Should i trade my N550JV for a G75VW

So i'm thinking of swapping my Asus N550JV for a G75VW through a local guy.
Both laptops are in good condition and seem to run fine.

I work in Animation/Editorial and while the N550JV has served me well
so far the GPU is holding me back so i guess my question is
would trading laptops and going to a 670M from a 750m be worth it?.

The G75VW has a 120HZ 3D screen which would be nice to use or tho
IPS is preferred for Photoshop work i do.

I can also fit a lot more ram in it and SSD's.
Currently limited to 2x 8GB stucks in my N550JV.

Anyone think i would see a performance difference or am i just wasting time
and better off saving up for a Clevo?.

 

Is it costing you anything? The 670M is a fair bit more powerful than the 750m.

 

Not costing anything at all.Just a straight swap

Spec wise the 670M is slower besides the 3GB DDR5 memory buffer.
Guess i answered my own question since the 670m isn't all that much faster.

 

The 670M is 30-40% faster.

 

Really? based on specs it only has 3GB DDR5 and less cuda cores + lower clocks when compared to the 750m.
Pen and paper don't seem to indicate a huge advantage of 30-40% for it but i could be wrong.

Any chance you know were i could info to back that number up?.
I'm not trying to be rude at all i'm just trying to find more info if changing to a better card is worth it.

 

670M is faster than 750M, please refer to below scores for comparison.
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+GTX+670M&id=1459
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu.php?gpu=GeForce+GT+750M&id=2492

 

Synthetic Benchmarks are great but it doesn't exactly translate to real world performance
In Premiere pro Photoshop or Maya and that is only one source.

I must sound really picky and and like a total twat but i struggled to find
much information on a significant bump in gaming or Creative performance.

Thanks for the help tho guys if anyone has anything else to contribute before i decide tomorrow
Then it would be appreciated as well.

 

No problem, each spec means something, but it is the overall performance that we need to look at, and not just one area.
Based on the spec, the 670M is superior than 750M although 750M has more shaders.
Based on model naming convention, 750M is still a x50M GPU (mid-sized) vs 670M (large-sized) GPU.
670M is designed to meet higher demand.
670M is superior than 750M.
You can choose not to trust synthetic benchmark such as Passmark but it is a type of valid measurement.

Alternatively, you can refer to below sites' comparison chart.

Reference (Notebookcheck):
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-750M.90245.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-670M.72197.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-760M.92068.0.html

Reference (Futuremark)
http://www.futuremark.com/hardware/gpu/NVIDIA+GeForce+GT+750M/review
https://www.futuremark.com/hardware/gpu/NVIDIA+GeForce+GTX+670M/review

 

Well.. the 670m is a Fermi card, and it draws a constant 75w. The 750m is a kepler based card, with a 45w limit (but not typically drawing that amount in practice all the time). And a standard clocked 750m has about 80% of the performance of a 670m in things like 3dmark.

So you trade better peak performance at a pretty high watt-drain. For the option to utilize all the shader units to some 80% of the performance, at a maximum of 45w. The kepler cards aren't exactly optimal either, though - you tend to end up in 40-45w for as long as the card is used. And then you have these marginal situations when the core clock is at one step before idle, but all the shader units are still used, when you end up at around 20w.

The maxwell cards improved on that in all ways that were needed, and they have a watt-drain that scales depending on the number of core alus that are used, instead of just the clock-speed. So then you have frequent situations - specially in things like photoshop, where you have all the shader-units active, but don't get anywhere near the max watt-drain.

So yes, the 670m is faster (also in photoshop). But it's not, imo, substantial enough to really make much of a difference in the performance range on these laptops. So you're really trading one 75w card for a 45w card that almost performs as well. If you overclock that kepler card (and they are all ridiculously good overclocking candidates - no exceptions), you can expect to easily beat a standard clocked 670m in 3dmark, while still being nowhere near the 75w peak.. So if the cooling is good enough, the 750m will actually outperform the 670m fermi card by a solid margin on lower watt budget..

Basically, the gk107 chip on the 750m is actually an overclocked gk107 chip similar to the one on the 650m, 660m, etc. Then when you go over to the gk106 chip in for example the 760m, you have twice the shader-units again at some 50w, and that's where you have something around twice the 3dmark score as a 750m with standard clocks.

To sum up - when the 670m turned up, it was actually a worse card than the much smaller and "weaker" 650m already then (which is based on the same chip as the 750, as mentioned), when speaking in pure performance. In performance per watt, the contrast was even worse.

And really both of these cards were sort of throwaway goods at the different times they were launched, as there were better cards for reaching the same performance at even lower watt-drain with the maxwell cards. And you had other kepler cards with the gk106 chip that were better suited for heavy notebooks and better cooling than what you might want to fit a gk107 in. And meanwhile the 660m gk107 cards could be overclocked to high heaven and still be below half of the watt-drain of the fermi cards. So...

But yes, you will get slightly better performance on standard clocks on a 670m compared to a 750m on standard clocks. For twice the watt-drain. It's not a good card for any use, and specially not now that there are monstrously better alternatives out there. But of concern to you should be the fact that a 670m will draw 75w easily, and makes your laptop double as a small heater for a well-insulated appartment..

Anyway - if you are looking for a way to make your photoshop use more mobile, you might want to take a look at the smaller maxwell cards, but also the new apus from amd. Carrizio laptops have, frankly, comical 3d performance for the amount of power it uses. It's down there in the range of 15-20w, and scores something in the range of 30-40% lower than a 750m card. Also, openCL performance in a realm that the nvidia cards don't have, thanks to bus transfer proximity. So obviously extremely well suited to photoshop work.

 

...dblpost