People who are buying 670m or 675m or any fermi card

Watch this:

Perfect video to put you off getting a 670m or 675m or any fermi 40nm card:
GTC 2012 Keynote (Part 03): The NVIDIA Kepler GPU Architecture - YouTube

Now if you still want to get 670m or 675m feel free. Kepler is amazing but unfortunately theres no mid-high end kepler as fermi took that place. 3x efficiency, uses the gpu more effectively etc. The way I see it is a 675m is like a pentium 4 oc to 8ghz running on nitrogen while a 660m is like a 1.6ghz 45nm core 2 duo performing similar but taking less power consumption and having more advanced features.

Anyway before you buy a 670m or 675m remember you are already outdated by 2 and a half years so any new gpu that comes out in 2 years basic gpu like a gt 840m 25w gpu should be beating the 670m or 675m easily.

The difference in power consumption between a gtx660m and 675m is like more power consumption then my whole 70w power consumption laptop takes.

Also kepler has txaa so allows better image quality.

This shows the big gulf in performance between the fermi and kepler gpu's although these are very high end hardware.
GTC 2012 Keynote (Part 04): NVIDIA Kepler in Action - Unveiling the Tesla K10 & K20 - YouTube


Last but not least epic samaritan gtx 580 tri sli desktop vs gtx 680 desktop I believe maybe wrong.

Epic Demos Samaritan on Nvidia's Next-Gen Kepler GPU

Epic Runs Samaritan Demo on 1 Kepler GPU! (HD Edition) - YouTube

Quick summary: Overall 2x performance per watt. Some cases 3x performance per watt as seen on the samaritan video and the presentation on smx. Processor uses gpu better so less stuttering 32 processes available on kepler vs 1 on fermi and kepler shares its workload better.

So if you still want to buy 670m or 675m over 660m or 650m just to get a few more fps but worse graphics quality on some games then go ahead. kepler has a lot of brute force.

Also people think I go on about energy efficiency to much or performance per watt but the nvidia ceo and founder main goal is energy efficiency and if maxwell predictions are to go buy then the future looks very green for the environment and less electricity bills.

So buy 670m or 675m and 2 years time it will be the low end market and very power hungry market.

Also you can always buy an amd 7700m or 7800m or 7900m series for high end.

edit: moved to gaming section.



Power consumption: Performance per watt ratio.

Those who have read up on the new GPU generations these past few weeks already know that Kepler is more energy efficient than the competing GCN architecture. The same is true for the mobile range.

In our tests, the energy consumptions are 99-109 Watt (GTX 680M) vs. 106-131 Watt (HD 7970M) in 3DMark 06. The Nvidia model also works more economically in Battlefield 3 (126 vs. 143 Watt). Meanwhile, the maximum power draw amounts to 183 versus 200 Watt. While the notebook is idle with the dedicated graphics card inactive, the power consumption of both models become more identical at the 16-27 Watt range.

As our reviews indicate, the GTX 675M (P702 PRO) and HD 6990M (P701 PRO) have significantly worse performance-to-Watt ratio.

Please note that the mentioned results refer to the whole system and not the individual GPUs.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-GeForce-GTX-680M-vs-Radeon-HD-7970M.77110.0.html

 

I just added a link to the 680m vs 7970m battle.

IMO if you are low res 720p gamer, nvidia 640m is more then enough or amd 7730m.

If you are a 1080p gamer gt650m gddr5 or 660m are needed for decent settings and above 30fps gaming. Amd 7870m and 7850m are good equivalents.

Of course if you like the top end fps at 1080p get the 7970m or 680m. I am sure the 7950m will come out soon.

 

Show us proof that the 660m performs better than the 675m, like you've been saying. Show us proof that overclocking a 670m or 675m is pointless, like you've been saying.

Show us proof and support your opinion without being a condescending asshat to people with different priorities and opinions than yourself.

Furthermore, I don't care about performance per watt. It doesn't matter to me and many, many people. I just care about outright performance.

 

Why should we take the advice of some kid who doesnt have any of these cards to prove his comments? the GTX675m(refresh GTX580) Smokes the crap out of the 660m. You can throw any info out there you want but you have zero time using any of these cards. Next your going to tell us the 6990m is crap too right? Give us all a break and take your imaginary GTR and drive yourself as far away from NBR and stop giving bad info out.

 

I have been saying the 660m on notebookcheck batman arkham city and raw dx11 performance 660m holds its own and sometimes like on arkham city beats the 670m. I had a desktop 5770 as well as got a good deal on a pcs 5870 and got 2 of them when they virtually came out.

I don't have a nissangtr, I just have it as my username.

KurtH you seem jealous as you bought lots of 40nm cards and now are outdated.

In simple terms one 680m outperforms your 580m on sli and one 680m takes around 10w less then a single 580m.

A 7870m hiolds its own against your 6990m. A gt620m holds its own against your gt540m. A gt640m easily beats your 555m. All these cards take half the power so lets your whole sysmtems fully stressed take 1000w, know you could get it to run at same performance at around 500-600w.

You can all see for yourself I am telling the truth by checking notebookcheck power consumption readings.

 

A 580m SLI barely fares worse than the 680m. Once it is overclocked, the SLI config will do better any day. On notebookcheck, the difference between the two is barely 100 points.

Also, the 580m SLI smokes a 680m in compute. Are you telling him to upgrade his SLI rig just because new tech is available? 40nm is not outdated by any stretch of the imagination. The 675m/580m is still the third most powerful single GPU and the second most powerful singe GPU AVAILABLE right now (the 680m rigs haven't shipped yet I believe). third most powerful after "2 years" or whatever is still a huge deal.

You are so obsessed. I would suggest you let your ego rest because it is only a matter of days (hopefully hours) before you get banned.

 

Say what you will about the Fermi cards. Out of my own personal experience they are solid performers. I've owned laptops with 460m, 560m, 570m, and 580m. All of them can overclock like beasts and with good driver support their performance keeps going up bit by bit. Sure the new features and power consumption of the Kelper series is nice, but most gamers (myself included) care about raw performance numbers. The fact remains that the 670/675m will perform better than the 660m ever will. Though different architectures, they are in completely different leagues. GTX 660m is a card for entry level gaming laptops and 670/675m are for high end laptops.

Like TwinTurbo said, who cares about power consumption at the gaming laptop level? You don't buy a gaming laptop for battery life. Get an Ultrabook for that. Most gaming laptops top out with 180w power bricks. 180 watts is nothing. My desktop pulls 500 watts not including the monitor. Point is, if your a gamer 2 cents more a month on your electric bill isn't going make a difference to you.

 

not jelious just not illinformed its not about the matter of how much power it consumes its about how much raw gaming power it makes. My 940xm is way dated but it keeps up with the best of them. have you ever had a laptop running 4ghz on 4 cores???? what about one running 5ghz on 4 cores? Do you even have 4 cores? Bro you are retarded? what card in a laptop wi;; ever draw so much power that the system will draw 1000W? If you havent noticed this is Notebook forum not desktop forum?

 

So he creates a thread about his flawed opinions. No one cares about power consumption when they are looking for raw gaming performance.

 

well the OP doesnt really care about power from the looks of his sig. I wish I could benchmark my phone to match his laptop.

 

I said all your laptops combined should take around 1000w maybe on stress test but it maybe a bit wrong. If I do a proper calculation yours should take around 750w on stress test.

maverick1989
In your own words you said 680m performs better at stock and the 680m takes less power then a 580m so if oc'd you can get far better performance.

I think most people on these forums are noobs it seems like this 670 or 675m will smoke a 660m type comments. The 680m smokes the 675m even more percentage and it still beats 2 580m's.

 

No the 680m is a desktop 670. That is a LOT of heat that nv put into a mobile form factor just so it could compete with the 7970m. There is no proof that the 680m will OC a lot. Also, remember that you are OC'ing TWO GPUs are opposed to one. Also, 100 points in 3DMark11 is NOT better. You call people noobs but you are going on about 100 points on 3DMark11 being better? Just leave dude. Don't you see so many people here telling you to leave? Why are you even here? To prove that certain cards do better? I have not seen a SINGLE post where you genuinly helped someone. One thread the OP was asking for opinions on wehther to get the 650m or the 670m and you said get the 640m LE or whatever. I mean stick to what the OP wants. He does not care what you have to say if it is not related to his question. You are not helping anyone. You come here day in and day out only to argue with MANY MANY people and you for some reason believe that everyone is wrong but you are correct. I mean how bloated up are you? Go to one of these. PLEASE.

 

Noobs? Really? You know nothing about us. You don't know our experience is, nor what degrees we have.

You are the noob for thinking that a GTX 660m can out perform the 670 or 675m. Look at the raw evidence. And just because Notebookcheck said something doesn't mean it was written by God and can't be challenged. Their benchmarks aren't 100% accurate and they have been known in the past to botch certain results. Do your research before you start rambling on.

 

And you have this info from a source that doesnt work at nvidia or you just want to go off of what you hear or read on the internet? And there have been some real world test done so far that are outside of nvidia's testing that actually stated the 580SLI is in face 7% more powerful then a single 680. Granted its 1 card vs. 2 but the jump in performance between the 3/4th most powerful mobile gpu due to the new tech but by no means just cause there is new tech out its always better. You take any new hippie hybrid car out there( cause I know you will never have a GTR and I will take my 2003 Evo 8( I really have this car cause Im not a child who lives at home) and I bet my older tech car burns you like the girl you could only dream of would on Prom nite.

 

Yet I got 8 reputations from people for helping them or giving valuable info.

 

Nissan, dude.

Dude.

Really.

Stop making yourself such a ripe target for flaming. Even if you believe you're right, you've said your piece. You might want what's best for everybody, but all you can is offer advice and that's it. Some people will take your advice and that's great. But some won't, and that's the way it goes.

For what its worth, I agree with your reasoning, but please let go of the subject. OK?

 

KurtH Well we have a bmw m3 2007 msport diesel coupe. I just used my username as I like the car.

 

Just out of curiosity, before mods close this thread (or if some old timer reads it) have you guys ever seen someone this obsessed? Just curious...u know....for the record.

 

Deleted due to not wanting to get another Perma Ban.

 

Love it or hate it, the 675M is easily 30% faster than the 660M. That huge performance gap is all that will matter, to most gamers.

 

lol, he is saving the world one watt at a time ...

 

to put this to rest Geforce GTX 675M Vs GTX 580M Vs GTX660M Vs GTX 560M benchmark results from EUROCOM these guys dont work for nvidia. and these are real world tests done to compare the card.

 

well if I get someone to get a 7850m/7870m over a 670m or 675m i will be saving people 50watt each by my recommendation.

Now 50 watt less multiplied by lets say 100 people on this forum and thats 5000watts less for same performance.

 

A GTX675M is going to smoke a lot of these new chips at 1080P when overclocked to 800mhz core, and there will be nothing they can do to catch up.

It is still a very strong core and you have to move to the new high end chips to properly take advantage of this generation in comparison.

 

We should just let this thread die, it's too bad he bumped it, I avoided commenting on it for so long just to hope it would find itself cast down to the depths of the forum list with 0 responses.

Nissan has gone on a personal mission of vilifying the 580/670/675 filled with inaccuracies and pure opinion irrelevant to anyone who only cares about raw performance. Very often telltale is using "from what i've heard", "from what I've seen", "youtube videos show kepler's great image quality over fermi", "power per watt is king no matter how much less the performance" etc..

Also, along these lines, completely ignoring important decision points such as the GPU is NOT NOT NOT the ONLY factor at play when making a laptop purchasing decision. The reason I have the 675M is that I deemed its performance up to the task since after evaluating all my options and the price for them, this Samsung seemed like the best total package for the buck. Which included a fantastic display, best I've seen so far, bluray, plenty of memory, 8G express cache backing up the slower spinners so I wouldn't feel it completely necessary to dump a wad on 512G of SSD right away, it's quiet ALWAYS, it doesn't get very warm at all at WASD (others have had different experiences here but just relaying mine), price was right at 1790. I could afford much more but why when I still like to actually have a savings account and I take that seriously, plus other factors.

Would I like to have a GTX 680M or 7970M instead? Sure. They run cooler and perform better. 7970M, I think so but not quite yet, but I am still not sold on it as too many people are having driver problems, and some are not. But it seems like way too much work when all I want is for my games to run fast on high/ultra details and the 675 is making that happen for all of them without me having to jump through hoops.

Do I actually think it's a good thing to have a lower wattage part that performs as good, YES of course. Who would want to use more resources just for the hell of it? But saying someone's personal reasons for buying a laptop RIGHT NOW that has a 580/670/675 are flawed is wrong. You are not that person and it is not your decision.

Stop this crusade against Fermi parts everywhere you go, it's annoying.

 

Listen, you said the 660m is a "better" GPU than the 675m. You also said that it can OC higher than a 675m OC'd. And you're calling us noobs? Better by who's criteria? Yours, of course, because you focus on one game and IDP. Everyone else focused on gaming doesn't focus a lot on energy consumption because they're concerned with performance.

Nobody is stating that the 670m or 675m is better than the 7970m or 680m. Of course they don't perform as well, but for you to say that you laugh at 670/5m owners or think their choice is stupid is just egregiously poor form.

Using myself as an example, neither the 7970m or 680m were readily available in the P150EM when I needed a laptop. I couldn't prolong my purchase any longer, so I did the most logical thing. I purchased the best GPU at the time of my purchase. And yet, in your own words, I was stupid and you should laugh at me.

If you feel that the 660m or whatever is God's gift to laptops, then that's just terrific. You can hold that opinion while being respectful of those that have a different opinion.

I mean, you're saying that you own a diesel M coupe? See, I think diesel engines are terrible. I would never own a "sporty" diesel. I think they're terrible, and I could quote Jeremy Clarkson and other people who agree with me. I won't, though, because as long as you (since you said "we", I take that to mean your parents ) enjoy it, that's all that matters.

 

They can catch up by ocing the 7870m's

Maverick I said mainly 660m outperforms 670m's. 660m oc'd probably could reach that performance maybe of a 675m.

 

No, you said the 660m is better than the 675m, which, in gaming terms, means that it performs better. You've said a lot of things, and, obviously, it's hard for you to keep up with yourself after talking in circles in over 1,000 threads.

 

He also said in one post that nvidia doesn't have the mid-high segment, then in another admitted that the 675M is a good mid-high GPU.

Anyone who says that a company that owns the 2 of the top 3 fastest single GPU in the world for a notebook is NOT owning the mid-high segment FOR GAMERS, is.. well.. wrong.

I might also call, if the 650 and 660 are so great, owning the mid segment.

 

FFS, the 320d is not an M coupe, like you previously stated. It's a freaking 3 series with M-Sport package

And you call us noobs?!?!?! LOL!

Oh, but Top Gear thinks diesel engines are terrible from an enthusiast perspective, so it must be true. I saw/read it on the internet and TV.

He keeps changing his argument so much, he can't keep up! Thankfully, we are not so easily thrown off track.

 

The 660M will never, ever, ever reach performance levels of the 675M at stock. Even with what little OC'ing headroom there is left in it. There's a reason why the 675M costs $250 to upgrade to.

 

Do you even know how they come up with the naming convention for the ATI and nVidia cards? The 7870's are overclocked 5870's just with newer tech. Maybe you should go walk into the other room cause I bet your parents know more about this crap your trying feed us. Some of us are twice as old as you and have more certs in this stuff then you will ever imagine. Normally "US" as an online community we see and treat eachothers as peers but when the time comes where the youngest most pig headed kid tries to play know it all when infact doesnt know crap. You no longer become our equal but infact a little peasant. For the rest of the guys on this thread im out!

 

You guys are big ol' meanies. This looks more like a feeding frenzy on National Geographic.

I hope a moderator closes this thread ASAP, you're really enjoying this way too much.

 

Hey don't put this on us. We didn't start this thread that basically calls anyone who buys fermi cards idiots.

 

The 320d M Sport 2dr and its a coupe. So it is an M sport and is a coupe. Anyway I watched top gear a lot and have played gt1-gt5 and tuning many cars out so I think I know a bit about cars.

Back on topic: Buy a 670m or 675m and you are buying an outdated fermi card. Yes the performance can play games but in 2 years time it would be like a power hungry card that most basic dedicated gpus will outperform it.

 

You're contradicting yourself. You can say the same about the 660m minus the power consumption.

 

Its always gonna be like that dude. Look at the cards from two years ago and compare them to Kepler or even Fermi. They are in different leagues. Tech advances and it doesn't matter if you have a 675m or a 660m they are both gonna be old tech in two years. Heck in two years I'm 100% sure I'm gonna buy at least another laptop anyway so it doesn't really matter. As stated earlier gamers don't care about power usage. That's what we got the Intel graphics for. hope some of this makes sense.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S2 using tapatalk 2

 

Isn't this true of the 660M as well. I would fully expect 2 years from now that it will be outclassed completely, and STILL be slower than the 675M by a decent gap, since it cannot transform itself at will to something better..

 

Fixing this thread is pointless so we're closing it.