Performance/longevity of GTX 660m/670m versus 7970m

So I'm trying to decide between the AMD 7970m and GTX 660m/670m for a new gaming laptop, and obviously the 7970 is superior in performance to the 660 and 670. However, my standards are pretty low and I really don't need to run any new games on max settings; I've been gaming on an early 2009 Macbook Pro for the past three years so I would be happy just to be able to play games on medium. Still, I want this computer to be able to play games for at least three years into the future, so what I'm wondering is will the 7970's greater performance significantly increase a notebook's lifespan compared to the 660/670 or will jumps in graphics card performance between generations likely be large enough to render both the 7970 and 660/670 obsolete at roughly the same time?

I know that the 7970 is only like $200 more than the 660m and I would definitely upgrade if the Sager was my only option but I also really like the form factor, cooling, and low noise levels of the ASUS G55/G75. If the 7970 and the 660 were to become obsolete at the same time I would go for the G55/75 even though graphics performance would be worse during its lifespan, but if the 7970 is likely to last substantially longer I would get the P150EM/P170EM just to have that extended lifespan.

 

the 7970m will be more future proof, but at the same time your paying more for it [as you stated]. Thus, the longevity is all relative to your price point......

Is it better to spend $1100 for a mainstream gaming laptop and replace in 2 years? or spend 1500+ for a better gaming laptops and replace in 3 years?
There's no correct answer....

 

theres virtually no difference performance wise vs a 660m and a 670m but the 670m is 40nm fermi vs 660m 28nm kepler and the 670m takes about just over twice as much watts to run 5-10% better. A 7970m I believe takes less power to run then the 670m.

 

The 660m fills the same position on the totem pole today as the 9600m gt did back in early 2009. Maybe that can give you some perspective.

 

660M can play all games at 1080p, but the newest ones, Metro, Battlefield 3 etc, you have to lower the settings to medium settings at 1080p. Or 720p at high settings. Its a decent GPU and more than good enough for people who don`t have to play the highest settings

 

I bought my 5930g in late january 2009 and I got it with the current specs now for around £350 after I put in my hard drive and acer win 7 upgrade (I like my bargains). I believe the 5930g owners thread started on the 3rd of october and according to gpuz june 4th 2008 is when the 9600m gt release date was.

The gt 640m now is the sweetspot for similar power consumption to 9600m gt and double 3dmark performance and 5x vantage score so it now allows 1080p gaming on mid range cards. Maxwell should allow lets say its called a gt 840m and its a 23w tdp card it should have probably 15-20k 3dmark06 and 3dmark11 of around 3500 although nvidia are probably estimated more performance its probably more to do with the arm processors with it.

By the way a gtx 660m is more like a 9700m gts was back then.

I used to think ivy bridge was gonna cut down power consumption but its virtually the same as sandy bridge give or take 10-20% better performance per watt.

 

I think maybe if you are considering constant temperatures on the rig itself. I guess you'd also have to understand some systems are build to handle the higher temps as the cooling is better. Some may consider getting a gaming rig and not pushing it. Such as getting a 17" or 18" with the 660 so you have overkill cooling. Or maybe get a higher end card like the 7970 and configure setting well below it's rated performance configs and not working the gpu out. I think the common consensus is to get a secondary cooler proves more for longevity than the other considerations.