Test - GeForce-GTX-680M vs Radeon-HD-7970M

Then you are better off getting Clevo/Sager. I dont wanna walk around with with a 17" laptop either. I bought the M17x as desktop replacement so it stay indoors. I can use my wife's M11xR3 if I want to go out with a laptop.

 

And here is yet another semi review to pop a hole in Notebookcheck`s test of the 680M:

Max Payne 3:
Notebookcheck: 42FPS
Laptopmag: 55FPS

Both with the highest settings.

So Laptopmag got 31% more FPS than Notebookcheck.
Alienware M17x R4 (2012) Reviewed | Gaming Notebook Reviews

What on earth did Notebookcheck do wrong?
(Similar was seen with Battlefield 3 with Verge vs Notebookcheck also. There we saw 33% more FPS with the Verge review....)

 

Yeah, I don't want to negotiate with a salesperson over a long distance call, nor do I have any military discount, so I have to settle for less

Maybe I can fill the cooling gap with a high end cooler..

Anyway, I don't mind the looks of the laptop, only its ability and in that regard I would be happy to go for an Alienware.

 

NBC is showing us minimum fps, not average...

 

As far as cooling goes, would an asus g75 with either card (kinda doubt that asus will release models with these cards anytime soon, but a guy can dream.) have even better temps? or is alienware on par if not better with cooling?

 

Eh, no that is wrong. They are posting Average FPS.
A review with only minimum FPS would be useless

 

Agreed, NBC results seem off. Will have to wait for end user tests.

Sent from my GT-N7000

 

I`m not shure but I think Alienware and G75 are pretty on par with the cooling

 

I'm sure glad we have another thread for Cloud to continue chasing his own tail.

Buy yourself a laptop with one of these cards already, Cloud. At least you'll have a little skin in the game and your hundreds of posts on this topic will have a bit more meaning.

 

If we assume that the 680m is better like so many here are trying to convince us (and themselves), which of these (or just people in general) believe that the 680m is $300 better?

 

these temps are so wrong, I don't go higher than 70C on BF3 (can provide the screenie if you want, but towards weekend, also on usual basis it is 65C but just to be sure I said 70C)

 

They didn`t test the Alienware graz, but some Clevo

 

oh I see, sorry my bad

 

Those temps they posted are 10C higher than what I got, so while the Clevo cooling isn't as good as AW, they're not always running 95C in Furmark.

 

Their temperature tests are inherently flawed, unless they repaste all notebooks received with an identical compound.

 

Any test between two single units is technically flawed to begin with lol.

 

Not inherently flawed. But you do have to sight the parameters. Still, its a lot easier when the test instruments are identical.

 

Ouch. Not looking so good for team green.

 

Verdicts not final till we get some cards in more precise hands.

 

People have to remember that the m17x was designed to contain SLI/CrossfireX video cards, and is 17", as well as close to 10 lbs. The Clevo machines, even the P170EM, are significantly light, as well as only supporting single video cards. If Alienware ran at the same temperatures with a single card, how could they possibly sustain TWO without significant downclocks? In my opinion at least, the m17x is much more a desktop replacement than either the 15" or 17" Clevo machines.

 

^^ wrong!!! R2 and r3 are DIFFERENT machines, I can't remember now and I am mobile so I will look when I am home, but p170em and r3 should weight just the same..

 

M17x is 4.3 kg, clevo 3.9. Not a crazy difference.

I refuse to believe any of these numbers until I see a signed affidavit from at least three former playmates and a Tibetan goat herder.

 

Well, I shouldn't say the tests themselves are "inherently flawed", but any attempt at direct comparison based from those tests certainly is.

 

Oh, my mistake. I did not realize their design changed so significantly.

Also even a 0.5kg difference is still more than a pound. I dunno, to some that may matter.

 

Sorry if this has been posted but Laptomag has an AW M17x with GTX 680m and they scored 6,158 in 3dmark11 compared to 3651 for the GTX 675m in the Eon 17s and the vantage was 25,000+. Batman AC got 52 fps at 1080 on high not sure about physx though. The review is rather shallow which is par for the course for that site but I thought the above scores might interest some of the people here.

 

Just wait for a test of GTX 680M in the M17xR4 cause this is the machine

we wanna buy

 

Hello Cloudfire,didn´t you say one thousand times the GTX 680M
have turbo boost?

So i was right i think

 

Here's the review from laptopmag: Alienware M17x R4 (2012) Reviewed | Gaming Notebook Reviews

 

Usually, one review is enough. But when there's this much difference between these reviews and with so many little to large inconsistencies along the way and such troublesome figures for games that should have gotten an edge - but didn't, one can, and should, question the bottom line here.

Not that it really matters that much. If I would have to purchase my laptop now, I would have just gotten a 7970M and be perfectly happy about it, and that is a win for AMD all by itself.

 

Well, according to this review, think i'll buy the 7970m... Not much differences between the 2 cards except the price. moreover, in france there's some discounts for the students, and the 7970m is priced €119, the same as the 675m.
Do you guys think it's worth buying the 7970m?
Cheers, from france.
Very nice forum here

 

I think the real difference is 3D. I'm not interested in the 3D functionality, so AMD is fine for me. In terms of processing power/price, AMD (7970m) wins hands down.

 

The Clevo 17" is nothing more than the 15" in a 17" shell. Components are nearly identical, so if you want to compare, compare with the P150EM for weight, temperature, performance, cost.

I can get a Clevo P150EM with 7970m, 8GB DDR3, i7-3610QM, high quality matte screen, choice of wi-fi card (Intel 6300) for < $1500. 6.83lbs.

Similarly spec'ed M17x is 9.39 lbs and about $2000 without tax (and can only get at best an Intel 6250 and no matte screen option).

However I am still concerned about the Enduro performance issues in the Clevo.

 

Why does the Alienware 7970M dominate the Schenker/Clevo based 7970M so substantially? Is it down to cooling or something?

 

Single 7970M is fine, DON't buy the 7970M CF...

 

I'm still skeptical about the 2GB 680M's offered in the M17x R4

Is this a typo by dell or something.

Can somebody clarify?

 

little premature to be saying that... new drivers are just around the corner which will most likely improve the performance to some degree

 

IF the performance NBC found out about 680M is true, you are paying $300 for a much cooler GPU that draw 20W less power, and for the Nvidia drivers.

I am still highly sceptical that Nvidia would release a GPU that didn`t beat 7970M when they could have increased the power consumption and walked all over it. With last generation, 580M drew a lot more power than 6990M.
Why not now? And why not increase it 20W more to beat 7970M?

 

GTX680M @ P170HM benched

Source :
P170HM has been successfully installed Clevo GTX680M 4GB!

74'C low temperature for Furmark burning at default clock

7970M @ 850/1200 = P5900
7970M @ 1000/1500 = P6600

GTX680M @ 720/900 = P6000
GTX680M @ 900/1250 = P8200 ?
GTX680M @ 900/1500 = P8500 ?

Spoiler

 

, stop posting these huge images that take forever to load. Put them in hide/show or whatever. You've done this twice, read the forum rules. You've been around long enough to know this.

 

I think he's just a little over excited, is all
(as am I - good to know the 680M isn't a total loss)

 

How come they show over 100W when the MXM slot only allows a max of 100W of power delivered to the GPU?

 

I think they cannot increase power. Look at their clocks. The GTX670 and the GTX680m are the same chip right? Look at the 670s mem clock actual. It is at 3Ghz. Higher clock = faster charging discharging = more current delivered quicker = more voltage. That would mean they would need to increase voltage to the 680m to get it to clock similarly. Power goes up as square of voltage. That means you are increasing the power consumed (and in effect the heat generated) by a lot more by increasing the voltage by say 0.2 volts. It is not linear.

Why do you think they have 4GB of GDDR5 on that GPU? I doubt they intended it to be a selling point. Most people purchasing a 680m are knowledgeable enough to know that memory means very little above 2GB. Why does the GTX670 have 2GB despite being the same chip? What's the difference? Mem clocks. nvidia is not able to push this any further at stock because they have stuffed in a pretty big GPU into a mobile form factor. That would mean the core pushes out data much faster than the memory can get rid of it and that is why the memory needs to be bigger. This had nothing to do with advancing in technology. nvidia was stumped with the 7970ms success and could not match it with a desktop 660 (which is what all nv flagships have been until now - lower clocked desktop x60s). As such they got desperate, made the 670 mobile and in effect reduced headroom to practically zilch.

 

Either ways, no use speculating. What speculation does tell us is that the 680m is a huge failure for a $300 premium over the 7970m and at this point I do not believe that Chinese dude's numbers. Where did he get a GPU from to begin with?

That being said, the only wya to know for sure is to wait for someone to get a laptop in hand and benchmark it. Someone who will do it AFTER they are officially released.

 

Only thing we really know:

Is it faster? Probably.
Does it have better drivers? Probably.
Is it cooler? Probably.
Is it $300 faster? Probably not.

 

The only thing we know is that the world probably will not come to end on December 21st, 2012. And even that is a speculation.

 

So, in the end, the AMD 7970M is just as good as the GTX 680M - for less money, but runs hotter (uses more power)? Then it would seem AMD is what I should buy.

 

Guess what? Another 680 vs 7970 thread just died.