AMD 7970m vs GTX 680m

According to the released FPS scores we can see an increase of up to 30% and an average of 15% over the 7970m. (not universal scores, only the so far released ones).

 

Well if 15% is worth $300 to you then be my guest... But if you can also tell the difference between 60 frames per second and 69, or 50 and 58, I'd be surprised.

 

funny that nobody has noticed this before: the most interesting part for me thus far was anandtechs comparison of the "official" 580M numbers with their 680M counterparts. results: exactly 50% faster than a 580M! considering that the 7970M is ALSO exactly 50% faster (notebookcheck review) i dont really see any perf improvement whatsoever over the amd gpu and guys, remember: this is comparing apples to apples,meaning biased nvidia numbers to biased nvidia numbers! (580m vs. 680m)

doesnt that make anybody here pause a bit?

just my 2 cents

cheers

Sent from my GT-I9001 using Tapatalk 2

 

this core count indeed gives 680M a huge potentsial. I didnt think that nvidia makes it happen. Its kind of shooting himself in the leg. But i quess, they couldnt beat 7970M with lesser cores then and had to make it full 670.
Good news for consumers

Other Kepler based cards look like pile of s..t now.

This however shouldnt hurt AMD at all, since Pitcairn cards should be considerably cheaper to produce. They could just lower the 7970M price to sell the cards better, if they dont go as well as wanted.

 

NVIDIA Newsroom - Releases - NVIDIA

At the bottom, they say it gets 25000 in Vantage but then they say the 7970M gets 20600, which is 1000 less than what I got.

"The intense focus on performance and technology engineered into the 2GB GDDR5 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M is a perfect match for the Alienware M17x and M18x laptops," said Frank Azor, Alienware General Manager.

I guess Alienware gets the 2GB version?

 

4gb version is overkill anyway. Its been tested with desktop version that Kepler has no use for 4GB, as its optimised for 2.

 

The same old notion of 'bigger is better' lol


Sent from my wholly molly new iPad using Tapatalk

 

GeForce GTX 680M - GeForce

Something is really fishy here....

 

and what is the fishy thing may i ask?

 

I cannot understand how nVIDIA pulled this off... I am really amazed TBH, I really am, the real question is if it can overvolted.

 

GTX 680M performance:
Nvidia takes curtains off GeForce GTX 680M - Notebookcheck.net News

Nvidia have launced the 680m so those people who bought 670m's or 675m's have fun lol.

Nvidia improve by 1% over a 7970m:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-680M.72679.0.html

 

Yes, finally we have benches, it improves about 5% in 3dmark11 and is slower than 7970m in vantage. Still I would say that is an accomplishment, God bless 28nm

 

One should hardly care about synthetic benchmarks. How are the differences in gaming performance?

 

cant wait till someone gets a 680m and overclocks, i want to see how it compares to my 25k gpu vantage score with my 7970m

 

They say thats in a GT70.

 

Agreed , benchmarks are a waste of time and effort and mean nothing in real world gaming.

 

So to sum things up so far we got:

680m appears to perform better at some games (given the fact it clocks up by around 5% by itself)

7970m will counter this easely when clocked and it still suffers from early driver versions.

The real showdown comes when the 7970m gets better drivers and when we see just how far the 680m will actually clock ?

 

So it's a GTX 670 huh? It's hard being right all the time. I'm changing my name to Kevstradamus.

Too bad the pricing is so outlandish, because I'd love to have one.

 

Tbh I think everyone knew nvidia will overprice as per usual

 

Hey, I was the first to wish that it would be 670 based after seeing the 670 pics more than a month ago and everybody rubbished me (definitely mine was based purely on instinct, not knowledge )

 

Sadly yes, I agree

 

If the chart from Nvidia is true, it shows that we cannot trust synthetic benchmarks and see it translated to gaming performance.
680M with PhysX on scores over P25000 in Vantage while it scores around P22000 with PhysX disabled (same as 7970M). 3DMark 11 is around P5800, same as 7970M. But yet the FPS from the graph shows that the 680M is in average 15% faster than 7970M. Most interesting is that 680M destroys the 7970M by 40% in Battlefield 3 and Metro 2033.

I guess we will have to wait for a review to find out the real truth. All we have now is Nvidia`s own marketing results anyways.

 

So I'm of the impression the 680M doesn't outperform the 7970M by such a margin as to warrant the tremendous price difference. However, I've heard NVIDIA's drivers are better than AMD's. Is the 680M worth the price simply because of that?

 

i can´t seem to remember reading anything about the 680M having the turbo boost-function...

 

Last generation the Nvidia was 5% over the 6990M yet it sold like crazy. You have to ask yourself if 15% over 7970M (if true) is worth $280 extra. We can`t tell you that.

I personally will buy it wether it is 5% or 15% faster. Optimus and their drivers are totally worth it. But price have never been an issue to me anyways so each to its own

 

i will be benching one and overclocking one to the max.. so we will know soon. However, we don't know anything about the memory yet. We don't know if it will go to 1200mhz. There has to be a reason why they put 3.6ghz effective (115.2 GB/s) into this card.

Desktop 670 has 192 GB/s bandwidth so i will be curious to see how that will have an impact on performance (if any). There may also be differences in Dell cards vs Clevo as they typically put difference vram into their cards

 

notebookcheck states that it definitely has the turbo-boost but since its regulated in the bios each reseller would have to decide if to activate it or not.

Sent from my GT-I9001 using Tapatalk 2

 

Yeah Im curious too if the low memory bandwidth is holding it back or if its good enough for the 680M.

 

What is the 7970m memory bandwidth as it seems to OC's well but idk that much in this subject haha

Sent From My Rooted EVO 3D

 

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M - Notebookcheck.net Tech

That 25k vantage report we saw from the vendor was baloney (physX enabled). That's why i dont' trust all this until I see it on my own computer. This is like me running without Tess in 3dmark11 and scoring 7200 3dmark11's then posting that's what the 7970m gets. It's very misleading.

The 680m is scoring 5900 in 3dmark11 and 21,900 in vantage (20,698 GPU) when no Physx is enabled

Like we have been saying, keep your 7970m Halo.

Stock, the 7970m has 153 GB/s mem bandwidth. It has been confirmed by many (including myself) how easily the vram clocks up to 1500+mhz. halo has the most extreme at over 1.6ghz. So multiply figure by 25-30% with the overclock...and the 7970m scales well when the mem is boosted up, so performance increases nicely from the stock 1200mhz to say about 1480mhz.

It could be that the kepler architecture doesn't need as much bandwidth and maxxes out sooner. For a stock card, it may not matter, but when overclocking is concerned, it matters. i'm hoping the 900mhz ram they put in there overclocks well

 

IT HAVE TURBO BOOST. Its the way Kepler works. Get it in your heads FFS. There is no way a notebook OEM will disable it (ROTFL), since it will severely hinder its performance. Its like taking away the turbo boost (the core function) from your sandy Bridge.

Nvidia themselves describe the 680M as "UP to 720MHz" the same way it described GTX 660M and GT 650M. No OEM have EVER touched any of its clocks and lowered it.

 

I agree, most will leave the chip in a stock configuration.

 

well thats what it says on notebookcheck, look it up urself what do u mean by "ever"? the 660m and 650m barely came out lol. besides, u cant compare nvidias turbo boost with intels, i mean the turbo clocks are what, like 5% higher than the base clocks? much different with intel where TB is like 30-40% higher than base clock.

cheers

Sent from my GT-I9001 using Tapatalk 2

 

You werent the only one, there was me, meaker, kevin, cloud, and some others that I cant remember.

after nailing this, Im going to buy a lottery ticket

 

Good luck on winning that haha

Sent From My Rooted EVO 3D

 

so, now that's it's official. the 680m is no sloutch...time to see what it can do fully unlocked and over clocked..just like the 7970m

 

Watching the GTX670 and HD7870 reviews, its fair that 680M beats 7970M in BF3 by fair margin, since the game favors more Nvidia. But Metro difference by that much is obviously wrong. Metro has always favored AMD cards a bit. Im sure that 7970M is right on par with 680M in that game.
On overall looks like pretty equal cards. 680M in slight lead in perfomance and price as well.

 

we should all chip in

 

MSI with their GT70 have a higher clocked 680M. 732MHz instead of 720MHz

 

I still think I'm dreaming when I see 1344 cores on this card. I wonder if this card will overclock to 800Mhz (with Turbo).

I SIMPLY HAVE TO HAVE THIS CARD, LOL.

I can't wait to see more evened out benchmarks (exact same map etc...) but the 30% faster is about right (for some games). AMD needs more shaders and more bandwidth to outpace their NVIDIA counterpart as seen on the desktop side. AMD Mobile has 1280 and now nVIDIA Mobile has 1344. Unless Kepler scales horribly when under-clocked I believe AMD is ready to be officially buried on the mobile front.

You'll see my M18x R2 in the for sale section today pretty darn soon.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if AMD makes a 7990M with more shaders that surpasses the 680M by decent margins. They certainly have the headroom to do it with this arch.

 

That's most likely MSI's TDE (Turbo Drive Engine) at work. They have a software application that upclocks the GPU a little bit when it is activated. When the software is not activated, the GPU runs at stock clocks.

 

IIRC, that TDE thing simply make GPU change from P1 to P0 state, allow for my previous card 570M to get to its true, standard clocks.

 

HD7970M is full power pitcairn XT, which means that it cant go any higher core count.
AMD needs to make new core, which would find a place between pitcairn and tahiti. The difference between the two is huge. They need some 280-300mm2 core. Just like Kepler.


Pitcairn XT 1280 cores, 212 mm2
Kepler GK104 is 294 mm2
Tahiti 365 mm2

Tahiti would be simply too big and too inefficent to squize in to notebooks.

 

Why are you selling couldn't you just buy two cards or one if you dont sli and then upgrade ??

Sent From My Rooted EVO 3D

 

The machine in my sig is unopened. I'd rather just sell and rebuy.

I'm posting from a MSI GX740 hehe. i7 720QM 1.6Ghz and a 5870 Mobility.

 

If its unopened cant you return it and upgrade then?

Sent From My Rooted EVO 3D

 

You can open it and check it out. You have 21 days or something like that to return. I have a 7970M CFX rig coming any minute here and I am going to keep it if Dell's QC (quality control) doesn't let me down. I'll upgrade to 680M SLI later on if needed. Should recoup a good chunk of that upgrade cost via selling my 7970M CFX.

 

ya, the only thing that they can really tweak on the 7970m are the clocks. But then we can do that ourselves. I haven' heard anything about a faster offering from AMD with more cores so it appears Amd went all in this round.

I'm amazed that Nvidia pulled it off to be honest. hats off to them. The pace they are working at is insane! They respun the silicon and came up with the current 680m way ahead of my expectations.

if it is going to be similar to last years 580 launch, Dell will be shipping 680m's in volume by july so it is still a month+ away if you want SLI 680m's in an Alienware

 

Another few tests done with 7970M and 680M.

Far cry 2
7970M 129.8FPS
680M 112.6FPS
680M scores 15.3% better than 7970M

Dirt 3
7970M 64.5FPS
680M 80FPS
680M scores 24% better than 7970M

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M Gaming Notebook Unveiled | NVIDIA,GeForce,GTX 680M,Gaming,Notebook,NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M Gaming Notebook Unveiled