Laptop GTX 580m 2GB vs. Desktop ATI 5770 1GB

Quit trolling the same crap in numerous threads. You make statements based on conjecture as if they were factual and repeatedly get called out for it. It's unbelievable.

 

The upgrade from a desktop 5770 to a 580m is about 25% give or take at stock clocks. OC'd the 580m is essentially a Desktop 560Ti. (note that a laptop CPU at stock cannot keep up with an OC'd desktop CPU of the same generation) This is no small upgrade GPU-wise.

Your estimates on the new AMD mobile GPUs are frankly overly-optimistic.
The new AMD mobile will likely be slightly higher stock what the 580m is OC'd.

Purchasing a 580m now doesn't mean that you are instantly obsolete, it just means there is a faster GPU out there. Given the fact that consoles currently hamstring game development, a 580m is likely more than enough until the new consoles are released.

Yes, they will be more power efficient, but as long as you understand that and don't need 4+ hours of battery life, the 580m will serve you well.

There will always be a better gpu on the horizon. Even if you buy the 7970m, the 680m wil likely come along and beat it. This doesn't make the 7970 obsolete.

Also, lighter and more battery life really isn't necessary for everyone.
I really don't notice the difference between anything 8lbs and lighter for day-to-day use. (and I have carried it all day in and out of server rooms) I don't need more than 2 hours of battery life as I have lived with it for 4 years.

Are the new generation better? Sure... but what wil they cost?
The 5xx series has some very nice pricing on them right now.

Can we please keep it real?

 

the 580m is more like a 6870 than a 6770 - the 6870 is a solid desktop card but there is certainly plenty of space above that in the hierarchy, but that's obviously the end of the line for mobiles.

 

Well it seems pointless to upgrade from a hd 5770 to a gtx 580m. I know the 580m is powerful but my point is not that the 680m and 7970m will outperm it but cost a lot more but a mid-high range gpu should beat the gtx580m at maybe 40-45w on direct x 11 performance. Its like getting a laptop as thin as a macbook pro and getting gaming performance and great battery life as idles for gaming laptops will go down around 10w. If you are gaming for 3-4 years 2 hours a day you will save more electricity using the newer laptop then your older laptop cost for upgrade or even whole cost.

 

Its like buying a car does does the same 0-60, same model but difference is petrol and diesel and the diesel does 70% better mpg for doing the same thing which costs less in the long run. In a week or so you will see what I mean. Thinner laptops, better cooling, higher performance all in a 120w power adaptor. 90w power adaptor should support gt650m and i7 3612qm.

 

I understand what you are saying since you have said it many times the problem is no one knows what the new cards are actually being produced and how long we have to wait for them... but you still haven't answered my question... putting one of these cards in my laptop will give me 8 hrs of battery life?

If we all wait around for the next new thing we will be waiting forever because there will always be something new around the corner... Theory and real life are two different things... I learned that when I went from school for drafting and how the real world works on making things...

 

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/Dat...chitects-of-G80/NVDA_22_GeForce_GT640M_1x.jpg

This will show it. The 640m is basically equal to it on 3dmark11 and vantage and open gl.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html
check the 460m vs 640m.

 

Just ignore him. That's what people are doing on all topics he starts posting his BS.

 

Review Acer Aspire Timeline Ultra M3-581TG Ultrabook - Notebookcheck.net Reviews

gt640m takes 55w on 3dmark06 and 70w stressed. Now with a 2640m lets add anonther 18w= 88w stressed.

Review Schenker XMG P500 PRO Gaming Notebook - Notebookcheck.net Reviews

This takes 152w on stress test and around 115.7w gaming. That tells you everything and the idle 30.6w vs 7.8w is a big difference in battery life. 3.49kg laptop weight vs 2.03kg for same 15.6" is massive difference.

 

Time to pull the bs card... This is where theory meets real world... that pretty picture says it has 8 hrs of battery life...

engagets review of the laptop :

Acer Aspire Timeline Ultra M3 review -- Engadget

5 hrs and 11 mins... Where did the other 3 hrs go... a macbook gets better battery life than it...

oh and I would love to compare them to the new ones... but they aint out yet so no one knows that they can do or how good or bad they work... look on the site you posted... the scores are blank...

 

Battery life on the Timeline Ultra M3 is good, but not amazing. We got five hours and 11 minutes out of its three-cell Li-polymer battery in our standard test, with a video looping off the hard drive, WiFi on and screen brightness set at 65 percent. In general workday use checking email, web surfing and word.
.........................................................
on a 3 cell battery and 15.6 inch laptop that is crazy and its not even ivy bridge. With a 6 cell it should easily do 8 hours with good use and probably around 12 hours browsing the web.

Also when I link the comparison it doesn't work so you will have to tick the 2 cards gtx460m and gt 640m and go to the top and click on restrict and compare.

 

I used the laptop that was shown in that picture you linked and that at the time said in that picture could get 8 hrs... I am not the one that linked it saying it would do 8 hrs...

Here is the 460m compared to the 640m, why is the 460m getting better numbers on almost everything?

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/2255/70021243.jpg

btw here is the 580m vs Desktop ATI 5770 too

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/7629/13472780.png

 

You will need a 650M with GDDR5 to get past the 460M.

 

Of course the new tech is lighter and has similar performance to previous heavier tech...

However, a 640m is in a completely different market than a 580m.

One market cares about size, weight, and battery life and cares less about GPU performance, the other market cares about GPU performance and less about battery life, weight, and size.

To be bluntly honest, if you want the potency of a 580m, you are going to be willing to give up a few pounds and a fraction of an inch and a few hours on battery to get it.

To get anything better than the 580m, the OP must wait for the 79xx series AMD mobile GPUs, or the 680m. Both of those will come with a nice hefty price premium and while they will be faster, probably won't be anywhere near as fast as you seem to think. Sure, they will have more battery life and be lighter. However, who really cares for a performance laptop? 7lbs isn't difficult to carry and 3-4hours is plenty of battery life for most people. Anyone who needs more can sacrifice GPU potency to get their better battery life, or sacrifice money to get the 680m or equivalent.

Note - To be entirely fair the macbook doesn't really beat this one...
the macbook barely eeked out more battery time in MacOS, and lost in windows by a siginifant margin when subjected to the same test.

 

opps ya right about the windows time... I didn't even look at that... Thank you...

I don't have a m18x because I wanted a light weight laptop... I wanted a desktop replacement that I could play games on the move while still being able to do my work on it... my m17xr1 was over 12 pounds... And I was ok with that... I want a good laptop, I don't care about weight...

 

lol i wish that was the case for the 7750m

 

just sayin but the 640m reviewed atm is a ddr3 card the ddr5 should compete with it

 

I would hope that the next gen cards would atleast be somewhere in the area of atleast 1/2 as good as the top of the line last generation...

but when a new card is barely able to keep up with 2 generations before...

 

Sorry I missed this before... thanks PaKii for pointing it out.

Given that the 7970 is rumored to score 25% higher than a 580m on 3dmark11, and the 7950 is around 13% higher... (taken from rumored 3dmark11 scores)

How exactly does the 7750m with half the shaders and not even half the memory bandwidth beat a card that close to its bigger brothers?

niss, this is not even close to realistic. The 7750m is not designed to even be in the 580m's league.

 

the gtx560m is an oced gtx 460m i believe so its only 1 gen behind lol . and u gotta compare it to the 540m which it blows out of the water

 

the question is, what card will it compete with

 

7970m scores just over 20k in vantage and 5600 with tesselation on vs 6100 tesellation on. I don't know what the 3dmark11 scores are normally considered the norm though. Its crazy leap.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/alienware-m17x/658084-amd-7970m-available-buy-11.html

 

now do u think its possible the 7750m can be past 570m/near 580m?

 

AMD really has kicked in the overdrive with the 7970m, but the 7750m really isn't in the same league.

The 7750m has half the shaders and less than half the memory bandwidth of the 7970m.

Assuming the 7970m 5600-6100 3dmark11 are correct, the 7750m will likely score in the 2800-3000 range. The 570m flashed and OC'd scores just over 4k.

 

oh thanks for the input. how do u think it will stack up against 650m/660m?

 

Well, I've had my new laptop for almost a week now I believe.

I do love it. Great feeling being back on a quality Nvidia card instead of those crap ATI cards.

http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t148/Hogdriver155/cfdab35c.jpg

Performs higher on Crysis 2 than my desktop.

Extreme, DX 11 + High Res Texture Pack @ 1920x1080 30 FPS minimum, 50 FPS max.

Ultra is lower, I like having high FPS.

Oddly enough, performs lower on Anno 2070, which my desktop performs better on :L

Do see my other topic in this forum about that. Really havin issues pissin me off because I do love Anno 2070...

And I know that this laptop should perform better (at least graphics wise, the I7 960 is still a high processor)

than the crap ATI 5770... :L

 

I had an ati 5770 and it played most games at 60fps at 1080p on high. The 128bit maybe limited a bit but its hardly crap apart from it did sometimes crash. The 7970m performs better then the desktop gtx 580 gpu and 80-100% better then the 580m.

 

lol nice im still waiting for more cards to be released to buy mine

 

lol it can reach up to the desktop card. not yet tho. need optimized drivers and oc

 

Google Translate

I think the 7750m will be like the 5650 back then, the most popular card. No wonder why macbook chose it. I can see it now playing dirt 3 on high/ultra at 1080p at 30-35fps with similar power consumption to my 9600m gt. If nvidia and amd made 22nm graphics like intel the performance would be great.

 

The 1ghz 7870M will score around 3500 in 3dmark 11. Should perform like a 570M, but wont be able to oc as much. Will be more power friendly though.

 

AMD Radeon HD 7870M - Notebookcheck.net Tech

It scores 3037. in fact the 7870m is basically a gtx 580m performance wise.

 

32W TDP? Yes please.

 

False, even a stock 580m gets 3600 or so assuming up-to-date drivers.

A BIOS-patched 570m or a 670m get around 3100. (at stock 670m speeds)

 

Yeah, the HD7870m would compete vs the GTX670m in performance. Which is good but there is still a huge gap between HD7870m and HD7970m. I would rather have that gap being approached by 2 cards inbetween rather than just one (the HD79750m)

 

yeah thats a big difference..... btw how do u guys think the 7850m will preform?

 

It should be on the same level of performance as my HD5870m. It's good but not good enough for my gaming tastes. I need the Hd7970m haha