HURRAY: Nvidia 600 series not just Fermi!! (Kepler)

Thats what HD7950m and HD7800m series are for man

With those specs, if exactly remained like the 7870 and we only have a 15% clock shaved off among undervoltage... we are looking at over 5k 3dmark11 scores.... and the HD7950m should be scoring around 4500 assuming a similar performance hit compared to the desktop card.

 

This sounds cool. Instant visual representation on how your settings will look like in the games plus individual settings that work fluently with your exact system setup.

NVIDIA Announces GeForce Experience Cloud Service for Quality Presets | PC Perspective
http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/29/2987534/nvidia-geforce-experience-optimal-graphics-settings-announcement

 

oh man, nvidia is so desperate... never saw this kinda moves from nvidia before...

 

Why are they desperate?

 

From what I see, this is just like selecting "optimal settings" on a game, except this seems more forced...

 

Did I just see 'console'?

R.I.P. Nvidia.

 

Where have you seen visual presentation of each settings before?

 

no Cloud, we are saying this, instead of coming up with cutting edge technology as amd does since the past 5 months (ok I mean 680 is good definitely, it is state of the art, but it came 4 months later) and amd is also setting bounds in mobile business, but while nvidia is coming up with "optimal settings" to play our games, amd is coming up with the maximum settings to play the games... it already sounds like "sorry, we don't have the horsepower to max games, so we must find the optimal settings for playable fps", sad to hear from nvidia, thats all..

 

Excellent point. This does make them seem a bit desperate.

 

It's to make it simpler for people who don't want to fiddle with settings, which I think is pretty cool. It's just another software feature that Nvidia has developed catered to the "casual" market, I don't see how it's any more desperate than them adding FXAA or adaptive vsync to their drivers.

 

Right, it seems like a great feature that caters to a certain demographic. I don't see where the desperation is at all. I get that it probably doesn't concern the hardcore gaming demographic on NBR, but I don't know that catering specifically to NBR is Nvidia's business model.

Why do people love to hate on Nvidia, besides the whole "hater's gonna hate" thing?

 

I think it's because some people view Nvidia as a MS type presence vs. Apple (AMD) or something silly like that. I really don't know however I find it hilarious when people start debating over opinions ;D

 

My God how you have become a AMD puppet ever since you bought the 7970M. You and GeoCake.
R3d covered it pretty good. Not everyone have or want the best hardware. Now they can get the exact settings to get fluent gameplay without going in and out of a game to test each settings themselves.

And get down from your AMD horse. 7870, not the 7970M, are still not able to play all games in MAXIMUM SETTINGS. Metro 2033? Crysis 2? Battlefield 3? You want me to continue? And no, 30 FPS is not acceptable. And no, your 7970M can`t play these games (with acceptable framerates imo) with everything enabled in 1080p in Ultra since the 7870 can`t do that. How do you think the games will be in 2 years btw? There will be more games that your AMD GPU cannot play in Ultra.

Wouldn`t it be nice to have a program that selects the best settings for your 7970M/680M for the games it cannot play with all the details in Ultra and 4XMSAA etc etc?

Its sad how you and a lot of people here seem to downplay and talk trash about Nvidia and how they fail when they haven`t even released any Kepler high end GPUs for notebooks yet. Are you basing your view on a early unfinished, what can be a total hoax of a benchmark done by the chinese community? The ones who gave us totally wrong and laughable specs of the 7970M and 7950M (which may even not come to life)? Do you really think Nvidia would release a 680M that scores P4600 in 3DMark11 when AMD got a GPU that score P6000? I don`t think so


Sorry about the rant but this is exactly how I feel right now

 

U mad bro?

(You're very wrong about the aforementioned games: The 7870 can play all 3, maxed out, with acceptable frame rates @ 1080p. My 7970M is OCed to the desktop 7870 speeds and does so too. Stop talking garbage).

 

Guys, I AM an nvidia FANBOY. Period.

I will never become an amd fan as I had very unpleasant experiences with it in the past and nvidia IS the best GPU manufacturer in the world for me, them losing one round or not is not going to change this view.. BUT THIS DOESN'T JUSTIFY TO HATE AMD EITHER! 7970m is a marvel to behold and CAN MAX EVERY SINGLE GAME OUT THERE with +40FPS (Cloud seriously, we saw it, I just saw it on BF3, but it is constant 50fps MAXED, I wish it was living so that I had the screenshot...)

I guess it should be obvious from my sig that I spent the premium just to go nvidia rather than equivalent 6990m gaming performance, I don't use CUDA, I just use a nice old CPU for my work. Anyway, nvidia FXAA is brilliant thing which is aimed at the enthusiasist gaming (that is clear I guess) but coming up with optimum settings for your game is NOT. I mean it is aimed at people who doesn't understand what computer they are buying, which is not me I am sorry about that, and when amd is putting up a gpu like 7970m (I mean it is the best thing since sliced bread), seeing my beloved nvidia putting up "optimum settings" is heart breaking..

also Cloud, even though I bought 7970m (and benched just once with it ) doesn't mean I won't buy 680m, I wrote this many times in this forum, the second 680m is out in the market (whether it scores 4.6k or not) I WILL have it, that is because I am an nvidia FAN, PERIOD.

 

Yeah lately there has been a massive AMD support, bash to nvidia. It's understandable due to how lousy nvidia has handled the mobile market... first by introducing super upgrades to the lower end spectrum, and then barely any upgrades to the mid-uper range.

It doesn't matter though, that particular initiative is a good idea. Specially because every developer makes their game with their own focus in certain capabilities of a GPU, like shaders, or tessalation, or textures etc so each game is different.

It's definitely a good idea. AMD should offer a similar thing, completely community made. Which is what we already do--- suggest settings for diverse hardware.

 

Apparently not. You must have gotten a magic 7970m because there's no way you max out BF3 at native res with 40+ fps. Same for Metro 2033. I know it's exciting to get a new card, but stop exaggerating.

So when Nvidia releases a software feature that you don't like, it's because they're desperate?

 

I fear we have a different 'native resolution' here. And why would they lie? What do they gain? A cookie?

 

I wouldn`t actually jump up and down with these results. And this is 7870, not 7970M. Yes you can overclock it, but not everyone does that and OCed 7970M should not serve as the baseline of the performance but stock should.




Not even 1080p

Not even 1080p:

 

wow, I am done with this thread, I explained myself to CloudFire as he is a respected member of this forum for me, but not to you, yes we are lying all the time, happy?

Cloud, I hope you knew what we meant (Me, Slick, Geo) all along the way. I truely enjoyed every single post of yours since the beginning of this thread. But I won't be dragged into this kinda fight where people likes to frame others without evidence..

 

I was talking about 1080p and he has a 1080p display. "Max out" means maxing all the settings. Which means the highest resolution that your display supports. Otherwise "max out any game with 40+ fps" would be a pointless statement since any mid range card would be able to do that if you ran games in 240p or something.

So you're telling me that you run BF3 with 8x msaa, everything on ultra, with HBAO and FXAA and you never dip below 40fps?

So all the desktop 7870 BF3 benchmarks done by reviewers are wrong?

 

I know what you guys meant. Me bored again as usual
7970M is a very good GPU, 1-2 years from now it will probably struggle to get decent frames with more games. Then you would wish you had the Geforce Experience, especially if you are lazy like I am. Nah I`m just kidding, nobody really NEEDS the program really. Its nice though

BTW, how did everything go with the 7970M? Did you get a new one in return? Or is it money lost in the drain?

 

@Cloud, probably it is money down the drain a very tech savvy person will look at it, we'll see..

4xMSAA never went below 40fps (medium post, HBAO and 8xAA), I don't see any point of improving on these as picture quality remains the SAME. And this is with ZERO app support and driver support, so yeah I am confident it can push all the way to max keeping +30fps average with a slight OC. AND THIS IS THE LAST THING I AM POSTING HERE.

 

I guess people just don't know what "maxed out" means.

 

I counted 5 games where the 7870 didn`t get over 40FPS.
Metro 2033 totally slayed it 21 FPS lol (and not 8XMSAA). King Arthur 34FPS with not even 1080p so maybe 30 FPS and hardly playable (Not the highest settings btw 4xFSAA), 38 FPS with Battlefield 3 on High settings and not the highest settings (8xMSAA would be hard like R3d says), Batman got 36 FPS with 8xMSAA, Crysis got 41FPS but was not with 1080p so maybe 37FPS there.

I know I`m cherrypicking now people but this shows that not even 7870 which IS better than 7970M can get 40FPS+ with the highest settings. 1 year from now there will be more.

How much better is the 7870 to the 7970M btw? I mean stock clocks

6125 vs 5600 in GPU score with 3DMark11:
10%

25000 vs 20027 in GPU score with Vantage
25%

So lets assume the 7870 is 15%ish faster.

7970M should get around (With extremely high settings):
Metro2033: 21FPS x 0.85 = 17.9FPS
King Arthur: 25FPS
BF3: 32.3FPS
Batman: 30.6FPS
Crysis 2: 31.4FPS

 

30 fps is to low 60fps is what every one should stride for
i set my settings always so thy never will hit below 55 fps and dont pass 120fps im using a 120hz screen

 

I agree. Especially with shootem up games like Battlefield and Crysis one should strive for high framerates

 

Enjoy waiting for the 680M then, I don't think it will be any faster.

 

I agree. I don`t think it will be either. I`m waiting for the legendary 7950M or whatever Nvidia push out that is around 75W btw
Guess I will be waiting forever

Oh well, I don`t need a notebook ASAP anyways but I must have one before the end of summer

 

I am sticking with is. I like to overclock my laptop components for the best possible performance (my beast can deal with the heat), as stock is too underclocked for me. XM chip at 4Ghz, RAM flashed from 1600 to 1866, etc. This is why I am using 7870 figures because my GPU performs at the same level.

Anyway, since you're posting pics I will do so too, all from the same source for a fair comparison.

Metro 2033 http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/504/bench/Metro_02.png 56

BF3 http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/504/bench/BF3_02.png 51

Crysis 2 http://static.techspot.com/articles-info/504/bench/Crysis_02.png 35

These resolutions are actually higher than 1080p... yeah. Plus I have played Crysis and I'd say the average was in the 40s... not to mention that we are still waiting for official driver support from AMD.

Furthermore, I think that the level of AA you have on is preference more than anything (sometimes too much and I find things too blurry), so that cannot contribute towards a game being 'maxed out' or not. Same thing for frame rates, it's up to whomever to decide what they are comfortable with. Not you.

 

The reason I went to other sites was to try find max settings which this whole debate is all about. Example, your Metro 2033 is nowhere near max settings.

Here is 7970 with its score with "very high settings", still not ultra/max. Don`t think the 7870 beat the 7970 to be honest



Here is another one without DOF but with 8xAA. You`ll find more benchmarks there where 680 don`t get much FPS, like Witcher and Batman. etc etc
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/nvidia_gtx680_review/13

/discussion

 

jesus christ how GPU intensive is metro 2033?

 

At "normal" settings it's not that much worse than BF3/Crysis 2. But some of the settings just eat up FPS like no tomorrow when you turn them up. That's why I get suspicious whenever someone says they can max it.

 

@Cloud

On metro 2033, very high Dx 11 is the highest setting you can choose. Just shows how little you know. Plus, like in my benchmark link, aaa is enough.

Gg.

 

Also DX11 specific settings like DOF and.. tessalation? Are on a different set of settings to tweak, not on the "very high/high" etc preset.

And in the end metro2033 is just a performance hog. Depending on which area you are benching, your fps can drop to the floor. While in others they can skyrocket.

In the end, there is no particular average for Metro2033 or so I found out while playing it. Using DX11, High preset, no extra features, I was between 25 and 50fps depending on the area, level etc etc. It was never trully playable at such settings. for me

 

Why on earth you two like to argue this much?! I really like the both of you, so you will take my word on this and end the argument at this point Cloud is our CNN, Geo is our, well, GEO, benching genius

I sparked the things up by saying it is a "desperate move". I will say SORRY to end things up! Let's celebrate the fact that we have an improvement like 7970m! which says we will have a good 28nm gpu family as soon as nvidia settles things up with their foundry

(I wrote this going beyond the fact that I said it was my last post, but just because I care about people, maybe too much )

CARRY ON!!

 

Little I know? You keep doing your trashtalking whenever you are wrong. Thats a bad habit. But ok, very high is the highest settings.

AAA is enough? So its about enough settings now and not max settings? Yeah I`m done talking with you. You clearly cannot comprehend or listen to what me and R3d have been trying to say all day long

Yes carry on indeed graz. I`m done with this discussion. No more replies from me since I have better things to do.

 

I wasn't trying to call you out individually, man. My personal preference is Nvidia, but I'm going with the 7970m. Personally, I hope the 680m smokes the 7970m. Competition is a great thing, and consumers win when companies strive to one up each other and provide multiple products to choose from.

 

How's everyone's Optimus + gaming experiences been?

 

Guys, why is it that everyone has to try and prove that the 7970m is slow? and why are people picking on Grazt and Geo? what do they gain from making this stuff up? They aren't making stuff up.

I game with my 7970m @ 950/1350. No need to go higher. GEO and I have overclocked this card to over 1ghz core and 1.5ghz vram for benching, but for everyday that really isn't necessary.

let me rephrase some of what they are saying. Maybe instead of saying completely maxxed. It should be rephrased to very high graphical details...further than we've ever been able to do on a laptop on a single card before ... ever

I'm playing BF3 Ultra 1080p @ 50+fps just like Grazt and Geo. Is it completely maxxed to the max? no. But its Ultra, and it looks amazing. ANd i finally get to play without feeling like its a laptop

I played Metro 2033 yesterday... 1080p VERY HIGH AAA 16xaf DX10. Is this the highest? no. But it looks sick. and it never drops below 40fps...normally anywhere from 45-55, sometimes much higher in the cities (i've seen 60-70fps)

I'm playing Crysis 2 Ultra 1080p with high res texture pack installed. I played 2 levels and it never dropped below 40fps..anywhere from low 40s to mid 50's. very playable

I'm walking around WHITE RUN in Skyrim at 70-80fps...running around the countryside killing dragons at 80+ fps...1080p ULTRA 4xAA 16xAF

Unigine and 3dmark11 are off the charts

These are the facts. We gain nothing by making this stuff up. Believe what you want to believe, but i'm done with trying to convince people that the earth is round. I'm not on AMD's payroll so i don't have the patience with all this ... I just want to share my early experiences with the 7970m...AND THAT'S IT. Nothing more. if you think that all three of us are making this stuff up then I guess it's a group conspiracy...and the conspiracy will get much larger as the 7970m cards start to be shipped in coming weeks.

i'm now playing games the way it was meant to be played.

The 680m is based on the desktop 660ti. SO when that card is available, i'd fully expect that the 680m will be coming ~2 months later. We shall see how it performs...and i fully hope that the 680m rocks too! This isn't a fanboy contest and i don't want to turn it into one. if i get word that the 680m is faster, i will get the qs card and run some benches for y'all. we shall see

 

Feel free to carry on the debate within reasonable limits, but keep out the personal attacks. They aren't necessary in here, or anywhere on NBR. This is everyone's last warning. Thanks.

 

No GK106 somehow

NVIDIA Prepares Two More GK104-based cards - GeForce GTX 660 Ti and 670 by VR-Zone.com

 

Why has this thread turned into a 7970M thread? I came here to read about Kepler.

 

GG. I'll wait for nVidia's release just to be sure that I have an actual choice before buying, but I plan to buy whichever provides me with the best performance, irrespective of price.

I'm absolutely astonished in the best way with the 7970M benchmarks so far and even if nVidia's offering blows chunks, I don't think I'll mind going red this time around if this is what I'll be getting. Regardless, my position is that nVidia would take a huge hit if they release 2 months late and still produce an inferior product. As it is, there's a fair bit of discontent with the rebadging of GTX 570M and 580M in 670M and 675M, respectively. There's no reason for me not to wait a few months for all the cards of this generation to be released before I make an informed decision, though, which is why I'll wait.

With no idea as to what's in the purported 680M or 685M (will there be one?), however, it's hard to speculate on what we'll see lol. At least there are hard facts with regards to the 7970M.

 

Because AMD have set the bar high, you can't look at the 680M in a vacuum, i'd be excited to see what the response will be. All we know at this point is that it will be expensive.

I am not sure GK106 exists.

 

Because there really isn't a Kepler card to spectulate about. 680M is still about 2 months off. AMD 7970M is due this month with high, high expectations.

 

A guy from the Asus forum got his hand on the G75 and did a Heaven Benchmark for us with the GTX 660M. 660M is not too shabby with DirectX11

Make shure you visit the thread and rep him
http://forum.notebookreview.com/asus-gaming-notebook-forum/638159-asus-rog-g55-g75-april-gtx-670m-126.html

GTX 660M:


192 bit GTX 560M:

GTX 660M is 31% better. Take a look at the Max frames too and you notice that 660M get 17FPS more.

192bit GTX 670M, a overclocked GTX 570M:

GTX 660M is on PAR with 670M.

192bit GTX 570M:

660M is 3% better

 

Are the scores comparable across different versions of Heaven?

 

no they arent. I know for sure that the 2.5 is heavier than the 3.0 version, thus skewing the results

cloud Im unable to read the bench that you said that the 670m and the 660m have around the same performance

 

Was the 660M at stock clocks when it was benched? o.o