Can a 680M compete with the PS4?

Hello everyone. Just curious. I am thinking about buying a gaming laptop with the 680M in it, 16GB RAM, 2.7-3.7GHZ processor, etc. I am wondering though, with the announcement of the PS4, will the 680M hold up for the next generation of games? I want to play games on my laptop for the lifespan of the next gen consoles if possible. Would I be better off to wait for a new mobile card to be released, or should I invest in the 680M? Or should I just save my money and buy a PS4 for much cheaper than a gaming laptop costs . Just looking for opinions and ideas. Thanks in advance.

 

Most game consoles have a shelf life span of 5-7 years, and a flagship GPU should hold up for two to three years before major sacrifices to resolution and graphic details have to be made. One way of prolonging the system's service life would be to invest in a laptop that uses a standard MXM slot, like a Clevo/Sager, MSI or Alienware notebook.

What notebook are you looking at?

 

In short, probably yes.

The PS4 has been in development for 5 years (If Sony are to be believed) meaning any GPU was designed at least a year ago, probably longer. Rumours suggest it is based on the 6000 series AMD card.

At least, thats the way i see it. Feel free to correct me.

 

The notebook I was looking at is the CyberpowerPC Fangbook X7-300. As far as I know they are non-upgradeable like a Sager is, not completely sure though.

My biggest fear is spending $2k on a notebook only to have it completely obsolete in 2-3 years while the PS4 is still going strong for a measly $500 investment. Is it really smart to purchase a $2000 laptop? Seems like the rate that technology moves it isn't a great investment but maybe I'm wrong...

 

That particular model is based off the MSI GT70, you can definitely remove and replace the video card assuming there's not a sudden push for MXM 4.0 standards in the next two or three years.

In the long term, I would say it boils down to what games you are looking at. It's too early to tell with the PS4 since we don't have much information on any launch or near future titles. If you find the games you are more interested in are for the consoles, then that may automatically decide for you. I chose to go with a PC for gaming because my genre interest is first person shooters and real time strategy games, which is more appropriate on a PC.

 

For the most part, Cyberpower and Sager source their shells from the same place (Clevo), so aside from the badging, the machines are otherwise identical. But the one you mention is based on an MSI, which is just about as upgradeable as a Sager/Clevo.

It all depends on your definition of "obsolete." A notebook with a 680M should still be more than capable of playing games 3+ years down the road, just likely not at 1080p (or higher) resolution with maximum details.

 

I would be afraid that the 680m after 3+ years won't be able to play games at all, while the PS4 plays whatever is released for it (obviously) but cross-platform titles 3+ years down the road won't work on my laptop. I wouldn't mind playing on low settings 3+ years from now, as long as the laptop will last the shelf life of the console I'll be happy even if it means I have to turn down some settings. Like I said, I don't want to pay $2000 for a gaming machine that doesn't last as long as a $500 gaming machine. I really want to get my money's worth.

My favorite genre is RPGs so actually I'm probably better off with a laptop, since Kickstarter has so many RPGs coming for the PC that aren't coming out on consoles as of yet, it would probably be best to get a laptop. It's just the price difference is so drastic. I dunno. I have a lot to think about before I dish out big bucks here.

Any other ideas/opinions welcome, it helps me figure things out. Thanks for all the replies so far too! Very appreciated.

 

If you're that focused on gaming you're better off building a desktop but moving on...

Yes you're better off getting what you can afford when you first get a notebook because as far as upgradability, nothing is guaranteed with laptops. With the way the gaming industry works, it seems more like ports will be more common with added effects and settings for PC releases. The 680m will still be a usable card in a few years, even if you have to turn down some settings (assuming it lasts that long, anyway).

 

The 680M when tweaked has the same memory bandwidth as the PS4 has for it's entire system along with a lot more shader power.

 

Since the PS4 uses a Radeon 7670, I'd imagine that the 680M beats it hands-down in terms of raw power. Though console games are written to be highly-optimized for the hardware they're running on, whereas PC games have to deal with hundreds of not thousands of configurations, so that code won't be as optimized. Though yet again, seeing as how most PC games today are simply console ports, maybe optimization won't matter that much.

 

PS4 uses a desktop 7850.

 

Ah. I stand corrected then.

 

Short term: yes
Long term: no

It'll be similar to how this console gen has gone. Back when consoles launched the 8800M GT could probably have held it's own vs the consoles. Now though it could never hope to run the latest games. However, there's no guarantee this new console gen will last so long but considering the rule of diminishing returns in terms of graphics from increasing brute GPU power I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

 

I had a Toshiba X205-SLi back in the day when these consoles had just been fresh for about two years. Obviously, I sold it, but the person who owns the system can still run all those multi platform games at the same console settings, resolution, and frame rate with some cases boasting even better performance with a categorically weaker CPU that hindered the system from fully realising its SLi scaling potential. However, that was the reason why I sold the system and moved to the 9800m GT/X models--and beyond--because I wanted to compete with the PC standard of higher resolution and frame rates.

 

Cnsidering the PS4 is now fully using a PC architecture, the 680m will be fine. It packs more shading power, and memory bandwidth won't be an issue with some games.

Ports should be designed better this time around, and the overall bar raised but always giving high end PC users an advantage.

 

I have a console and a laptop for gaming, prefering PC gaming by a landslide. My problem with the 680m is this: I you consider the premium you pay for having the top shelf graphics solution, and the performance concessions made ater the first 2 years pass, it is difficult to justify the percentage paid for the gpu vs the total price of the laptop. About a year ago, I found that I needed to replace my aging HP laptop (after almost 4 years), and purchased a Vaio F23 with a 540m. Granted, I can't play Witcher 2 on uber settings, but stably OC'd, I can play a heavily modded Skyrim for instance, at 1080p, high settings, fxaa, 2x aa, 12 x af, at around 25-35 fps, depending. Sure, I'd love to have 680m, but 3 years from now when my 2nd gen laptop is a bit long in the tooth, I won't feel so bad not having dropped $2k + on my lappy. But then again, I am also the guy with a wife and kids who refuses to pay the first year price for a next gen console, or $200 plus contract for the newest Android the first month it releases.

 

I would go for the console if longevity is the main priority. While I prefer PC for gaming, consoles will be able to run all games released in their lifespan. Just as others said, the best PC you could buy when the current gen consoles were released would run current games much worse than a console does, because of developers being able to squeeze the last drops of performance from the given console hardwares through optimisation.
As such, comparisons should definitely not be based on raw performance data (for example just look up the hardware specs of the Xbox 360; and it runs Crysis 3).

 

i see that Sony said playstation 4 would have 2 teraflops of processing power, and 680m has 1.9, so i would say that they are about the same? or i shouldnt be looking at it that way?

 

I think it is unfair how people compare pc games with consoles.

It is said that the ps3 has a 7800, around that time you could get the 8800 cards. Besides this laptop I have an ancient desktop with the 8800 gt (slightly overclocked by factory). It runs skyrim at 1080p in high quality with 4x anisotropic quiet decently.

The ps3 might run today's games but it does not run with the pc quality, they run the games at 720p and upscale it to 1080, they have worse textures and usually lack antialiasing and ofc the new techs like tessellation among other things are missing. If I played skyrim at 720p with ps3 settings on the ancient desktop then it would run even faster and still deliver better textures. I bet this ancient desktop would run ps3 games with the same settings. If however you compare with today's pc standards of quality it does not hold anymore, but then again the ps3 is miles away as well from the current pc enthusiast settings.

In my opinion both the 7970m and the 680 m seem to offer around the same power as the ps4 (maybe slightly slower since they are faster in raw power but they are probably not as optimized as the console) and should run games in the same conditions. However if you compare it with the pc standards in some years running 4k resolution games with directx 13 and what else they can do, then it will not be enough.

 

I wouldn't put too much stock in these vagaries about FLOPs when they can be quite arbitrary in terms of what the practical output will be, after all, some of us still laugh at how the PS3 was supposedly 1.8 teraflops while the Xbox 360 was 1.2 and most of our PCs with substantially superior graphics cards were barely 1.0.

Technically, the 7970m has more teraflops (2.2) than the 680m, but again, the benchmarks and actual raw output have them tied. These aren't substantive or discernible differences to write home about and won't make a lick of difference when it comes to actual playability with finished products.

Actual performance rates can vary, and even if we take these levels at face value, we're looking at a claim of the entire system's teraflop capacity being compared against a single graphics card, while ignoring the fact that this card also comes paired with a whole system of its own that makes adequate utilisation of its hardware capacity.

 

I say no, simply because games developed for consoles have tighter limitations on hardware, they will be designed with very specific hardware in mind (memory, video card).
whereas games for the pc would be developed with the next gen hardware as it's foundation. so depending on how fast nvidia and amd churns out better tech, developers would utilize that power as soon as it becomes available.

take a look at bf3, for the pc it would barely run on hardware released the same time as the ps3, but because of how it was developed / ported from the console version it's more optimized for consoles.while the pc version would require the latest tech to get all the eye candy available.

 

Glad you brought up Battlefield 3 as an example, because that is very fitting.

Here's a blurb on what settings--relative to PC--Battlefield 3 runs on when it comes to the consoles. It's paralleled to the lowest (here's another link: http://gamerant.com/battlefield-3-pc-lowest-settings-similar-conosles-dyce-110316/).

Below is a video of Digitalfoundry doing a frame rate appraisal of Battlefield 3 on the Playsation 3 compared against the Xbox 360. Frame rate is capped at 30 FPS with dips but a heck of a lot better than most other console titles since this is what optimisation achieved for the game.


Edit: [Removed video as I ended up comparing Battlefield 2 on one of the few remining 8700m GT SLi laptops. My apologies, and thanks for pointing out, AMDs.]

Nevertheless, this game can be run on 720p or lower settings using a single upper grade 8 or 9 series Nvidia GPU paired with an equally spec appropriate CPU.

Clearly this should temper the present normative thinking that one needs far superior PC hardware to match the mystical potential of the console.

I remember this one sensible comment on the System Wars forum over at Gamespot, where one of the members said something very sound about the PS3 and its Cell processor. It went something along the lines of, "People need to realise what the Cell is and what it isn't. . . Yes, it's great and offers some great potential working with the GPU, but people also need to accept that it has its limits -- it isn't magic." Now the next generation console architecture is even less cryptic and more in line with our standard x86 PCs -- so expect even less of that questionable magic and more uniformity.

 

Buddy you're comparing two different games, Battlefield 3 and Bad Company 2, up there. On the same budget hardware BF3 runs considerably slower.

 

My apologies. I've been tiresomely looking for a video of it running on lower hardware. On that note. I'll remove the video with note.

Not really. Back when the beta came out and I lacked the SLi profile to use my second card, it ran at 720p at medium settings on a 280m GTX, which while faster, is still in the realm of an 8800m GTX, so the point still remains. I only wish videos were available on this stuff running on lower settings on older PC hardware, but they're rare finds since there's nothing impressive about such feats.

 

It is not that it is not optimized for the pc, rather that it runs with a lot more eye candy on the pc as well as our monitor resolutions (1080p=50% more stuff to draw than 720p alone...). The pc version comes with dx11 features such as tessellation and richer graphics/textures overall, one just can't compare it directly. The medium/low settings at 720 p probably is closer to what the console is doing and that will be achievable with a 8800gt/ultra old card.

I remember comparing Bioshock running on my old 8800 GT+ to my friend's xbox 360, side by side and the pc version was just better and ran faster. For one I had the water ripple effects due to dx10, which the xbox could not do, the textures were more crisp and so on.

 

Well i've tried both on an Nvidia 9600 GT and I can tell you I was getting like 20-40% more FPS in BC2.

 

Naturally, it's a single 9600 GT. It can only do so much; see the statement above about magical potential. Even the PS3 has an intricate relationship between the GPU and its Cell architecture that has taken developers time to figure out and exploit, which is why most of its exclusives shined while the performance of earlier multi platform titles was questionable. It's not like they're running all of these games on a 128-bit 7800 GTX with a mild overclock alone. That'd be the optimisation we hear so much about through a full exploit of the hardware while also keeping those discrete things like resolution, effects, texture size in check. This is why I was looking for videos dual 8700m SLi, or a single 8800m GTX for some sense of comparison.


By the way, I found two videos that come closest to representing a laptop's 8800/9800m GT/GTX.

One's of a single desktop 8800 GTS, which is a fast beast, but then again, it is running the game at medium settings, which, as per DICE's presentation, activates most of the primary effects.




The other's of a single 9800 GT running at low, which pretty much matches my own experience, except I got away with upping a few points to medium at 720p while maintaining decent frame rate.




Edit: And here's another video with even better performance on a 9800 GT. Running high and at roughly 45 FPS average.

 

the answer your looking for is no way.

buy the ps4 if you like the games otherwise buy the next xbox. pc gaming is more niche now

 

lol PC gaming is the same as it's always been, it's the place where you get better graphics, better prices on games, and an open platform. By the time the PS4 comes out the 7850 will be outdated, and the 7xx series cards will be out. Once Maxwell rolls around, it'll make the PS4 look like an N64.

 

nah 10char

 

well, PS4 will start strong, end awfully weak as PS3 has already did, obviously graphics technology will eventually overwhelm the dated hardware within PS4 (it looks shinny on rumors, but it already is an ok rig compared to nice laptops/desktops today, forget about end of 2013)

 

Mm. The leaked specs say a 680m will be about the same level.

Hilarious, really. Sony has done everything to woo publishers. But it seems most of them will retain a ps3 version of their "next gen" games, while waiting for the ps4 to take off (and even if it does take off - why not keep going with a ps3 version?).

But essentially the ps4 will be a pc with Sony's drm and braindead OS functions.. Not sure why anyone would want it, when you can't even get something like the spu-array along with it. Or when you can have a PC without all the crazy, that will run the multiplatform games better.

Of course - Microsoft managed to sell an outdated PC with a locked down OS on, where you can pay for internet to MS, that you've already paid for to someone else first. So I guess we shouldn't write them off just yet.

 

I am assuming that you will be needing a fairly good laptop for work or school right?
So if you add the cost of a good laptop to that of a ps4 then your gaming laptop will not look as expensive, yes?
Plus you get something that no console can do, mobile gaming.
Another thing to consider is that the new consoles will be using x86 architecture so they are basically pc's in a box. Sony is burning and they really didn't have the dollars to spend developing a whole new proprietary system. The result for us, programming and porting games across consoles and pc's will most likely be transparent.
Sent from a Galaxy far, far away

 

3 years ? My friend my HD5650 let me play at 720p medium settings most of new games high for the other ones, it may not be able to show 1080p 32X16X18X AA (useless tons of AA @1080p anyway..) but unable to play is a big word !

 

For consoles to survive they either need to have some upgradeable component or components (like a system board with updated APU) or shorten the life cycle of a console with backwards compatibility with the previous generation. 7-8 years is REALLY long. I guess it's ok if they offer absolute latest tech, even then the tech curve moves so fast, it's ridiculous. People are ok buying a new PC or laptop every 3-4 years, why shouldn't it be the same with consoles?

 

I would get a laptop. You take the gaming anywhere.
You are complete control over all OS/Programs and settings.
You can multi-task. (Example: You can be playing game, alt-tab open a browser,open music, torrent, skyping, and be doing a tons of stuff at once.)
Not the same on any console. Gaming along (Need to look something up. Stop game. Load dashboard/os. Load broswer. Search.)(Or worse you use A LAPTOP to do the search or all the other stuff you already plan on doing.)

Now as for the graphic's you really need to sit down and ask yourself this question's. How much time do i have to play games? (Alot?) If you do. Is paying some much attention to the graphic's affecting gameplay?
(Example (Maybe poor) I found no real big difference when play Far cry 3 ultra to medium (Yes it's there if I'm at a stand still but just going along shooting pirate and animals. No real big difference.

Apparently both console are going to have a X86 arch. (Hacker dream.) And If it's a confirm 7850 for the video on the PS4. (Even better.)
Also with port to the pc will be easier and more reliable since it's on the same arch.
They will build games around that one spec then broaden it out.

Also I would a used 680m from a forum member here. (1100$ - 1500)
1. They have benched already.
2. They tested everything already.
3. They will be here if you have a problem (But they are not tech support and don't deserve to be treated as such.)

Finally the true reason why console are popular like they are is user want simple one task focus.
Example (Game to certain point. Stop Game. Start Netflix. Stop Netflix. Start Pandora.)
And so fourth.

As with all this is just my two cents and opinion if you don't like anything I have said ignore all.

 

The PS4 gpu as it was already stated will be of (probably) comparable power/performance as 7970m (which is equivalent to 680m).

We also know that AMD's CPU for PS4 is not the run of the mill one. This one was custom made and uses individual cores (not modules - the Jaguar).
So, we might be looking at better overall performance/handling of computations compared to the modules design in standard APU's (if it was scaled to the regular APU's - but don't quote me on this).

Seeing how new games will specifically be written for x86 architecture that has a multi-core CPU and a 7970m equivalent GPU... its very possible that optimization or coding for PC ports will not only be easier, but games could also run just as good as they do on consoles from the get go.

Up until now, consoles implemented different hardware and a special cell cpu (which is not the same as x86 cpu's) which made it that much more difficult to port for PC's (albeit the developers were quite frankly lazy and seldom optimized their console games for PC's) - and should the rest of the console world implement PS4 specs... then PC playing shouldn't really be that much of an issue.

The 680m 'should' be enough for 1080p gaming for the next several years.
But even if you buy a laptop with 'newer' hardware that will be released this year, you wouldn't be gaining anything in terms of performance seeing how neither the CPU's or the GPU's will undergo performance enhancements (same hardware with different names in case of GPU's, but the CPU on Intel side will mainly feature a better IGP, whereas cpu performance will largely stay identical).

 

So from what I understand, high end graphics cards that came out when say the Xbox 360 launched, can still play the same games the Xbox 360 can several years later, just on lower settings? That's all I can hope for if I buy a new laptop. I want it to last the length of a generation of gaming if possible, even if that means I have to play on lower settings in the future. That's all I want.

Question. Does anyone on here have a computer that had a 2006 high end graphics card installed, and can still play new games that come out today on it? I know 7 years is a very long time for computer hardware but that's how long the Xbox 360 lasted so I would hope a graphics card could last that long too.

 

You might be able to, but it's so hard on the soul to turn all those settings way down

 

Consoles are built to manage games at 30 FPS. Also, since they aren't running an Operating System capable of doing more than just managing games, they tend to be more powerful since their ONLY purpose is to render games and output them to a 720p format at that managed framerate.

In short, yes, the 680M would be MORE than powerful enough to last you that long if you were fine with only playing at 30 FPS.

 

30fps and 720p. Newer consoles better be striving for 1080p because that's pretty much the norm any more. Heck in a few years when 4k screens start shipping with notebooks as long as GPU is powerful enough, those console graphics will look like Atari 2600.

 

For the next 2-3 years the 680M will run anything at max settings with a decent OC (which of course you would do to realise its potential after spending so much money on it). When it is 3 years old swap it out and put in the latest mxm 3.0 card to keep apace with the latest games.

My 3.5 year old M15x equipped with 7970M and 920xm can max Crysis 3 and Far Cry 3 because I did just this.

Actually though it makes more financial sense at least to me to sell the current top end gpu just before new gen releases to get maximum return; thus lowering the cost of the new card you upgrade to. I might do this with the 7970M when the time comes.

 

how does a 7850/70 compete with a 680m?

 

7870 is the same as 7970M but at 1000mhz. So I would say maybe a little better. Not by much though.

 

do you think games will look as good as microsoft bill g said? avatar level?

 

OP here are some general things to consider from an older long time gamer. Don't take this as being too critical.

Generally, if someone is extremely worried about cost; it's too expensive to begin with. For that simple reason, I would really consider if spending 2k is something you SHOULD do.

However, being that you are comfortable running games at low settings down the road, then I think the system MAY last 5 years. Many performance gaming laptops will die out around that time (GPU failure, etc). I know there are plenty of members with long running gaming PC's but not every system is created equal and if this is your SOLE computer, 5 years may not even be a reality. Just something to consider.

Regarding graphics: I don't care what comparisons people put on here, the 7800GTX equivalent in the PS3 is still running God of War, Uncharted and Crysis 2/3 better than a 7800GTX on the PC. Those games, even at the same resolution, just doesn't "play well." Again, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but that is mine. I didn't even BOTHER with Crysis1 with my m15x with the brand new m8800GTX back in 2008 because high settings was not playable for me. It took a lot of work to get it somewhat playable and I just decided to wait until I could experience the game, "it was meant to be played."

With all of this being said, PC gaming is addictive...and expensive. Notebook gaming IS expensive. Many people that are going to drop 2K are NOT going to be happy lowering settings in a year. Unfortunately, people buying right now, are in a tough situation because consoles are coming out this year. Generally, you want to buy a PC AFTER the new consoles are released so as to mitigate the console optimization (which does exist) with the raw power of the PC. I am not convinced a notebook with a notebook GPU from a year ago is going to be competitive with this console with a similarly powered GPU. I HOPE I am wrong as I am sitting on an expensive system too; but I just know history repeats itself and realize that there are other factors to consider with this that are not being mentioned:

Such as: FORCED obsolesence. Do you ever wonder why some games just run better on certain GPU's? Do you think AMD/Nvidia force their consumers to upgrade? If you do think that then you are correct. What's the new Nvidia GPU line coming out in September? Maxwell maybe? (I haven't followed roadmaps lately). That is supposed to be an order of magnitude more powerful than the current Kepler line. The 580M SLI which I have is completely trounced with the 680M SLI. If the new PS4 was out right now and games were being ported over..I would not be able to keep up (with settings I like).

I know this is TLDR but I think some of these things you need to consider. Finally, at the end of the day, the best logic is this:
Buy the BEST you can AFFORD now and don't worry about "what is around the corner" because something is always around the corner." Follow that and you will be happy. If this is out of your price range or you are set on being "competitive with the lifespan of the PS3" (which is silly as you are still paying 2K to 500...but whatever) then you need to wait for the Nvidia/AMD GPU's releasing 3rd/4th Quarter 2013. The 680M will not be best suited for your requests.

Peace.

 

@Dave did you just said your 580M SLI completely trounced the 680M SLI?

 

@ Dave - nVidia Maxwell isn't due out until June/July 2014, we're "stuck" with Kepler for the next year and a half. I'm an "old timer gamer" too. But I played Crysis 1 on an 8600m GT with low/med settings and didn't bother me, except for ending where I needed to play it on an upgraded desktop because frame rates turned into a slide show. Otherwise it was totally enjoyable for me.

I really don't see consoles being these super uber computers for $300. If they are then good, PC parts should be super cheap and twice as powerful within a year of the console release. AMD has shown us that they can manage a good combination of CPU and GPU performance together, just that they don't offer top notch performance. For consoles if they set the bogey of 1080p 60fps these machines should suffice just fine, for 3-4 years at least, but to expect PC's to lag behind if coded properly is pretty optimistic thinking.

 

Hmmm if Maxwell is out that late I may look to upgrade my rig during the Kepler refresh. Hopefully that is coming soon?! I'm definitely not saying consoles are super computers or anything. I just know for fact that when Xbox came out in 2005 I had a custom built desktop where I threw in an FX-60, 2 7800GT's SLI, blah blah. Top end stuff. It played COD2 maybe a tad better than COD2 on the 360 (very first gen first launch release game). However, really quickly, games started to look and play better on the console than on the PC. Just my own observations. Again, different preferences as I could not enjoy Crysis on low/medium.

One factor that is changing is using top shelf components in new consoles. That is NOT happening anymore. It seems like they are realizing Ninty did some things right by focusing on recouping on the front AND back end (game sales etc). The 360 and especially PS3 were sold at a huge loss per unit. I think the PS3 cost 900ish to make at launch? With them putting a midrange card of 2012/early 2013 in the PS3 launching late 2013, that is very different. People are already buiding PC's comparable to the ps4 using today's components for just 100.00 more than the ps4 which is a drastic difference than in generations past. So that MAY influence and allow PC users to get more returin on investment..but I do have my doubts.

Again, my bottom line was more catering to the OP. If someone is asking if 2k is going to "last 5 years" then I make the assumption they wouldn't even know how to swiitch out ram. So tinkering with settings, upgrading GPU's, CPUs etc is likely completely foreign territory. Most of us on here either are extreme gamers/lovers of notebook gaming who upgrade to stay on the bleeding edge, or are cost effective informed notebook gamers who know how to get the most out of their systems.

With that, I would advise ANYONE that nervous about dropping 2K (which can buy you a used car, an awesome trip, an entire wardrobe, a Hangover in Vegas,etc) to NOT do so if you have to ask "i want this to last as long as the lifecycle of the ps4." Wrong motives, too much money, nuff said.

 

No bro, I did not just "said" my 580M SLI completely trounced the 680M SLI. I said they were trounced with the 680M SLI. I could have further clarified my rhetoric with "trounced with the Kepler release of the 680m SLI" or "trounced by the 680m SLI" however I felt it was still clear enough to get the gist of my point. Please let me know if you need further clarification.