Overclocking a 675m?

I'm thinking about overclocking my 675m. I wanted to check the temps of the default clocks so I played Alan Wake for about an hour while MSI afterburner was running in the background (temps). After an hour of Alan Wake on Ultra settings, the GPU reached a temperatue of 84C, I also used HW Monitor CPUID to check the temperatue of everything else but nothing surpassed 61C. Should I overclock? The GPU temp seems high on default. But if it is not high, then how much is too high? I'm using the 295.62 driver update.

 

if its 84 then its definitly too high. have u tried furmark yet?
i have used cpuid/hwmonitor/everst/gpu temp/afterburner/furmark and they all showed me the same temp on gpu, while for cpu, cpuid tended to give me a lower temp(appoximately 15c lower then others which problem is shared by many people, dont know about gpu)

 

Sometimes GPU temp. has something to do with the laptop design, different laptops with same GPU will show different temp. ranges. Just like the ASUS G73 vs G53, in which 53 is the smaller laptop. Both has same GPU, but the smaller laptop usually has the higher GPU temp. for it has a smaller casing and prolly fan design. The resellers did confirmed this, and the users showed it.

But yeah, 84*C is kinda near the limit if you want the laptop to last long.

My G73 for the first year playing all games at 1080p OC'ed only had 80*C max GPU temp. even after 4 hrs. of gaming. Crysis 2 was the hottest game for me at 1080p high /very high, HR Text. and DX11. I've played OC'ed the whole time, the whole year on all games, monitoring CPU and GPU temp. CPU temp. would usually run from 60+ to 72*C as highest after 4 hrs. of straight gaming at 1080p.

I've always maintained GPU temp. at low 80s celcius. Also, like with GPU-Z monitoring, it will show minimum, average and max temp. I do watch the average temp. also for that's the longest operating temp. I like an average of mid to high 70s'.

Lately Crysis 2 for me, using 301.42 driver OC'ed to 797/1697 (stock is 675/1250) had climb to 86*C max with average of 84*C. I thought that's it, I don't want to go higher. It's funny BF3 for me at 1080p only registers 80*C as max temp. after 2-3 hrs. of playing 48 player TDM, Diablo 3 on highest setting did 82*C max GPU.

Lastly, I don't do Furmark 'cause it is something of an un-needed stress to the GPU in which games don't even stress as much. Furmark will just degrade your GPU, gaming alone is stressful enough if you're OC. And yeah, we play games not play Furmark.

That's why after 13 months of playing OC'ed, the laptop will play BF3 at 80*C max temp. 1080p. GPU idles or web browse at 38-45*C

Like me, most people play on centralized / airconditioned rooms /house and that helps alot!

 

I doubt your psu can handle an oc'd 675m. You need at least a 220w power adaptor.

 

thats not true, a 180w will do just fine, the cpu is 45 watts, and all of the other components run around 15-20 watts so you have a headroom of 20 watts, and you could definantly pull more than that if needed, thats just the suggested max rating of the psu.

 

675m is 100 Watt, while 460m is 72 watt. But try OC'ing it's the only way to know..

OC'ing is really FUN,FUN,FUN!

 

TDP doesn't mean the chip is actually pulling that much power, that's the maximum the designers should take into consideration when designing the cooling system for the chip.

 

That's good then.. The Witcher 2 being the most beautiful game of them all and the most demanding would need OC'ing.

 

I tried overclocking, but I stopped tweaking once it reached 89C.

Defaults are:
620/1500

I managed to OC to:

740/1650

There was no artifacting, and Alan Wake increased from 20-25 fps to 30-45 fps on Ultra. I should be recieving this tomorrow Amazon.com: Targus Lap Chill Mat AWE55US (Black/Gray): Electronics

I don't know if that will offer any cooling improvement, but if it does then I will OC. Right now I'm sticking with the defaults.

 

Funny thing is a 7970m is twice as fast at same power consumption and 680m is similar. That means if you oc these cards you get twice as much speed for ocing then your 675m for same power consumption.

Anyways the gtx 675m or 580m is known to take more then 100w. Its quite funny the 675m system with quad core takes 50w more then one with a 7970m fully stressed.

I suppose a 675m is a very old card now. I remember when I got 2 pcs+ 5870 powercolour in 2009. 40nm on mobile came out at the start of 2010 and that was for desktop too for nvidia but reality is 675m is based on 2 and a half year old technology.

Heck the 675m card is really only about 1 and a half years newer tech then my 9600m gt.

I thought when nvidia released these power hungry mid range gpu's no one would buy them but it looks like most do like the gtx670m.

Put it this way in theory the gtx 670m and 675m should cost less then the gtx660m but they charge more for a completely inferior product.

 

its about 70% faster than a 660m

 

lmao 70% faster then a 660m. I just had to laugh. Its about 30-50% faster going by notebookcheck compared to 675m and 660m. Funny thing is if the 670m was based on kepler as shown by the 680m the 670m will be twice as fast as the current 670m,

Theres a reason why the 640m 650m and 660m are virtually identical cards just clocked higher as the 670m and 675m are so old.

At the end of the day q6600 oc'd to 4ghz will outperform many ivy bridge cpu's, the 675m really is a q6600 while the 680m is more an i7 3770k.

 

Tested new games, with the same OC settings. I guess Alan Wake is a very demanding game.

All these games were maxed:

Battlefield 3: 82C
Saints Row the Third: 78C
Pyschonauts:67C

 

Those are nice temps. If it goes up too much, try lowering the core clock and just maintain or inc. the memory a bit. Increasing the memory would inc. the GPU's bandwidth. A 460M 's stock bandwidth is 60G/B sec. But at my OC of 1697 or even 1716 MHZ memory which I do now, my bandwidth is at 82.4 G/B sec. It helps maintain or stabilize FPS specially on heavy scenes.

Have fun OC'ing..

 

From a gamer's perspective, how is the 675m inferior to the 660m? The 660m isn't as strong, regardless of whether or not it is newer technology. The 660m wasn't even a blip on my radar because it isn't as powerful.

People complain that the Corvette uses leaf springs just because they like to hate on the technology, using the argument that it's archaic design. The Corvette is a very competent vehicle, regardless of its rear suspension design. The same ideology applies to the 675m.

Feel free to post an intelligent response that doesn't involve blatant hate for power hungry cards, as that isn't relevant to many gamers. We tend to play plugged in.

 

ok, 675m 2010 tech, 660m mid 2012 tech.

Simple you can get a q6600 oc to 4ghz and take 400w or get an ivy bridge 3612qm take around 60w full stress system for cpu and the 3612qm scores identical in 3dmark06 cpu score nearly.

At the end of the day if people used extreme products from 2 and a half years ago and bought them when the new products like the 7970m is out and now the 680m its quite stupid ain't it especially a laptop being mobile. Notebookcheck showed the 675m taking 10w more then the likes of 680m and 7970m.

Using your logic if I get a car same look, but lets say 675m car weighed 20% more had half the mpg (25mpg) and just went 0-150 top speed in lets say 15 seconds

vs

660m lets say can go 0-130 top speed in lets say 13 seconds and weighed 20% less and did double the mpg (50mpg) what would you prefer and it being more lighter it handles far better like nvidia kepler has new features.


The 675m is inferior to 660m in new features like fxaa I believe and directx 11.1. At the end of the day its like buying gtx 580 tri sli over one gtx 680. Lets not care if the 580's take 400w more to perform slightly better then one 580 afterall performance is all that matters.

A perfect example is the ps3 slim vs the old fat ps3 with old components.

 

Can you provide some links or proof that the 660m is performing anywhere near the 675m? I'd prefer actual gaming results (think real world) and not synthetic benchmarks. The fxaa & dx11.1 support is nice, but I much prefer FPS over fxaa, especially on a 15 inch lappy.

You car comparison doesn't make much sense to me. Why would you compare 0-150 vs. 0-130 times? Apples to apples, please. Also, you can't equate MPG to performance per watt. The amount of money spent for gas is almost infinitely more than the amount of money spent on electrical costs for gaming laptops. The difference is miniscule for laptops and you're not going to notice a difference in your electrical bill.
Performance is all that matters for many gamers.

Also, the old, fat PS3 is backwards compatible with PS2 games, while the slim variant isn't. I still love my fatty. I'm still not sure why you're so adamant about new tech for the sake of it being new.

 

I could see an argument about 7970M or 680M vs 675M.

Obviously the new chips perform better and use the same amount of power or less. This is what happens when a new architecture is released on a new CMOS process step.

The question is, does the laptop YOU WANT have support for those chips or does it have the 675M.

The end decision is up to the person buying the laptop. I bought a unit with a 675M knowing full well the 7970M was on the market. So far I have not been disappointed.

 

OOOOOOOO that really hurt Nissan. Expect the full fury of the 3.6L V6!!!

 

Actually I had a 2.5L Turbo Boxer... and I'm hinging my hopes that a bit down the road Sammy will sell me a 7970M

 

Yes but a bit down the road, the 7970m would have become "old tech" so there is no point getting it. Think of it this way. You have a 2012 Impreza and a 2013 Impreza. The 2013 Impreza lets you go from 0-100 in 5 seconds and the 2012 does it in 8. You don't want to go 0-100 in 5 because, well, you cannot go 100 miles an hour in America to begin with. But you should still get the 2013 model even if you don't have the use because I will otherwise put a gun to your head and make you get the newer model coz for god's sake IT IS NEW TECH!!!!!!!

 

Well now I understand why my temps were so high. I didn't know room temperatures made a huge difference..... I was playing at 84F-87F

Temps for no OC Alan Wake were 84C

Temps with no OC and a cooling system were 81C

Temps with no OC and a cooling system + AC on (75F) were 76C


Temps for OC Alan Wake were 89C

Temps for OC with a cooling sytem were 87C

Temps for OC with a cooling system + AC on (75F) were 81-82C

Glad I don't have to worry about frying my laptop now

Both tests were done for about 2 hours.

 

I completely agree. A comparison between a 7970m or 680m vs the 675m makes sense, but I fail to see how a 660m is championed over a 675m from a performance perspective.

I, too, ended up with a 675m instead of a 7970m because of timing; the 7970m wasn't available when I needed my laptop. My plan is to upgrade to a 7970m or 680m in a few months, but I don't see how that makes the decision to go with the 675m "stupid". It performs admirably, IMO.

 

Doesn't new tech mean anything to anyone anymore?!?!?!?!?!? IT IS NEW TECH arrgurgleagaaarrrrrgghhh!!!!!!

 

I'm probably going to be waiting for samsung to release their 7970M version of the 7 series anyway, it looks like the upper right corner of their MXM card is carved out (damn sammy..).

My manual says there is a 7970M version of it. I guarantee you they are waiting for AMD to get their sh*t together driver wise before they look silly releasing it with subpar software support. I suppose AW assumes they are catering to a different crowd that will put up with it.

 

I don't see any troubles yet with me 7970m drivers.

 

I just pressed restrict after ticking 660m and 675m and on some games it so close a slight oc on 660m and you have same fps as a 675m. 4 fps less on arkham city ultra setting. The 675m as expected wins against the 660m but the 660m oc's well and kepler being double performance per watt means half as much electricity needed as a 675m to get same increase in performance. A 660m could perform the same as a 675m on most games and take 40-50w less even when oc'd to same performance as 675m.

Computer Games on Laptop Graphic Cards - Notebookcheck.net Tech

 

lol. At the end of the day the people who get the 675m in mid 2012 is like buying a 9800mgtx over a gtx 485m. There choice at the end of the day.

 

No it is THEIR choice at the end of the day and yes, it is their choice and their decision. Firstly you are, as many others have said, comparing apples to oranges again.............AGAIN! 9800mgtx and gtx485 had two and half years between them. The 580m came out less than a year ago. Add new drivers to that and that shaves off another few weeks may be a month. Does this look like an apples to apples comparison to you?

 

The 580m was a revised 400m fermi so yes the 675m is a 2 and a half year old gpu like you said 9800m gtx and 485m 2 and a half years difference.

 

I find it most humorous that you focus on the one game with a miniscule difference while ignoring the rest. Why don't we take a look at some of the other games:

Dirt Showdown: 34 vs 24
Diablo III: 74 vs 47
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim: 41 vs 28
Battlefield 3: 24 vs 18 (both are unplayable IMO)
F1 2011: 46 vs 33
Crysis 2: 36 vs 23

All of those show a decent performance advantage to the 675m. I'm completely happy with how Sykrim runs on my PC, but I would not be satisfied with 28 FPS produced by the 660m.

You talk about OCing the 660m, but what about OCing the 675m? Where's the OC vs OC results (I don't think you have an apples to apples comparison for that). When comparing cars, it's always a big no-no to compare stock vs modded. It's ridiculous because if you can mod one car, you can mod the other.

I still don't get your big hang up on power consumption. Most people play plugged in when doing serious gaming. What, exactly, is the tangible benefit of having lower power consumption? If you can't afford the increase in electrical costs between the two cards, I don't think a gaming laptop should be a priority in life.

 

I don't think he'll ever get it. He'll only see what he wants to see. We're just pissing in the wind at this point, but I just can't help myself.

Newer tech is more betterer because it's newer. Circular logic is circular.

 

Tis funny that my almost 3 years old (more like nearly 4 years old tech based on desktop 920 chip) 920xm can match his ULTRA NEW tech intel 3610 tech when I OC it to bits which we all do

New tech is not better. Our consumerist society wants us to keep buying brand new to fuel the economy. Obviously that is impossible to stop however I shall continue to always buy second hand on as many components and machines I can (that includes the second hand 7970M I have which was paid for largely by 6990M proceeds) to keep money in my pocket and help keep the environment a little greener.

 

Buy, BUY, BUY!!!! If you don't keep up with the Jones', you're nothing!

But seriously, I'm truly glad someone out there "gets it".

 

My point is a 220w laptop will beat a 150w laptop.

 

Yours takes far more electricity then a 3920xm.

I reckon yours oc to 3ghz will take close to 100watts electricity. a 3920xm at stock will still beat that and should take around 45w as it has igpu.

At the end of the day your machine oc'd to 3ghz and with a 6990m should be taking around 250w. For same performance or similar with a 7870m and i7 3612qm should take around 125w for same performance.

 

Also new technology is always great. Afterall if people used machines like when the ps3 was released. Also the 920xm just sabout beats a qx9300 and the 920xm probably takes around 20w. All those 45nm i7's were shocking desktop wise as well as all they did was cranked up the tdp add hyper threading to it.

 

At what? Using less electricity while not providing the same performance

That's all you've proven thus far.

 

okay I will make it simple for your a 7970m and 680m take less power then a 675m and 670m and offer basically 60-100% more performance in certain games and mainly 100% difference in DX11 performance.

Now once the drivers improve it will be more, I reckon the drivers recently did improve.

I get your point electricity doesn't cost much but at the end of the day the heat coming out of an older laptop ruins the battery as well as the fact its having to use twice as much power gpu wise just to render the same image at same fps in games.

At the end of the day people could use a q6600 oc to 4ghz use gtx 580 in tri-sli and take 1000w power consumption or get same performance now in like 400-500w and take less stress on the power supply less electricity bills etc with a basic i5 quad and gtx 690 or 7970m on crossfire or something.

 

By the way my main point is its 2012 new technology is out so why get a 675m or 580m on a fermi card thats been around for ages. Its like me getting a core 2 duo x7900 cpu oc'd 65nm basically when you can get an x9000 45nm cpu.

 

You keep making wild claims without substantiating them and talking in circles. You said that the 660m beats the 675m and provided one game with a 4 FPS difference, while also ignoring numerous games with a much larger performance advantage going to the 675m.

You have not provided any proof that the 660m overclocked performs better than a 675m overclocked. Regarding energy usage, you're reaching awfully hard and anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together can see that.

 

Because getting new tech for the sake of it being new is ridiculous! The 660m doesn't run games as smoothly as a 675m, and yet you speak condescendingly towards those individuals that don't care about energy efficiency over raw performance. I'm convinced you're a troll.

 

its got better dx11 performance. Of course the 675m is gonna outperform a 660m.

Your comparisons is like comparing an i7 980x 130w to an ivy bridge 35w i5.

Its like you recommended the 980x in the laptop as its all about performance not portability. The 675m laptops weigh a ton compared to 660m as the gpu weighs a lot more, you need far bigger cooling etc.

Your comparison is like a 2l twin turbo 675m 256bit that does 30mpg outperforming a 1.8l turbo diesel 128bit 660 that does 80mpg just as an example. Thats basically the difference in terms of efficiency. If there was a kepler card that performed the same as a 675m it would do 60mpg.

Your excuse is like saying to someone I put a desktop q6600 and oc'd to 4ghz and it outperforms my friends new laptop with an ivy bridge ulv cpu that cost £600. At stock though the q6600 loses just.

Then we do a power consumption test, q6600 at 4ghz 225w total cpu usage watts vs 40w for ivy bridge ulv.

I only recommend new products as they are out. a 675m is fermi architecture that mobilr had in 2010.

 

Source?

If I may ask you a question - I want to play games. I have only two options - 675m and 660m. Which one should I get? My aim is to have games look better and run smoother. I can afford to spend 10 cents a month extra on electricity so I do not care about power consumption and my house is always at 22-24 degrees C so I do not care about heat. Can you please suggest me a GPU out of the two (660m/675m)? Thanks.

Arch means very little if the architecture is really good. I will use one of your own apples to oranges comparisons, if you will so allow me. The US still uses Blackhawks. When did they get those? In the late 60s? That's REALLY old tech. What did they do? Tweak it. In fact, the bin Laden raid was speculated to have used two modded Blackhawks.

 

If I may ask you a question - I want to play games. I have only two options - 675m and 660m. Which one should I get? My aim is to have games look better and run smoother. I can afford to spend 10 cents a month extra on electricity so I do not care about power consumption and my house is always at 22-24 degrees C so I do not care about heat. Can you please suggest me a GPU out of the two (660m/675m)? Thanks.
.........................................
So why not get a 680m or 7970m like yourself. At the end of the day buying a 675m is like you buying a 6970m. I don't think you understand. If you want to get a 675m you might as well get a desktop pc as a 675m laptop weighs a ton because it needs a good cooling system to cool it properly.

660m is slower then the 675m and worse at gaming but the 660m is running nowhere near the capabilities of a 28nm card.

My logic is simple the 670m and 675m are low end so much that nvidia had to put virtually identical cards low end market as in 640m and 650m and 660m. Theres a reason why they are so close as they rebadged the 670m and 675m.

Amd on the other hand rebadged the low end for the 7000m series like 7670m and then 7700m onwards are all new. I am sure they have 28nm lower end coming out as well but most of it is mid-high end. Perfect example 7870m performs inbetween a 670m and 675m and performs slightly better then a 6970m and is known to be a 45w card.

Theres a reason gt 650m fits inside 11.6 easily. 670m machine would be twice as much as a brick. The new macbook design with a 670m or 675m would need double the thickness to have a chance of putting a 670m or 675m in and double the power supply. Thats my main point and the performance improvement over a gt650m gddr5 which takes similar power consumption to a gt540m. 65w tdp difference is huge.

I am suprised you bought the 7970m as you have the logic to get 675m on sli instead as that maybe outperforms the 160w 7970m by about 5-10% while taking around 340w electricity.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-MSI-GE70-i547W7H-Notebook.76785.0.html

This system takes 85.5w on stress test and 74w probably gaming. My current system takes 70w when gaming.

Your logic is so funny its incredible. Yeah lets all buy extreme products in mid 2012 that are based on 2010 technology just because it outperforms a basic card. I decided getting an i5 dual core gt 650m gddr5 or even a gt 640m if cheap.

 

Wait the Asus G55VW weighs 8.4 lbs.. and it's 15.6" with 660M.. 8.4 lbs...

Bottom line is: Only taking into consideration that 680M and 7970M are faster and more efficient than the 675M is too narrow-minded. There are more factors, for some people, than purely gpu performance. There's the rest of the laptop and it's features, price, what you're using it for, etc...

Would you be silly to get a 17x Alienware with a 675M instead of 7970M? Probably. What if you just don't like AMD as a personal preference and can't afford the 680M? Happens, everyone is different. What if you just don't want an AW or Clevo/Sager and the one you want only has 675M?

There's many more reasons to pick a certain GPU than just performance per watt. Especially in notebooks.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

hfm, you only have to look at the new macbook to know what is capable with new technology. From what I have seen 675m costs a lot and in 2 years time will depriciate very quickly. Heck I bought my laptop in 2009 in january and your 675m is really based off an early 2010 card and revised a bit. Now my gpu came out in mid 2008. amd had already got the new 5000m series dx11 40nm gpu out in 2010 so your 675m is a revised old card. You could have got 5870m which is better perfermoce per watt then you card 2 and a half years ago.

You have to take into account the gtx 580m or gtx 675m are the most power hungry gpus released as in one single gpu wise. From what I heard 7970m and 680m take far less power then a 675m.

 

hfm another point you could add is, being a 2 year old design, it means it's already revised, tweaked and bug fixed, for both performance and stability. Of course a newer comparable card will perform better, but I know for a fact some people are not comfortable with buying fresh new hardware, fearing problems. Look at the 7970m for instance, and the few problems its currently suffering from. The most probable cause is early drivers, but the truth is, we don't know what's causing them. It can either be drivers, or an actual hardware fault, and a complete beast of a card could turn out to be another 6970m (this being a truly hypothetical situation, of course).

 

The laptop I wanted had a 675M, which suited my needs. I think the conversation might be over at that point regardless of what other GPU exists.