huge upgrade compared to the 6750m which performed like a low-end gaming gpu from almost 3 years before the current macbook shipped.

This IS progress for mac gamers.

 

I think made that point in... all my posts?

 

This realization is troubling for me. I think that I'm going to have to buy an extra 570 for my desktop.

In all seriousness though, the 650M is a solid card. With my mid-2010 MBP I had to suffer through the terrible 330M GT. That thing was a pig back then even. If I hadn't gotten the W520 last year, I would definitely be upgrading to the new MBP/MBPR.

 

presumably there are some typos here. you must have meant high-end? I think I agree with what you meant, and yes, the progression of technology is helping all gamers, especially mobile/laptop gamers.

Baaaaa-ZING

 

No typos... I am simply considering the whole spectrum of gpus.

The 650m does not qualify for high-end gaming even in the previous generation.

Now granted, this fits in with the "definitions" discussed before.
(some apple users define everything in a macbook as high-end, thus the 6750m is a high-end gaming gpu in their opinion)

"High-end" gaming in my definition would be 570/6970m or higher in previous gen and 7970/680m in this one. These GPUs are designed for 1080p with all the trimmings for almost every game. They usually throw heat and power (and thus size) considerations out the window to create the most powerful laptop GPUs available.

650m/560m/660m make up a class of low-end gaming mobile gpus designed to game at 1080p with most details on. These GPUS balance heat, noise, power, and more recently battery life with gaming performance still at the forefront.

Below low-end gaming are "mainstream" and "value" gpus which can do the job with lowered details and resolutions but value price, space, heat and power more than gaming-class GPUs usually do.

 

Technically, the high end notebook GPUs are mid range desktop GPUs optimized for power. This is typically achieved by decreased clock speeds and hence voltage.

 

Really wish there was another resource other than notebook check. Their testing methodolgy (at least for Diablo 3) left much to be desired and did not represent real world performance expectations.

Here it is: Diablo III Benchmark - Notebookcheck - YouTube

Sorry, anyone who plays Diablo 3 knows that running around with monsters not even around isn't at all what the game is like.

 

we do have some gaming figures

2012 Retina MacBook Pro - Extreme 3D

 

I honestly don't know why people are bothering trying to play games at the max resolution. I have absolutely no expectations for a laptop to play games at that resolution. I do however expect for, say, the last generation's max resolution (1680 by something, right?) to game well, and from what I can tell from Notebookcheck, comparing my GPU to the 650, I'm optimistic.

 

you should be, at macrumors there are some gaming figures appearing, mostly games that run on OSX, d3 and sc2

 

I just want a Skyrim benchmark (especially one that's not on Retina resolution).

 

Ah I think I just quoted you on macrumors too anyway, is there any benchmarks of especially starcraft 2 in 1680x1050 ? thanks

 

I see you've developed a very complicated classification system. I don't disagree with anything in particular in regards to the performance ranking (the 650m is a lot like the previously more expensive / more power hungry 560m) but I am against this type of convoluted categorization. The reason I thought you had a typo was because you said "low end mobile gaming GPU" which, to you, is sort of like saying "high end (or maybe midrange) mobile GPU", but is very different than "low end mobile GPU". I certainly didn't intend to argue over what constitutes high end, or any other weakly defined categories.

I'd like to see a world where we stop over-categorizing things and just provide the relevant data when necessary.

 

Wow, this thread has gotten some healthy discussions. I'm sensing that the 650M is going to be just a slightly bit better than 5870M - but still not sure.

Thank you all and please continue to contribute...

Here are my thoughts and what I would like to see...

Define current mobile cards performance at a macro level...

High end
.
.
Mid Range
.
.
Low End

Now name current high end/mid range and low end mobile cards. Then I would like to see where 5870M falls and 650M on MBP falls. That should clear up exactly where they stand. Of course having benchies would help as well.

I know the setup above is starting to look very familiar to notebookcheck, but I always have a hard time reading the way they list things..lol.