Nvidia rebadge and AMD 7970m

So, I have seen a couple of 'which is better 670m vs. 675m' etc. I am not looking for such answers.

I have googled, and searched the forums here, and there seems to be lots of info but I haven't found a very concise table, dataset, etc. that simply says..
640M=530M or whatever rebadging occurs.

First, a general comment. Re-badge = bullcrap. it is a lie, imho. You (vid card manufacturers... or at least Nvidia) have spent years using the paradigm of 4xx is the next gen from 3xx which was the next gen from 2xx. Now, 6xx is just a 5xx with a new first digit? just so it 'looks new'?? I call shenanigans. Ok, rant over

More importantly, it seems I can do myself a big solid by avoiding the whole re-badging crap and wait for the 7970M from AMD for the best performance. I don't need to buy now anyway... so.

 

good call, get 7970m or wait for 680m

 

The 660m and 680m cards are not rebrands of the previous gtx models but the 670m/675m are. I agree that it sucks but if people keep buying them and they are a cheap solution to gap the time until their next release who's going to stop them?

The 7970m will sell a ton and convince some nvidia fans to switch but there will always be die hard fans that will only buy AMD or nvidia, rebadge or not.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

 

To be honest, 640M, 650M and 660M are NOT rebadges. Unlike the jump from 400 series to 500 series where the second digit stayed the same, the jump from 500 to 600 series actually jumped the second digit up too

640M = 555M
650M = 560M
660M = 570M

I hear people suggesting the 7970M all the freaking time in this forum, bashing down on Asus G55 owners etc. Not everyone want a 100W GPU, but want something less.

 

I guess I am not sure what 'rebadge' means. If the 640M is the same as the 555M, I would have considered that a rebadge .. same card, different number. To my mind (and to most others, at one time I think) a jump from 4 to 5 to 6 to 7 would indicate major improvements/changes. Taking Card 2xx and naming it Card 4xx with no changes does nothing but obfuscate an already complex landscape.

RE 7970M... 100W card... but what are the NVidias? I see the 675M is also 100W but don't see the current for the 660M. I guess the idea is if you are looking for the biggest beast, waiting for the 7970M is the way to go. If, as you say, 100W cards are not what you want, it opens up lots of other options.

But.. other than the 3 in your list, are the other 6xxM cards new?

 

As of right now...the only true next gen card that we have data on is the 7970m. We have done extensive benching and gaming with several members on this forum that actually have the cards in our laptops. It is head and shoulders better than any other 100W card out there. You are looking at desktop gtx 570 performance from a stock 7970m. And the card overclocks another 15% on stock voltage easily. 1ghz core and 1.5ghz vram is stable through all the 3dmark11, Vantage, unigine Heaven benches, plus i've gamed for extensive periods to test stability at 995 core/1400 mem.

The 680m is vaporware right now. There is tons of speculation, but it won't be available for months

Nvidia fan or amd fan, if one was to buy a laptop right now and wanted the best performance, you would have no choice but to buy the 7970m. I also find it humorous that Dell charges $150 MORE for the GTX 675 vs the AMD 7970m. Buyer Beware

 

exactly... figuring out what is going on, whether one card should be more $$$ than another... seems much more complex than I recall... (I am getting old though )

 

This is the right way of thinking. And that means that the 640m, 650, and 660m are not rebadges. Those cards do have major improvements. They are built using the Kepler based chips, 28nm tech, and so they support new software features and have significantly improved performance / power compared to 500 series offerings.

The 675m though, is just a new name for the GTX 580m. It is built on the old architecture, and doesn't have support for new software features, nor does it have improved power consumption. The 670m is also a rebadge. Even though they increased the clocks slightly vs the 570m, it's still essentially the same, and it's still built on the old architecture, etc.

The 640m performance level is between the 555m and the 560m, but the other features are the primary factor in deciding whether it is a rebadge, not just performance. It's possible (and expected) that the 640m will show up in laptops that wouldn't have been able to accommodate a 555m.

 

So 640M <> 555M?? See, that is the thing I don't get. Some say they are the same, but if it is Kepler vs. Fermi, it would use less power, do more for the same power/heat draw/output?

 

The 640m, 650m and 660m are true keplers based on the new 28nm architecture.

 

Current line up that we know
Nvidia

610 = 520m
630m = 425m/430m/540m/550/555m
635m = 555m/540m/445m
640m LE = 555m/540m/445m
640m/650m = new gpu, 2 variants ddr3 and gddr5, latter is faster
660m = 650m with higher clocks
670m = 570m with overclock
675m = 485m/580m

Lots of speculation regarding the 680m, nothing confirmed

AMD

7690m = 6770m
7750m = new gpu, based on the desktop 7750
7850m = new gpu, based on the desktop 7770
7870m = new gpu, based on the desktop 7770
7970m = new gpu, based on the desktop 7870

I dont know how the 7600m series is going to be or if they will be granted gcn.

but this should cover it for you

 

What Cloudfire was trying to say is that the 640 is a physically different card from the 555, but has similar performance to it.

Similar to how the AMD 7690m is a different chip but has similar performance.

 

actually due to the existence of the 640m LE, which aint vaporware and already comes in the y480, the 555m=640m aint that wrong

 

re: 640 LE = 555...thats very shady imo

 

It gets worse in the dekstop area where there are three versions of the 640, and the special edition 630 which is faster than the 640...

*mind blown*

 

the 630m/635m is the worse, sincerely they are rebadging that line since 2010, if you count that the 445m is 555m all those entry range are kind of meh, high power consumption, high tdp, low performance

giving a second thought it was to be expected, nvidia only launched 3 real new cards last year, the 485m, 520exm, and the 570m, and the rest was a rebadge, if you count the 555m in the lg p330 its another one, but Im not putting my eggs on that basket

 

And nvidia's current new cards is just a single card with different memory configuration and clockspeeds. Hmm.

 

amd is worse still, giving nvidia the chance to rebadge the cards while keeping developing new gpus with the same performance as theirs in the midrange

sincerely the mid range stagnated in the 4000m and 400m series. the upper mid range at least saw some form of improvement in the 6700m series for amd, since nvidia stopped in the 445m

the improvements that was given on each gen were extremely marginal, at least the power consumption went down, well for amd at least, we have to see what nvidia brings to the table with the 640m

 

The GT 640M is over twice the speed of the 540M (it reaches the same 3DMark scores as the GTX 460M), at the same TDP. That is impressive.

 

I prefer Nvidia, but if I have to switch to Radeon till the next most powerful Nvidia card.... BRING IT ON!

 

no matter how you look at it, nvidia shot itself in the foot this time - with all the rebadging and all.

and they are probably looking for a band-aid right now, rather than a surgeon.

 

indeed it is, I dont want to use the acer m3 results for no specific reason, but the 640m/650m/660m are interesting, the 660m less so

 

Very useful - thanks!

 

Very cool! Thanks. Tried to rep, but must've repped you on another of my posts recently.

 

Well, nVidia should keep the 6xxx numbers for these cards only. So, improvements, minor upgrades, etc. 675, 677, 681, 698 or whatever.

Then, commit to the 7xx as the next real change... smaller size or major change..

It is a mess for sure