770M problems?

So I've been looking at laptops and recently decided that I would probably get one with a 770M.

However, I've even more recently read that the 770M (at least in Clevos) have a clock speed problem where it only goes up to 705.5mhz instead of the 811 mhz that Nvidia claimed?

I was wondering if there was any news on this issue (is it fixed?)


Also, would the 8970M be better than the 770M in a Clevo? I've heard that the 8970M suffers from Enduro problems...
Both would be on the same processor. (the 8970M one would be about $100 more) (can't upgrade to 780M cause of money)

Links to the laptop options I was thinking of:
XOTIC PC | Sager NP8265 (Clevo P150SM) - 15.6" Gaming Notebook (backlit keyboard)
XOTIC PC | Sager NP8255-S (Clevo P157SM)
XOTIC PC | Sager NP8235 (Clevo P151SM1)

Links to the forums about the clock problem:
Anyone here with a GTX 770M? - Notebooks
http://forum.notebookreview.com/sag...70m-only-runs-max-core-clock-705-5-mhz-4.html

(I wouldn't want to do that bat file thing mentioned in the first forum link)

Thanks

 

Works fine I believe. Google how Nvidia boost 2.0 works. I prefer Nvidia, it just works.

 

Base clock of 770M is 705 Mhz. The 811 from Nvidia is wrong. With gpu boost it reaches 862 Mhz. I don't own a Clevo, but my MSI has no problems boosting the clock (tested with MSI Afterburner).
8970M has a better performance than the 770M, but I've heard that Enduro doesn't work as well as Nvidia's Optimus, too.

 

I would get the 8970m for a hundred bucks. It has a wider bus to memory. For a 100 bucks, that is worth it. If you are going over your budget and simply cannot save money on any other components, then go with the 770m. The Enduro problems were fixed some time ago. nVidia's drivers are still better but I haven't had problems with my laptop in Enduro for a long time now (I did about a 15 months ago but I had the luxury of turning Enduro off).

 

All right, thanks for the info guys.

So essentially, the 770M shouldn't have a problem with boosting, but the 8970M is worth the extra hundred cause of no more Enduro problems?
Will pobably get the one with the 8970M then

 

Think it would be worth it to get a backlit keyboard? Is there any purpose for it?

 

Only if you game at nights or type with low light conditions!

 

I would go with Nvidia. I find on notebooks, AMD is an absolute 1000% waste of your money. Maybe on desktop they are better.

But even on AMD sponsored games, Nvidia just runs better on notebooks. But tbh, with my very sour and aggravating experience with my 7970M, and 5870M, even on desktop I'd go Nvidia. I hate Nvidia for their PhysX and other proprietary and marketing bs strategies, but frankly their drivers and their GPUs just plain work better on notebooks. No question in my mind. I used to defend AMD, but after using my 675MX, I see absolutely no reason to defend or support AMD.

 

The backlite keyboard can also tell you cpu and gpu temps if you use the software an end user wrote that is in the Clevo/Sager section. Basically the keyboard colors change with various temps. Also the light increases contrast so if the lighting is not the best you can still quickly find the right keys. I have a laptop that doesn't have a lighted keyboard, and sometimes I have to tilt the display down so it will light the keyboard.

 

5,3k 3d mark 11, @ stock ! it seems to be @ 863MHz

 

@Zymphad

So basically, you're saying that AMD drivers would affect the performance and in the end the 770M would be better?
Does Nvidia just run better in general? I've checked some fps benchmarks and it seems that the 770M is also more stable and will run better in certain games than the 8970M because of the stableness.

Also, does PhysX have an affect on performance? What is it actually? Thanks

Also,
Will most likely get a backlit keyboard because of the info on the changing colours thing, thanks for that info

 

PhysX is Nvidias version of Physics calculations. These calculations are used to make explosions, water, fog, etc, look more realistic in their movement. PhysX uses the Nvidia card to do these calculations. They can also be done on the CPU, but they will not be as fast, and will slow down the game. AMD cards can not do PhysX.

There are other ways to do physics calculations, like the Havoc engine. So not all games use PhysX. Games that do use it are still designed to look good on AMD, just with it the explosions or water or cloth, etc, will looks better.

Even on on Nvidia cards, PhysX will have a performance hit. The hit is usually small and worth it, but it depends on the game, the cpu, and the gpu.

So is it worth it? Obviously a lot of people still buy AMD cards with out it. So it is not a big deal. Not a game changer so to say. I like it as I like playing with the physics in some games. I think of it as a small perk for getting AMD. Would it sway my opinion? Not much.

Hopefully I have been objective on thus and haven't started the AMD/NVIDIA war...

 

Most people put phyx on cpu anyways AFAIK, as most game don't tax the cpu as hard and every gpu resource counts for fps.

 

The 770m isn't powerful enough to handle both. You'd be much better off using the CPU for doing the physics calculations and using the GPU purely for rendering.

Also, you cannot use PhysX on all video games. Games need to be written to be able to do hardware accelerated physics computations. 9 games released in 2013 came with PhysX support. Usually, you'd want to do PhysX with a SLI set up. May be with the 780m. Not sure you'd be happy with performance if you use the 770m for PhysX.

Also, I've been using my AMD card for the last year or so with switchable graphics and it runs just fine. Sure, there were problems, but even nVidia's Optimus had problems when it first came out. AMD's Enduro problems have been fixed, as you can see by doing a Google search and looking for recent threads related to Enduro. You won't find many, if at all.

Finally, like I said in my earlier post, I see no reason to go for the 770m over the 8970m UNLESS you simply cannot afford to pay the extra $100.

 

I put PhysX to GPU and set PhysX to low in game and it works better than doing it on CPU. Putting it on CPU bottlenecks the GPU...

 

Do you have any sources for this statement?

 

@maverick1989

Okay, so the 8970M is better for 100 bucks. And you said in an earlier post that Nvidia drivers are better.
Should I be worried about AMD drivers?
Also, as I said before, looking at fps benchmarks here and here:
AMD Radeon HD 8970M - NotebookCheck.net Tech
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M - NotebookCheck.net Tech

It seems to me that although the 8970M does have an fps advantage in some games, it seems to be more inconsistent with its fps? Is this just a driver thing?
For example: On Battlefield 4, the 8970M on ultra has about a 10 fps advantage, but then when looking at Assasin's Creed 3, the 770M has a 30 fps advantage on medium settings and still a 10 fps advantage on ultra.

So what is actually happening there in AC3?

Thanks for the help so far everyone

 

It's common knowledge. Lots of game benchmarks you could look up to verify it. There's a reason PhysX is GPU-accelerated physics rendering. It's designed to run on CUDA, not on the CPU. CPU PhysX is not only much slower but usually missing the more advanced effects. To give you a quick example, if I play a PhysX demo using the plugin in Maya with PhysX set to CPU, it runs at maybe 10 FPS, basically a sideshow. The same demo runs buttery smooth, no dropped frames at all when PhysX is set to GPU.

Probably a CPU bottleneck with the AMD system in AC3. The 8970M was probably running in an MSI GX60/70. Ew.

 

I'm not sure how you can have PhysX set to the CPU. That statement carries no meaning. PhysX is a SDK provided by a company that was eventually bought off by nVidia. The SDK gives developers access to APIs that allow you to write software that can let you accelerate physics calculations on GPUs. You cannot run PhysX on CPUs just as you cannot use the Android SDK to write applications for the Windows OS or (probably a better terminology) write CUDA applications that run on the CPU. PhysX "running" on the CPU is simply physics computations done by the CPU.

Also, regarding your Maya example, what GPU was the system running? If physics computations on the CPU bottleneck the CPU, what happens when you run them on a 770m ALONG with graphics rendering?

Finally, you cannot find LOTS of game benchmarks because PhysX is only supported by a handful of games. PhysX isn't a little checkbox you click under "Options". The game needs to be written with the PhysX APIs.

Try running Batman Arkham Origins on a 770m with PhysX. That cape of his will flutter at barely 10 fps.

I am not sure which website you saw this on, but NBC has it running at about 22 fps slower with a A10 CPU. That is obvious. If you look at the benchmark where the i7 is paired with the 8970m, that is much better (albeit with drivers that are almost a year old). The 770m review compares drivers anywhere between the most recent to a couple months old.

 

8970M definitely the better card for 100 bucks more. The 770M is already below the 7970M somewhat. The 8970M is a faster clocked and possibly higher binned version of the 7970M. Essentially at both stock and when OCing you are likely to have noticeably higher frame rates at higher settings than with the 770M at stock and at an OC. Especially apparent if you game at 1080p or higher due to the low 192 bit memory bus on the 770M.

It's a shame the 680M isn't an option it is by far the best option out there and costs around the same as the 8970M.

 

This. Or rather these. Both are very true. The higher memory bandwidth counts towards a lot. And nVidia should really have kept the 680m. Even if it were priced $50 or may be even $100 above the 8970m, people would buy it. I know I would. Don't know why they got rid of it. That was one GPU that really deserved to be renamed.

 

How many people in here complaining about the supposed problems of the 770m, actually own one?

 

Actually no one is complaining about the GPU. It is a fine piece of silicon. Just that if you can get (and afford) better for $100, it would make a logical choice.

If the 770m was offered as a $100 upgrade in a laptop that came with the 760m as stock, and if OP asked about such a choice, I'd recommend the 770m. If a person started a thread saying their budget was $2500 and that the 780m was an upgrade that fit within that amount, I'd (highly) recommend it.

There is no reason to think a particular person is hostile towards a product simply because s/he recommends another one over it. It could be that the other product is the logical alternative.

 

Got you.

The laptop I went with, the only upgrade available(780m) was another $350. The difference between the 770/780 isn't worth it, I would have preferred the 680m. You can't get it anymore though :/.

 

All right well thanks for the help guys!
Looks like I really will be going for the 8970M then!

I've been looking around though, and there's some speculation that Nvidia's 800 series will come out around Q2 of 2014. Thoughts?

 

PhysX can run on the cpu. Running it on the cpu it is still called PhysX. PhysX running on the gpu or cpu is simply physics computations. The math is the same if done with x86 code or done with CUDA code. (Let's not get into optimizations...) Try a google search for physx on cpu...

 

Also, been looking around and I can get a laptop with the 680M but with an i7 3630QM and its around 200 more, thoughts?

Btw the 8970M would be in Clevo as a reminder, the 680M would be an msi

 

You and octiceps are correct. The PhysX SDK can be used for the CPU as well. The wikipedia website states that. I had no idea. Thanks.

That being said, the point remains that PhysX itself is rarely used and even if it is, you wouldn't want to enable it on the 770m.

If you can afford to spend the $200 (and get a 3 year warranty) then do it. The 680m with the 3630QM is a pretty good set up and better than Haswell + 8970m.

 

Kay will do. Thanks for all the help everyone!