AMD 7970m vs GTX 680m

that was me (failed) at being sarcasm yeah that's the point I'm trying to make

 

What happened to your 7970M btw dragon?

 

One big gigantic problem about your people view that turbo boost is overclocking is that the turbo boost is controlled by the system and ALWAYS stay below the stock power target. It never exceeds whatever Nvidia designed for the chip for stock clocks. But overclocking on the other hand exceeds this limit

So no, GPU boost is NOT overclocking

 

i can answer that...his 7970m is getting reflashed with a vbios

 

yes, if it gives an NVidia card an advantage its definitely not overclocking ... now if AMD card did that ...

anyway, gotta wait for real world data on temps and overclocking. If GPU boost eats into overclocking potential, or raises temps too much then its not gonna be much of an advantage over AMD.

 

If I remember correctly the 7970 overclocks better than 680. Not impossible we will see the same here as well.

Thats how new GPUs are made
"Hey we can still tweak with the clocks and increase them a 100MHz since we have a little more room plus the leakage have been reduced with improved silicon."

They will always have room for better GPUs. That goes for both companies

 

How about just test the two systems stock and overclocked?

The only disadvantage of turbo boost is overclocked headroom, it shouldn't mater to people who probably will never overclock.

 

I don't think there will be a huge overclocking potential on the 680m... at least on the 650m there's apparently no board power limit in the vbios and thus it is pretty limited it seems, at least when it comes to overclocking per software.
Maybe if the boost clock strings get tweaked a bit... might work as long the power supply is fine.
Voltage tweaking might be impossible due to the dynamic clocking, which automatically changes the voltage as well.

 

Hmm, I don't understand the discussion - nVidia says: no GPU boost on the 680m

 

Oh? Where have you seen that?

 

Yeah, I've noticed that too. More than one, actually...

Granted, Cloudfire is a little overzealous, but you guys aren't much better. From a complete bystander's point of view it looks like people here decided on AMD and then constantly attempt to defend their choice no matter what.

"Oh, the 680 scored that much? Pffff, it's due to their automatic overclock nonsense, I can match that with my 7970m and mine is bigger than yours".

The 680 might be a faster due to this or that, and it might not be as well, but either way you already got one hell of a card, already get to play with it a few months earlier than the guys who pre-ordered the 680 and at a much cheaper price as well. What more do you want? Stop with the measuring contest.

Sheesh.

 

I'm glad I didn't spend $300 more dollars just to be able to play a game 5-10 FPS more, which I can still easily achieve by slightly overclocking the 7970m. Using logic saves you money.

 

Just one example:
GeForce Updates : NVIDIA Talks About Tegra and GeForce at Computex 2012 - HardwareZone.com.ph

 

seriously?
this is their exact phrase:
"No GPU Boost, that’s exclusive to desktop SKUs"

there seems to be a mistake

Nvidia would do anything to increase their score, if they would turn of the gpu boost so that we could easily overclock it would be on the desktop side

 

I see, so the clock is stuck at 720 MHz then
But then again, I remember seeing a GPU-Z screenshot from GT 650M that showed GPU boost. Hmmm confusing

Exactly what I`ve seen too. Its become like a gang with 7970M on notebookreview responding like friends to each other but attacking everyone who doesn`t share their opinion.
Meaker is the only one with 7970M I respect around here. He posts facts and results and explains things with a total objective view on things

 

No, it's not. Overclocking is when you run the part outside of its specifications. Turbo boost is part of the specification and normal operation. GPU boost is part of normal spec also. It is really just a different way of doing what AMD does with powertune, except AMD drops speed when it needs to, and nVidia adds speed when it can... These behaviors are intended by the manufacturer.

With that said, I am mostly interested in benchmarks of both parts overclocked, as that's how I'd run them.

 

Dude, you're still riding that magical unicorn you've dreamed up? The 680m is not going to pull 15% in games out of it's backside when it's scoring such comparatively similar benchmarks. Nvidia optimizes for benchmarks on release, there is no way they would release it in a state that would not preform at it's best on benches, stop kidding yourself it's starting to get embarrassing now.

 

^ Exhibit #1

Vahlen: I could have showed you benches, multiplied with factors, which is the reason why I came up with around 15%. I just did it few hours ago, got 680M 10.22% ahead of 7970M in average. That was probably the worst case scenario. But I won`t bother.
Whatever, too tired of discussing this. I`ll just leave it up to the review thats coming up (hopefully) soon

 

Kepler 680M IS supposed to score 15% faster with its paper specs. Tahiti is faster than Pit Cairn in Crysis/Metro. Which is kind of a downer. nVIDIA owners get the full bells and whistles in their GPU tech.

Unigine is a terrible benchmark to use. The 7970M looks better than it should because Unigine is core clock based, which is bad for extrapolating game performance.

So far the 680M is kind of unperforming. It should definitely be 10% faster. I'm still buying it either way. 7970M CF is a nightmare.

Just wait for a review on:

680M SLI
680M overclocking

This thread is still running in circles.

 

I agree that the 680 will be somewhere in the area of 5-10% better based on the numbers we have seen, but taking those numbers and increasing them arbitrarily because one has a love affair with Nvidia is just poor reasoning.

Nobody here is arguing that the 680 will be slower, that would be a fools argument, however to claiming that the 680 will be far ahead of the 7970 is also just as durpy

 

Indeed, we are not going anywhere... those benchmarks and official reviews cant come fast enough, 680M come already!

but god damn, when it does release hell is going to break loose!

 

I'd take 680M SLi that's 15% SLOWER than 7970M Xfire rather than deal with AMD.


P.S. Has AMD learned how to program a 7970M Xfire driver yet or will that be sometime next year?

 

I'm impressed that a single 680m pulled Arkham City 65fps while Crossfire 7970m is 60 fps.

 

A single 7970m can do 57fps according notebookcheck D:

 

Running on the Unreal Engine 3 and supported by nVIDIA and advertised by nVIDIA it's as effective as freaking hell, that's how nVIDIA based games are on their home they own it, quite impressive some might say

 

Really, 57fps by single 7970m but 60 fps on crossfire? Why is that?

 

I agree with you there man

Sent From My Rooted EVO 3D

 

One could surmise that a crossfire profile/driver support isn't there yet for the 7970M.

 

I asked some resellers about it and they said it will have the Nvidia Boost... Also Notebookcheck has to say about it "... PCIe 3.0 is now supported by the mobile Kepler series and an optional Turbo mode can automatically overclock the Nvidia card by a theoretical 15 percent if the laptop cooling system allows it. The implementation of this boost mode is done in the BIOS, but it is ultimately dependent upon the manufacturer of the laptop."

 

Kepler Turbo:

Nvidia clocks the 680M lower than they could, calling the extra few MHz turbo. It's not overclocking. It's just like how most video cards go from 2D to 3D clocks.

The definition of overclocking straight from Google:

Kepler Turbo does not fit any of the required criteria to be called overclocked.

 

I guess I just don't get why people are getting in a huff about this. It either will have turbo, or won't. Computer manufacturers preference.

Tomato, tomoto - turbo, overclock - in the end, the SAME result occurs: higher clock rate.

 

You completely missed my post. People in this thread are claiming we need to disable Kepler Turbo when comparing the 680M to the 7870M. That's absurd. The max Kepler Turbo speed IS STOCK CLOCK SPEED. THE SAME AS THE 7970M STOCK CLOCK. Nvidia simply has more control over the clocks.

And, no, I'm not mad. I'm using caps for effect

 

However each chip will be a bit different, some will turbo more or less than others.

 

Why do you guys even care about turbo? It barely does anything anyway. That 2% performance boost really is a game changer, alright .

 

Haha wow, but you know - people will pay through the nose for an extra 3fps if need be.

 

Like me...

BUT i justify this by saying, my first laptop has to be the best of the best of the best

Trust me, as soon as I get my rig, I will race to be the first one with: Mark06,Mark11,MarkVantage,MaxOC benches.

BTW where has Cloudfire gone?

 

cleanup on isle AMD 7970m vs GTX 680m

 

I was asked to upload a video of UniEngine 3.0 at max settings - here it is.

The best video recorder I had was my iPad, with my shaking hands - sorry about that!

 

Have you tried fraps?

 

FRAPS would screw up his FPS/score count, though.

 

wow, this is your first lappy? my first was the crappiest third hand (seriously) toshiba on the planet (it was originally 2002 model but I got my hands on it around 2004), and it wasn't able to play any game at all

enjoy the beast friend! keep us posted about the performance

bro I must say, the video is hyper cool (alienware is the sliced bread) anyway, but forget about GPU temps, what was the temp of your knees after this run??

 

This is incorrect. Max turbo clock depends on power, temps, among other different measurements. Stock clock is where the core clock will perform 100% for the time when gaming. If your machine can give more power and the temp allows it, it can overclock from its stock working clocks to the max turbo clocks for a brief period.

You won't be able to reach max turbo clocks with all games. Games in which you use vsync and well exceed the refreshrate cap, will easily achieve the so called turbo.

It's a great feature to have specially if you don't overclock manually or are afraid to do so.

that being said, you can simply oveclock it yourself and forgoe the whole turbo thing. It's true that reading stock performance is a bit difficult with turbo on because its never consistent and turbo clocks wont be achieved with every game.

At any rate... thats the kepler turbo boost on the desktop versions. Will the GTX680m even have it? It seems its too close to the 100w TDP to allow much, if any, turbo.

 

haha sounds like you had a lovely first experience, haha.

but yeah thank you for that, i have been waiting for a long time now and feel that this is a good generation to jump on the mobile computing world, just looking at the leap forward from 40nm to 28nm is amazing, most likely i will skip haswell/maxwell and jump on the "tock" generation after that, which justifies my enormous investment for my current rig (to me anyway).

I can't wait to get my laptop for the first time!

 

Quite cool actually - less heat than the XPS 17 (last years model) with a dual core CPU and Nvidia GT 555. Crazy, I know - but there are what, 4 high quality fans on the bottom of this thing?

Intel Burn Test maxes my CPU at 71C! Cripes, the XPS 17 dual core hits the thermal limit and has to downclock, downclock more, and then more!

B E A S T.

 

LMAO, so it should be called underclock because it makes it go to lower clocks when not using the booster.

My 7970m has a boost mode too, it's just that its manual and in my control. ifyouknowwhatimean.jpg

 

I kinda feel sorry for you with that laptop the one I have now was my first laptop its not to good as well haha being 6-7 years old

Sent From My Rooted EVO 3D

 

I don't really care much for the debate about if Kepler turbo is overclocking or not. What I'd like to see is how the 680m performs out of the box (fps, scores, and temps) and then see how well it manually overclocks. Then we can accurately compare it to the 7970m. The debating on what Kepler Turbo is or is not won't change the performance of it. Although, I can see why the subject would come up as we speculate on how well we can manually overclock it.

 

Just a comparison

Schenker XMG P702 with i7-3920XM (!), 4x4GB RAM DDR3-1333, nVidia GTX 680M ES:



My Alienware M17x R4 with i7-3820QM, 4x4GB RAM DDR3-1600, AMD Radeon HD 7970M:

 

65522 CPU score on Vantage... seem legit.

 

Sure? Remember:



same CPU, nearly the same system...