560M (128) vs 560M (192)

Hi all...I just picked up the Best Buy G74SX. I realize it has the "gimped" 560M but how does that truly equate to gaming? Will I see much more FPS in the non-gimped at 1920x1080 vs the gimped at 1600x900? Has anyone ever done any benchmarks of the 560M (128) vs the 560M (192)? That is what I would truly like to see to see how much performance I'm really losing.

I am in my 45 day return period and could easily pick up the G74SX-A1 from a local vendor (Microcenter) but I'm just not sure if the extra $$$ will justify the performance gains...whatever they may be.

Thanks for any input...

 

This will almost certainly cause an argument

But what would be truly helpful is some results to compare to. Could you possibly run some benchmarks 3DMark06, 3DMark Vantage and 3DMark11 at stock clocks and your maximum overclock and post the results on here.

Some rep will be in it for you as it will be interesting to see what graphics score the 128 bit can muster up.

Muchos Gracious

 

Get the better model while available, 192 is faster than 128 in any angle. There are another topic like this with detailed explanation but to sum it up 192bit rate wins. Yeah, you need to pay again, but in long term get 192bit it's worth it. It really depends on you if need to crank the game to the highest settings...

Check this link:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/asus-gaming-notebook-forum/598022-why-so-cheap.html

And this link:
http://www.overclock.net/nvidia/1061621-gtx-560m-128bit-2gb-vs-192bit.html

 

OK...I will get the ball rolling on this. Time to download some goodies from Futuremark.

 

If possible try and run the benchmarks on a external screen with a higher resolution than your internal screen, it will make it easier to make a direct comparision.

 

Yupitchie we have been arguing over two threads about the BBN7 about how it is not as good but this is made up for by the $500 price difference.

My argument is totally against the 128 bit versions.

But lets just see what the results show because the 128bit 460M and 192bit 460M were actually not that far apart. If the 128bit 560M does meet the 192bit 460M on par then it might be a better deal than everyone thinks.

Benchmark results will show this and we dont have BBN7 results yet.

Many thanks OP as Rorschach just mentioned if you can run them on an external for 06 and vantage to put them at 1280x1024 that would be sweet but if not 720p will do to begin with.

 

So run 06, vanatge and 11 at 1280x1024?

 

If you can run a lead to an external screen yes that would be great. The laptop itself will only be able to run 1280x720.

3DMark11 runs at 1280x720 so you can just run that through the laptop. Most interesting will be to see what your highest overclock can achieve.

If you could also post your GPU-Z results when you overclock it to the max that would be great to see also.

 

Hello Dallers, check the 2nd link on the bottom of the page there are 2 test made and the result is 30% performance difference between 192 and 128. Sorry if I'm not that clear on my 1st post.

 

Ahh...good point...do i need to purchase any of these or are the free downloads OK?

 

This is true but that does not actually show 3DMark official results.

Nor does it show the results achieved with overclocks, I am still against 128bit versions dont get me wrong they are punishable with a rotten tomato but still the cost saving could be better than first thought if the overclocks achieve results on par with a 192 bit 460M.

Or it will prove us right and we can sit on our thrones once again kicking a field goal for the home team.

You only need the basic version all free downloads you can get all 3 here.

 

Alright! I'm a bit curious on this thread, guess I'll be waiting for the result. Lol at rotten tomatoes If he overclock his laptop it might match up with 192 but he needs to tweak it...nah at least saves a hundreds of $.

 

6 post and 6 reps? Wowser

Op check out that link, and check our my recommendation!

 

Ignore the pro 128bit haters OP you bought it so stick with it! In fact ignore me too because I am one of them.

But still I am waiting eagerly for your results! Comparison is the key!

 

But unless you're going to regularly game on an external screen (and how many people with 17" gaming laptops do this?), why do you care how the GPU performs with a different screen than the screen on the computer itself?

I think the real question is whether the BBN7 GPU will work well with the BBN7 hardware, not what would happen if you stuck the BBN7 GPU inside an A1.

 

Because official benchmarks are conducted at resolution 1280x1024 we are not talking about gaming here we are trying to establish accurate benchmark results in order to compare them to other models. 3DMark Settings set by default are 1280x1024 otherwise it is difficult to get a good comparison.

@ all posters!

Please can we keep this thread not For and Against the 128bit Best Buy version just this one thread because the results will speak for themself!

 

Okie dokie...I'm in the process of running the benchmarks on the Best Buy G74sx, or as I like to call it...The Gimp.

I'm going to run 06 & Vantage at 1280x1024 and run 11 at 1280x720 (or whatever the default resolution is for that.

First run will be with the 560 at stock speeds.
Second run will be with it overclocked. Has anyone had any luck with overclocking it? I'm going to use MSI Afterburner. Any suggestions as to what speed to clock it to?

Bare with me as I'm also doing my daily beer blog so I will be switching back and forth from my main PC (or as I call it...Gollum) to The Gimp.

 

Find your highest overclock manually using MSI and Furmark - afterburner always did the job for me on my Nvidia cards. Furmark will confirm if its stable.

I will be staying up to see the results

 

Did not know that. Then it makes perfect sense. Personally, I'd be interested to see the performance of the 560M (128) not only against the 560M (192), but also the 460M and the 555M. Or maybe the 560M (128)'s performance against those latter two could be inferred once we know how it performs relative to the 560M (192)?

 

Yup its a way to check to make sure that people are using the default settings if you click on one of my results in my signature and scroll to the bottom it will confirm:

Default settings used: Yes.

That is the plan batman we have all the other benchmarks littered across the forum but there has not been any clear default benchmarks done for the 560M gimpy version yet from what I have seen I expect it to produce pretty good results when overclocked because of the higher stock clocks compared to the 460M gimpy.

 

Im also interested in seeing those comparisons, I cant decide between the 192 GTX460M and the 128 GTX560M. I will be picking a laptop with one of these soon.

 

This should hopefully make your mind up, I know the G74 has some fancy new style but if you can get a 1080P and 192bit GPU for the same price there is no argument really but it is still your choice at the end of the day.

Just make sure you dont do what I did when the G70S came out and that was look at all the shiny-ness that came with it because the laptop itself was gorgeous and it glimmered with workmanship but the 8700M GT's in SLI ran like a one legged kangaroo and burned like a tropical infection.

Next to price, Power is very important.

 

Heres the thing, I can buy a G73SW with the 1.5GB 460m (192) for 1555€ or a VX7SX with the 2GB 560 (128 one I think) for 1520€.

Im probably going with the G73SW because of the subwoofer, better screen and the 192 GPU.

And the glossy finish of the VX7SX... I just cant stand that, its much better the rubberized G73SW.

I dont care about having a 17 or 15 inch, its worth the 35€.

 

I think it's stupid how they have Two GTX 560Ms with essentially different specs.

 

I forgot that the G73SW is actually still quite highly priced, honestly think you should wait for these results first because $1199.00 is looking more and more like a bargain to me even though it is gimped its the latest mid range Asus gaming model and in the UK thats currently £735 which is peanuts.

 

LOL.

All ribbing aside, I am really thankful for threads like this because they help me make well-informed decisions. Last time I bought a computer without doing this sort of research, I ended up with an IdeaPad Y710. True story.

 

Rule 1:

Dallers is always right.

Rule 2:

When Dallers is wrong refer to Rule 1.



Same with me with the G70s total pulse buy moment everyone said dont do it!!! I said ''Im doing it'' the regret came 6 months later when I sold it but luckily got every penny back.

 

OK...what is the best way to use Furmark? Any suggestions to run this Dallers? I have overclocked the The Gimp to 900 core/1800 shader/1500 memory.

 

You can only run the basic version as default just fire it up and it will automatically set it to performance mode.

Depending if you are running on an external screen or on the laptop screen it will automatically select the resolution. 1280x1024 external or 1280x720 laptop.

You must run Vantage on an external screen or you wont be given an overall score. Once done could you link the 3DMark online score links on this post!

Nice overclock

 

So I assume Furmark will error out/reboot/BSOD similar to Prime95 or IntelBurnTest if it is cloeck to high?

 

Pretty much yes as long as the temps are ok keep an eye out for artifacts but if Furmark can handle the clocks then the benchmarks will be able to.

 

OK...one last question...when I'm running Furmark on an external 1920x1080 LCD, should I use the max resolution...or 1280x1024? Either way so far I'm getting an overclock of 950/1900/1550.with no artifacts and a max temp of 70. Can The Gimp be that clockable???

 

Hi guys. Picked up the BBK7 yesterday. I thought I would let you guys know what i found so far. Just ran 3Dmark11 on default setings.

Got a score of P1899? What do you guys think? Low? I am still learning here. Don't know much about benchmark tools.

I have been researching graphic cards and new laptops for weeks now. Had a very basic idea about what components to shop for. But I wish I would have done a little more research. But I do have the machine in front of me, so if there is anyway other I can contribute to this discussion please let me know. Anything else you wanna know? I am waiting for the other two benchmark tools to download.

I can tell you right now that this machine will not play FFXIV on high settings @ 1600X900. I had to lower many things below standard and it was still choppy. Although it does run the game smooth with all settings on high @ 1024X768. But isn't that is a waste?

Forgive me. I know I sound a little ignorant and uneducated about this. I am not pretending to understand half of what I am saying LOL. But feel free to help interpret what I am seeing here. I'll do my best to pitch in whatever useful info I have.

 

As mentioned on page 3 you must use 1280x1024 to recieve a comparable result, this resolution is used as a default setting 720p is only shown when the screen cannot reach the default resolution or if you are using 3DMark11.

In regards to the clocks that is a very high overclock but if that is stable then clearly the 560M does have a some serious room to overclock

Could you please post an image of your GPU-z at those clocks.

That is a bit low what is your result with your maximum overclock? What score do you get with the FFXIV benchmark?

I get 4200 with my setup. Sadly I never got round to buying the game after the horror stories of its release

 

Max overclock? Sry. Like I said new to this. Learning as I go here. Still waiting on the FFXIV benchmark to download. Was so excited when I got machine home I just installed and started to play. Didn't think about testing.

 

As above the OP is currently benchmarking and just got a very good overclock 950/1900/1550 raising the core/memory/shader, if you have never overclocked before you will need to do some research but it is the best way to achieve 10-20% increase in overall GPU performance with out extra cost but it can create slightly more heat.

Because the cooling on the G74 is so good this wont cause any problems.

To overclock you will need to use something like MSI Afterburner and to test to see if the overclock is stable Furmark.

 

Yea I heard the horror stories too. But I found the collectors edition for 20 bucks so I figured what the heck. Just spent 1200 on the machine. Lol. Only played it for an hour or two so I can't pass judgement yet. But I can say that some of it feels familiar. GUI needs more tweaking but not too bad.

Benchmark tools still downloading. Ugh.

What about your FPS? Mine was averaging bewtween 5-10.

 

Ty for the info. Will research overclocking.

 

Considering how demanding FFXIV is I am not suprised the 128bit 560M cannot handle it at high 900p. I have not played it so cannot comment on the FPS but I know that my setup with the 920XM and 5870M produces quite a good result from the benchmark at 4200.

Overclocking will make a difference to your GPU performance once you have had time to look into it you should see better results.

[8000 and over] Extremely High Performance - Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.
[5500–7999] Very High Performance - Easily capable of running the game. Should perform exceptionally well, even at higher resolutions.
[4500-5499] High Performance - Easily capable of running the game. Should perform well, even at higher resolutions.
[3000-4499] Fairly High Performance - Capable of running the game on default settings. Consider switching to a higher resolution depending on performance.
[2500-2999] Standard Performance - Capable of running the game on default settings.
[2000-2499] Slightly Low Performance - Capable of running the game, but may experience some slowdown. Adjust settings to improve performance.
[1500-1999] Low Performance - Capable of running the game, but will experience considerable slowdown. Adjusting settings is unlikely to improve performance.
[Under 1500] Insufficient Performance - Does not meet specifications for running the game.

 

MSI Kombuster: 1933 pts 42 FPS

 

When you get some numbers, you can compare here:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/asus-gaming-notebook-forum/595264-performance-preview-g74sx-3de.html

In comparison the 192bit 560m on stock gets P2229, for a 17% higher score.

@Dallers: Recommending the use of MSI utilities on ROG machines will get you a ROG reprimand. Use GPUTweak or NVIDIA Inspector. You can get higher overclocks, as you can see in my performance preview.

 

3DMARK Vantage: score 8353, FPS 21

 

Here we go...results... (stock Nvidia driver 268.37, stock CPU)

Here is my max stable overclock...925/1850/1500. That was stable in Furmark for 15 runs at 1280x1024 with a max temp of 67 C. I could push it to 950/1900/1550 but Furmark started to get funky with artifacts and crashes.

GPUz


Furmark


All of these were run at 1280x1024 except 3DMark 11 which defaulted to 1280x720.

3DMark06 - Stock - 13970
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M video card benchmark result - Intel Core i7-2630QM Processor,ASUSTeK Computer Inc. G74Sx score: 13970 3DMarks

3DMark06 - Overclock - 15980
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M video card benchmark result - Intel Core i7-2630QM Processor,ASUSTeK Computer Inc. G74Sx score: 15980 3DMarks

3DMark Vantage - Stock - P8992
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M video card benchmark result - Intel Core i7-2630QM Processor,ASUSTeK Computer Inc. G74Sx score: P8992 3DMarks

3DMark Vantage - Overclock - P10977
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M video card benchmark result - Intel Core i7-2630QM Processor,ASUSTeK Computer Inc. G74Sx score: P10977 3DMarks

3DMark 11 - Stock - P1882
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M video card benchmark result - Intel Core i7-2630QM Processor,ASUSTeK Computer Inc. G74Sx score: P1882 3DMarks

3DMark 11 - Overclock - P2255
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M video card benchmark result - Intel Core i7-2630QM Processor,ASUSTeK Computer Inc. G74Sx score: P2255 3DMarks


It looks like based on this link, http://forum.notebookreview.com/asus-gaming-notebook-forum/595264-performance-preview-g74sx-3de.html, to get similar 3DMark score with 560M (128), you have to overclock it. Is the stock 560M (192) that much faster than the 560M (128)? With 3DMark 11 at stock speeds, the 560M (192) is 15.6% faster (2229 vs 1882) and with Vantage at stock speeds the 560m (192) is 3% faster (9269 vs 8992). I think I did those percentages right...please correct me if I'm wrong...goodness knows math isn't one of strong points.

How does that filter down to real gaming tests? I know I want to know since I don't "play" the 3DMark benchmarks, I play games. So now it is time to break out some games...any suggestions?

 

It's pretty simple. Theoretical throughput difference is just that, "up to" a 50% difference.

However, at lower resolutions/textures, the 128-bit bus width won't even be the bottleneck anyway, since we're still talking about a VERY reasonable bandwidth with the GDDR5.

The difference should only start to show up in high resolution/textures, but even then, it's just a bit. I wouldn't say it'd be more than ~10%, maybe 15%. I'd be surprised if it's anywhere NEAR 20%.

It REALLY starts showing up gaming at FHD with ultra textures, but at this point, games are unplayable anyway, so it's irrelevant. However, theoretically, bandwidth should be maxed here, in which case you might be approaching the 50% perceived increase. But again, this is irrelevant, because we're talking on the orders of 10 FPS vs 15 FPS.

So in real world terms, it's hard to say, it depends what you do with it. At lower resolutions, it'll outperform a 192-bit 460m, but at slightly higher resolutions... tough call. The 192-bit versions of either model will handily win at ultra though.

EDIT: Nice benchmarks. I do want to see some at higher resolutions though, to see if I was just spewing random garbage. What demanding games do you have that'll push the 560m at 1080p (talking 10-20 FPS)?

 

+1 THIS is what I have been saying for three threads now lol

And as someone else mentioned, it seems there's a 17% difference between the 128 bit and 192...and I believe in another thread it was found on average the difference between the 460 and 560 was 15% (which makes sense since the clock difference is roughly the same percentage difference)

So my earlier speculation on a 560 128bit performing at least on par on these lower res BB screens with the 192bit 460, seems to have been validated by more evidence

 

Not really evidence. Or at least I haven't provided anyway.

Just theory, from an architecture standpoint.

 

I'm going to load up Metro 2033...I think that has a benchmark option. Crysis may also be a good choice to run...although I should try it with Crysis 2.

I assume I should bench these at 1600x900 and 1920x1080 (external LCD)?

 

2hvy4grvty: Well you were just backing me up, before the evidence; the evidence I am referring to is now scattered over many threads, and the benchmarks in this one.

Question for you though, why do you think (128 or 192?) the 560 will only be able to push 1080p gaming at 10-20 fps? Unless your talking about BF3 or similar.

 

No, I'm saying I want to see the performance gap between the two on demanding games (Crysis 2, Metro 2033) when the card is pushed to its absolute limit. Because That's where I feel like the increased throughput would rear its head.

@OP yeah: three tries, lowest resolution + lowest textures. 900p + high textures. And 1080p with ultra textures, maybe some filters too. The last one should be unplayable.

You wouldn't happen to have Dirt 3/Starcraft 2 would you? 1080p for those games would be great too.

Match settings here preferable: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Asus-G74SX-3DE-Gaming-Notebook.56809.0.html

 

Dirt 3 I have...no Starcraft 2.

I will get to those...it probably won't be until tomorrow night though.