AMD 7970m vs GTX 680m

I just walk away from close minded people and do not associate with them as they are generally very negative people in all aspects.

Competition is a good thing and we need it so we are not paying $10,000 for a mobile GPU.

 

Differences in turbo calculations (specifically how board TDP factors into calculations) and possibly others.

It's likely a downclocked 670 would permanently turbo, it already goes beyond 1ghz often as it is.

 

But if the GPU clocks up to 720 MHz top? The turbo boost of 680M will stay at 720MHz if the load requires it I think

I already had someone test the GTX 670 down to the 680M clock: GPU clock 720MHz, memory clock 900MHz
Here is what he scored with the newest drivers. Graphic score 6160

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 video card benchmark result - Intel Core i5 Processor I5-750,Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. P55-UD5 score: P6117 3DMarks

 

You know that this does not correspond with the mobile version... different board power limit, boost clock table etc. ...

Still, I'm curious whether there's a similar dynamic overclock implementation in the mobile version... could get interesting for OCing.

 

720mhz is base clock. Turbo adds to that.

 

thats a realy good score, if the clocks are the same there is no reasons for the value not be the same as 680m, unless it underclocks under stress.

Stil, not the extreme settings as you wanted, so i guess this means noting to you.

 

I got this guy to test the 670 at 900MHz btw and the memory still at 900MHz. GTX 670 is at 915MHz but turbo up to 980MHz just for reference.

Im not shure if that is possible to do with 680M but I think its interesting benchmarkwise.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 video card benchmark result - Intel Core i5 Processor I5-750,Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. P55-UD5 score: P7316 3DMarks

Nope, gaming wise it means absolutely nothing

Really? I was to the assumption that 720MHz was the top turbo boost since Nvidia states "Up to 720MHz". But if 720MHz is the base clock for 680M it should really score 6160 in GPU score. I don`t get it.

 

This paragraph is from Notebookcheck, 680M comparison of GPUs section:

However, due to the missing hot clock of the shader domain, two shaders of a Kepler chip are of similar speed to one shader of a Fermi chip (as the latter is clocked twice as fast).

Does this mean that 1344 cores are actually 672 cores (1344/2) as compared to Fermi? Please anyone knows how this compares with AMD 7970 with its 1280 (1D) cores? Are AMD and Nvidia cores the same 'nature/performance' ? I hope this is not too crazy to ask lol

I am receiving my 150 EM with 7970M within 2 weeks, been waiting 5 weeks already. Up until now I always had Nvidia chips in notebooks, I liked the drivers and never had any problems. I found out mySn (no..sorry, Deviltech) sells (preorder again) 150 EM with Nvidia 680M with exactly the same config as in my sig for the same price, except no 95% matte gamut (not configurable).

I definitely want to get the best possible deal for my money as everyone here. Please anyone can give me some input on the cores?

 

hmm, does this mean memory bandwidth has less effect on performance on a kepler core than originally speculated?

 

No since p is run at 1280x720 lol. Get some x scores and i can run some tests soon.

 

Yeah, too little data taxed on the memory controller and memory in performance preset
But by all means, if that resolution is your "thing" its good enough. 200FPS gaming here we come

 

Yeah, if someone runs a 680m at 1280x720 i will come round and slap them myself.

 

Actually, if you make the count of pixels displayed per second performance present taxes more the memory controller then extreme, correct me if im wrong.

more frames per second even if half the pixels per frame

 

Not quite how it works.

 

Nvidia 650M with gddr5 and 650M with gddr3 both stock are on par performance wise, I think 128 bus does not limit the gddr3 version hence better memory management since Fermi. And yes, 650M gddr5 is stock clocked at 735 vs 850 650M gddr3.

 

Its on average 20% faster so how do you work that out?

 

this is of course relying on the fact that the 650m gddr3 is core clocked higher than the gddr5 version, we are yet to discover the oc potential on the 680m so even if the memory doesn't affect performance we can't simply say that even with low bandwidth comes great core power.

nvm

 

heat bro, with better cooling (guy with a 670 desktop setup I bet has a good cooling) will change a lot

 

I actually prefer 900p for 15" systems. My eyesight isn't great, and 900p is a LOT easier to view than 1080p.

Plus the performance increase of up to 30% is nice

On that subject, is anyone able to recommend a decent matte 900p panel for the P150EM? If I am able to locate one, my reseller of choice will fit it.

 

I hope you replied to my post lol
I read about benchmarked stock M14X R2 (650M gddr5) vs the new Clevo 11 inch. (650M gddr3) stock and saw the same results.

 

Ha maybe you should go for a 120hz 1366x768 panel? also 20% improvement at stock res is a big deal.

 

Have no idea how the different modes work in detail, but you must also take in account that Extreme preset have 4xMSAA+16xAF @1080p. Pixels is one thing, but Multisample anti aliasing (MSAA) take a huge toll on texture bandwidth

 

Why on earth would you do that? You've got a serious man-crush on nVidia

Cloudfire, I really value your input and enjoy how you spruce up the forums so please don't get arrested for stalking Jen-Hsun Huang.

 

haha
I can see the news already:

"Nvidia fan, arrested 2 hours after he took Jen Huang as hostage demanding to be the first one with GTX 680M"

 

Let's all have a cool off regarding the two GPU's and wait till it comes out. Cus all this guessing/speculation is quite energy draining for the potential buyer like me

 

you forgot crazed nvidia fan, haha.

i'm curious though, what system are you currently running cloud?

 

I'll do it. Where to?

 

It's not that easy. When I was an intern there, he was driving his awesome red Ferrari. You'd have to catch up first

 

/rant on

@cloud:

alright mr nvidia-know-it-all, theres one big fat problem with ur resolution issue in 3dmark11: at 6k+ points in performance mode, fps hover around 20(!!) fps for the graphics tests. pls show me ONE single game that only gets 20fps or LOWER at 1024x768 res with a 7970m or comparably strong gpu. u cant? ah well didnt think so.

thus: 3dmark11 is WAY more demanding than ANY current game out there, so ur argument is invalid@perf scores dont count,especially with that funny comparison between 580m and 7970m. feel free to call me an amd fanboi if u must, dont want u to start crying but i know as well as the next guy that just cuz not everyone agrees with ur green side of life that doesnt mean that hes a red team fanatic.

/rant off

(sry guys,this HAD to come out, couldnt stand all this nvidia fetish without HARD facts anymore )

conclusion: wait for frigging REAL benchmarks before u start shooting each other down, all this red/green fanaticism is pointless without hard and reproducible real-life data.

Sent from my GT-I9001 using Tapatalk 2

 

All I care about is ther performance per watt. Amd have done very well on that regard, interesting to see if the 680m is just a more power hungry version to perform 1% better.

 

Next gen games will be made with an amd gpu, somewhere around 7850-7870 desktop.(I would rather have it higher but who knows)
Therefore as base the non console realm gamers will take more advantage by having an amd card.

 

I have no doubt that either the 680M or the 7970M will last for at least 2-3 years for gaming or whatever else and keep up. Software and games are just so far behind hardware right now. I can still run Crysis 2 with Ultra/Very High settings, DX11 on this 5870M with AA off still. No issues with Max 3 or with Deus Ex or Shogun 2 or my latest game, Saints 3.

I also think for most NBR members, it's not a fanboy loyalty that dictates their buying decision. It's all about what is the best value for what they need. Just happens AMD consistently offers the better deal if PhysX and CUDA mean absolutely nothing to you, like me.

 

surely u mean next gen consoles will be made with an amd gpu? but afaik those are still just rumors...?

Sent from my GT-I9001 using Tapatalk 2

 

More or less yup and it was rumoured to be an amd 67-- or 66-- can't remember. Either way and already provides the gfx for the current Xbox doesn't it

 

Let me quote what the creators of 3DMark 11 is saying about the two modes, which renders your whole argument useless
You can argue whatever you want, but a moderate load won`t show the real difference between two graphic cards which I clearly showed you with the 7970M vs 580M comparison.

BTW, you kinda shot yourself in the foot with the rant then the sudden "wait for frigging REAL benchmarks before u start shooting each other down".

I do agree, though, we should wait for a real review. Cheers

 

Without real benchmarks and equal systems comparison, the 680M isn't worth buying for 200$ over the 7970M.

 

Well, I'm currently in Germany, and unlike the US, in here the difference between a laptop with a 7970m and an identically specced one with a 680m is roughly 100 Euros, which roughly translates to about $125.

I usually go with nVidia, but a year and a half ago I decided on a 5870 desktop which I admit was a great card, although it did cause me quite a few issues with Skyrim (couldn't install any high-resolution mods or patches without the game crashing a few seconds later, while I could do so just fine on my nVidia's based laptop).

So basically..I'm paying about $125 more for about a 3% performance increase (if any) and the ability to install high-res mods in Skyrim. Quite a deal!

 

I think it will be like HD 6990M vs GTX 580M. After a few months the HD 7970M will be available for like $145 and the GTX 680M like $395 at resellers. Just my thought.

 

where did you get that price?
i've been looking at several resellers but the 680m is always way more than 150€ extra compared to 7970m. especially since the € has become so weak due to the "crisis"

 

i dont care about that either, fact still stands that neither a 7970m nor a 680m is able to max out the perf mode of 3dmark11 and thus struggling to reach even 20fps so it doesnt matter what futuremark INTENDED the modes to be, only the data count so stop coming up with excuses and deal with the fact that the only benches OUTSIDE of the nvidia PR machine we have so far just dont point to a 15% advantage for the 680m. just deal with it. period

Sent from my GT-I9001 using Tapatalk 2

id also like to see the source of that pricing. so far all resellers here in germany that ive checked are offering the 680m at a ~350 eur premium over the 675m and thus approx. 250 eur over the 7970m

 

You don`t get it.

GTX 680 vs 7970:
3Dmark 11 over 7970 at Performance preset: 5%
3DMark 11 over 7970 at Extreme preset: 11%

GTX 580M vs 7970M:
Gaming performance in 720p: 3x% over 580M
Gaming performance in 1080p: 7x% over 580M

I`m not saying we will not see differences in Performance preset, but it means very little when a more powerful GPU get much better results once you bump up the resolution and settings. Why do you think Techpowerup and lots of other sites test Extreme preset? Just for fun? Do you think you will see the memory bandwidth and memory amount etc comes to play at 720p with 1xAA? No you will see bottlenecks and difference in hardware once you cram up the resolution to 1080p with 4XMSAA and 16xAF.

Make a elitist athlete who runs up hills and is the best of his sort run on flat ground. He won`t surpass the other ones by much. Make him run uphill and he will increase his lead over the mediocre people.

Now I`m tired of repeating myself so think whatever you want

 

I'm using the majority of mods available from Steam for Skyrim with a 7970m. The visual improvements are excellent and it still runs at 60+ Fps for the majority of the time, occasionally dipping to 45-55 fps. without the mods it runs constantly at 60+

 

I bought it from Deviltech. They say it'll be available at the start of July, but since only now they've received the 675m, I bet it will be available much later than that. Perhaps August.

Edit: jimiglen, good to know! Perhaps I'll cancel my order and go for a 7970m right away, then. Hopefully, we'll be able to see later on this month in real world tests whether I made the right decision or not.

 

hahaha, you lucky lucky man. Did you speak to him personally or did you have to shout hoping he would roll down the window?

 

Tyranids, i don't use a laptop cooler. It is recommended for laptops with bottom fan intakes to raise the back up. Most people on the alienware forums use do-it-yourself methods like you will see the "book" mod or bottlecap mod lol...i use two flat bottlecaps on either side of my laptop...temps drop 5-7c

Depending on the map, the stock 680m getting 30-40 fps in bf3 ultra is perfectly inline with expectations. This is no different from what you would expect out of a stock 7970m. So i don't see the +30% claimed increase in bf3 over 7970m...which again is inline with expectations as the 680m and 7970m score identically in synthetics

1 fermi core = 2 kepler cores so 1344 kepler cores = 672 fermi cores...HOWEVER, the architecture is different so you shouldn't think of it this way

AMD Stream processors and Nvidia kepler cores can't be compared like that because the architecture is so different.

The best deal? Get yourself a desktop with a $300-400 vid card as it will smoke any mobile solution...as far as laptops go, i'm unwilling to tell you which card to get (i.e., 680m vs 7970m). i get asked this 10 times a day. I don't want to sway buying decisions...however, all the available evidence has been provided if you go back to this post:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/gam...85-amd-7970m-vs-gtx-680m-236.html#post8590093

This is a good effort, except that you are missing one important element...your tester needs to force a 100w limit in his test. I'm not sure if you can even do that...plus at least on my desktop 670's, the turbo always interferes and raises the clocks. So you will have to wait to see how the mobile versions will fair

I've already downclocked a desktop gtx 670 to try and see what the numbers would be but it is wildly inaccurate because of the nvidia boost and my inability to force max 100w...but Cloud, as per your own words, these are synthetic benches, so they don't mean crap, right?

i agree with this 100%...gaming laptops are expensive enough, we don't need to throw money at something just because there is perceived value.

PhysX and Cuda are pretty much dead. No developers want to develop something that is proprietary to one company. Now that more and more software (e.g., Adobe Photoshop) is supporting open standards like openCL, its just a matter of time. And diablo3 using Havok for physics speaks volumes

$200? you mean $300

Without mods a 7970m runs Skyrim @ 80+fps 1080p maxxed with 4x MSAA, 16xAF on my system (stock clocks)

 

I would imagine overclocking the 680M should give some slight advantage of the 7970M overclocks.. I can imagine by proper cooling, thermal paste and a bit of luck one can get the 680M onto 1GHz of memory if not more.. damn it benchmarks where the hell are you, tired of all this speculation :s

 

^^ YES!! I am an nvidia fan but I got the 7970m thanks to Slick, and I am so happy with the card, it is crazy to see +30fps in the toughest spot of Metro 2033 and Crysis 2 with ALL maxed (yes ALL), I think I will keep this baby until nvidia comes up with something 20-30% better than 680m, even though 1344 CUDA sounds sexy, it doesn't validate 1k extra expense for me (I am keeping my m17x for a little while ), right Slick?

 

This card flies with witcher 2 and bf3 as well. I have the clocks set to 950 and 1400. Witcher 2 maxed without ubersampling is 50-60+ fps (I'm using v-sync with a 60hz screen) occassionally dipping to mid 40's. Playing some of these levels with this card is like stepping outside the dungeons in Oblivion for the first time if you get my drift. Even when overclocking to this level the card remains remarkably cool. I can comfortably sit with my laptop on my knee without feeling any heat, somthing I couldn't do with an M15x and GTX 460m which was very hot when overclocked. Personally, I've started really enjoying gaming again moving between these cards. The visual fidelity in every game I've played is brilliant. Barring a small handful of settings it's pretty much set everything to max/ultra and get immersed in flawless smooth gameplay.