nVidia 675MX good enough?

Hi, I need some help.

I plan to buy the Sager 9170 laptop but I'm having trouble deciding if the 675MX graphics card and i7-3630 processor with 16GB Ram is good enough for my needs. I plan to do some mid to heavy gaming on it. Not always running games at max setting but it be nice to know I would have the solid option to do so. I also plan to do some video editing. Rendering about 7 to 10 min videos. But my main concern is the graphics card on whether or not I should hold out another 2-3 weeks for the 680M. Tbh, I rather not spend that much money on the 680M if the 675MX will be enough.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

It's entirely your choice. 675MX is about 60-70% performance of the 680m. 680m will give you longer time running newer games at higher detail and fps. If it's a matter of a few weeks to get the money, I'd say wait and get the 680m personally. It also is a solid overclocker. Most people at stock voltage can get around 900MHz (vs stock 720MHz) and 2300-2400MHz vRAM (vs stock 1800MHz). That adds a solid 15-20% boost to FPS in most cases.

 

60 to 70% huh? That's kinda big. But it will run games at max settings no problem right? It would seem that the 680M is more future proof.

 

Today's demanding games will require you to lower settings (especially aa) to play fluently with the 675mx. I completely agree with Wingnut, if it's only a few weeks worth of waiting I would definitely wait and order with the 680m instead. It'll pay off in the long run, when the 675mx reaches obsolescence the 680m will still have quite a bit of life left.

 

I'd like to chime in with a biased and cheap opinion.
1) As long as you are comfortable not having every piece of tech eye candy turned on for games, the card will serve you well. The only game I have in my library that requires me to turn anything down is Metro 2033, and I am able to get a pretty steady 30fps with everyone one max minus one notch.
2) Is there anything else you want right now that $300 could buy?
3) Since it is a sager, you can always swap out the GPU down the road, and maybe even get it for the same $300 difference when the next gen Nvidia cards are announced/released.

 

I think it doesn't matter which card you get [675MX, 680M/MX, 7970m] because the new consoles will raise the ceiling on graphics coinciding on the PC-end with die shrinks for all and DDR4 to push graphics beyond that new ceiling ....everything out now [which is almost a year old] and probably even this years stuff is going to hit a wall at about the same time.

I would say a 675MX is good enough, from what I've seen you can get it up close to 680m stock performance OC'd on a custom BIOS. Bang for the buck wise vs the 680m, the 675MX is a good buy. If you can eek out another $100 for the 7970m, being on par with the 680m and an excellent overclocker should earn it some consideration as well.

 

I really don't understand that argument. How will bringing consoles up to current PC levels lead to all our current technology becoming obsolete?

 

Consoles will be better than all current laptops and I guess I was partially offering a counterargument to your first post. The 675MX and 680M are not so far apart that the 680m will survive the upgrade itch for a whole generation past what you'll see with the 675MX.

 

No. Just...no. Although neither of the next gen consoles are out ( and i not including the wii u), all reports show they will be using versions of video cards that are already able to be beaten by current gen stuff (and not even high end stuff, mid level desktop cards).

Normally I would post links to back this up, but I fear I may be wandering under a bridge and feeding a troll.

 

So next gen consoles will be more powerful than my 680m sli setup? More powerful than a gtx 680 desktop? I'm sorry, but that's simply not the case. Even if they were, pcs have something called scaling, meaning we can adjust settings like resolution, texture detail, anti aliasing, and more to align our gaming with hardware capabilties. The next round of $400 consoles won't be more powerful than current high end hardware, nor will it render current hardware obsolete.

 

Consoles are more optimized for a specific set of hardware and don't have to deal with a heavy OS....

...and as the topic was concerning a single GPU, that is the context I made my post in. Whether time will prove me right or wrong, I stand by my statement. As far as the end product goes, the consoles will be graphically superior to current [single gpu] laptops ...especially once a little familiarity with programming for those machines sets in.

 

Well, i guess it is time to feed the troll.

As far back as April
PS4 rumoured to use same graphics card as next Xbox - Report - GameSpot.com

Last month
PlayStation 4 (PS4) Orbis Hardware Specifications - AMD APU or Discrete? | PC Perspective

All information points to the cards in the next gen consoles being somewhere around a 7770M
AMD Radeon HD 7770M - NotebookCheck.net Tech

Which means a GTX 480M, a card from JUNE 2010, beats it.

So no, the next gen consoles will not, under any circumstances, beat a single 680m or 7970. They wont. Not now, not ever.

 

I guess this debate should go in a different thread, but I'll end it by saying that console optimization doesn't magically make comparable pc hardware obsolete by comparison. It does exist to a certain degree, but there are still youtube videos of 7800 gtx pcs (same gpu as the ps3) running current titles on low settings and acceptable framerates, 7 years after its release.

That's only part of it though, as I don't think next gen consoles will be superior to all single gpu laptops, either. It would be an optimistic prediction to say that the ps4 and "720" will be on par with a 7970m or 680m, as they will both be based on mid-range amd hardware. Even if I'm wrong and next gen consoles are more powerful than current rumors suggest, I stand by my point that current gen high end hardware will have no problem scaling next gen games for several years to come. The 680m is a better investment than a 675mx, and there won't be a "wall" in game technology that renders them both obsolete at the same time. The 680m's 30-40% advantage in performance over the 675mx means that it will outlive the latter in terms of running future software.

 

So you think an a10 apu and a 7770 is better than all our current laptops? lol at you big time.

 

your missing his point.

xbox has like a 7900 and displays gamesat 720p with graphic detail of a pc version...cod for example

when a console gets released it will have a 7950 equvilent gpu by latest rumors and have graphic detail far beyond crysis 3 and in 1080p

your laptop with a 680m or sli will only be able to run the next console ports at about 20fps all low..aka obsolete'

anyone want to make a bet?

 

You guys are hilarious. The next consoles will get a 7770. You think a 7950 and a cpu that can power it will fit into 300 bucks? Yeah right....

It would be nice to have a 8350fx cpu,8gb ram and a 7870 with 4gb gddr5. That would be ideal but even that would make them cost at least 500 bucks.
Next gen consoles will be just as garbage as the current ones because they need to be cheap. You can forget that a cheap junk console will get anywhere near a 680m sli.
The only way next gen console games will run at 20 fps is if the ports get even worse than they are now.

 

lol is this like the bet you made me when you said you'd give me $50 if I could name a DX9 game you couldn't max out, then never paypal me the money when I named one? Sure, I love making bets with people who never pay up when they're wrong.

 

lol oh how this topic get so out of control with the console talk.

-I'm comfortable not running at max settings most of the time

-Not really.

-Is it easy to upgrade then? I have no clue on how to take out a GPU myself.

 

Is this a joke? Next gen console likely won't be released until 2014 and they are already obselete compared to PC. Both 360 and PS4 will be using AMD pathetic pile driver for CPU which is demolished by any Sandy Bridge/Ivey Bridge quad. And the GPU they will be using is already decimated by the 680M and 7970M. So no, that's a big fat no.

The only advantage console have is not having to deal with API overhead and developing to the metal. But even then, they won't be able to keep up.

FYI next gen games will be no different that what is out now. Frostbite 2 is EA's next gen console engine for a while. CryEngine 3 is already too much for current gen and can only be properly used by the next gen console. Same for Ubisoft's Dunia, but that is a garbage DX9 engine with broken DX11. UE4 is not much either, it's just bringing UE3 up to par with Frostbite 2 and CryEngine 3, if that.

 

Not sure where you guys are pulling your outdated info, but the PS4's GPU is at least equal to the strength of the 7970M. That PCPer article is worthless, because he's speculating about a 7770, while the near exact GPU specs are already out there.

Plug your ears and scream all you want, but the 7970M and GTX 680M are going to be humbled greatly in a year or so, when the post-launch title 720 and Orbis ports start releasing on the PC.

 

It's *ALL* speculation at the moment. Until Microsoft and Sony release specs we are all in the dark.

But I sure hope Sony and MS learned a lesson from last time, that selling $900 consoles for $200-300 loss isn't a good idea. Even then those consoles weren't so far ahead of a regular higher end desktop. In any case I actually HOPE that consoles released in 6-7 months time (which is likely) will be more powerful than 7970m laptops. It will only improve gaming, well as long as it's not all about graphics, graphics, graphics.

 

I honestly hope you're right because that will mean we'll finally get some decent games.

I'd be hugely impressed if we'd get an 8 core cpu and a 7870(desktop clock speeds or higher).

Edit: I've just read up a bit on the subject and it seems that sony is devoting a lot of resources to the gpu. We might actually get something as fast as a 7950 or 7970. I'd deffinitely buy a ps4 if that were the case.
The next Xbox should easily be out classed in terms of performance by the ps4. Time to get a new plazma tv!

 

Ditto, I'll probably pick up a PS4 this gen for some great exclusives, but I'll never spend money on another Xbox again.

I really can't wait for next gen consoles; it should drastically improve the ports we get. I still refuse to accept that it'll make our hardware obsolete.

 

I only buy Xbox 360 for the Kinect. My kids love it and it gets them active and engaged in the games. I had a PS3 but never used it so sold it. Still have a PS2 with a dozen or so games in a box somewhere still, lol.

 

Ok, now that what I said has gone past me being a troll to something that is at least arguable... bringing it back to your question ShadowElite:

In my opinion, all the single GPU laptops are ~2yr investments ...the 3rd year is going to be rough on all of them. The 675MX is not horrible choice, especially if you do what you need to get the best overclock. It gets near the 680m at stock. The 7970m [at stock] is also near the 680m at stock, then there is the OC on that ...I've seen people get it back to the desktop HD 7870's clock of 1GHz. The 7970m is $100 more if I remember correctly and I think that it is worth investing that much more. The 680m is just a more expensive 7970m, though having Physx for Batman AA/AC, Borderlands 2 and such is kind of nice.

1-Sorry I made a short story long.

2-Yes a 675MX can be "good enough". There are better, but of course there usually is in comparison to the things you put in the category of "good-enough".

3-There is no future-proofing in the current single GPU offerings as far as I see.

 

Wasn't aware of this, can you elaborate a bit on some of the games that wouldn't run on Ultra settings at 1080p with the 675MX?

I think the 680m would be great for something like a retina display at 2880x1800, but it always seemed a bit overkill for 1080p.

 

675mx is about equal to a desktop 560 Ti. There's plenty of games that can't be maxed out with that GPU. Heck, with my 680m I can't max out Sleeping Dogs or Battlefield 3 with acceptable framerates (i.e. min 30 fps) at stock clocks. Other games like Assassin's Creed, Hitman Absolution, Far Cry 3 would also greatly tax the 675MX. And no you can't overclock the 675mx to 680m stock performance. Not only do you have to make up the 120MHz difference in GPU, but also the 384 extra shaders which would require like a 100% OC of the GPU (like 1100-1200MHz GPU speed)

 

This is true. The 680m is a much better card. However, the poster on the first page saying it doesn't matter if it's a 675/680/6990/7970 once the new consoles arrive does have a pretty valid point. In 2008, when the m15x debuted with an exclusive lead on the 8800mgtx, it was a much more powerful card than the console GPUs from 2005/2006. However running BF3, Crysis 2 or GTA IV would be pointless with that card. I ran Crysis at med/high with it. Consoles don't need a very powerful GPU to output good IQ. Sure resolution may be lower and optimization tricks are utilized but that isn't the point. To think that notebook PCs from 2011/2012 (the tech currently in our computers) will compete with consoles to be released late 2013ish...is wishful thinking.

My general philosophy is buy the best you can when you NEED it and don't buy planning on the future as whatever you buy is outdated when it hits your front door. I try to buy the "best" right when I not only need it, but at the earliest purchase point when the technology becomes available. I would venture a guess that a Maxwell setup in late 2013 will be able to run the console ports just fine for quite some time. Just because a 680m SLI may have more raw processing power than whatever final GPU's end up in the consoles doesn't mean that will be able to run games better. There is no way I could run BF3, Batman AA, and Crysis 2 if I was still on my m15x with 8800mgtx.

Cliffs notes, if you can afford the 680m, go for that because it's an outstanding card. Get the best you can afford now and don't wonder about future proofing because as big of a step between the 580 to 680 is, the Maxwell will be an even bigger jump before years end. When new consoles debut, usually a top end desktop PC at the time of the debut will be sufficient to run games for a few years tops without any upgrades.

 

I was simply arguing that the 675mx and 680m won't immediately "hit a wall" when next gen console ports are released. The 680m will likely still play games fine at lower settings 2 years from now, while the 675mx will struggle to keep up with future gaming.

I don't plan to keep my 680ms once Maxwell is out (I'll probably just buy a new sli Alienware since it won't make much sense to mate 880ms with an IB cpu) but I don't think this laptop will have any issues playing games in 2015. There's no concrete evidence on next gen console hardware at this point, but it still won't be the jump in graphical fidelity over current gen consoles that the PS3/360 were over the xbox and PS2.

 

First of all, I used the word "near" ...as in, "not at 680m levels, but "near"". I state this with this ( link) in mind. Should I have used the word "nearer" instead? Comparing these numbers to those for the 680m on notebookcheck, the 675MX is 1200 points short the GPU score of 3DM11 ...and yes, that's a big amount, but then again, the OC'd 675MX [@ 20k] is only ~1000 short of the 680m in Vantage. Being "only" ~1000 difference between the OC'd 675MX and stock 680m, they are too close for one to really last longer for any meaningful period of time.

2nd of all, TC asked if the 675MX was "GOOD ENOUGH" and everyone commenting on how they can't max so&so game is not grasping the concept of good enough. If you want to judge "good enough" on maxing every game, no single mobile GPU is good enough.

 

Actually you need a 60% overclock on the core to reach 680m stock. That would mean you'd need to oc to 960mhz which can deffinitely be done(I don't see a reason why it couldn't go well over that. 1ghz should run fine 24/7 just like on the 680m). We also know that the 675mx has the same oc potential on the vram as the 680m so they should come out pretty equal. If you do the math the 680m's core is 60% stronger at stock but it can't perform that much faster because the ram chokes it. If you overclock the 680m's ram to 2400mhz it should perform far better even at stock clocks when running memory intensive tasks like anti aliasing and/or games with very high res textures.

PS.: It's nice to see that the guys at Sony have enough brains to realize that the gpu is the most important part of a gaming system.
If that means that our current hw will be out dated in a year than I'm personally good with that. i still doubt that 680m sli won't suffice for at least 40-50fps though.

 

Or just dial down the MSAA and a much weaker card will do the trick.

 

Yeah, kinda. Making up for 120MHz Speed (20% more) + 384 more cores (40% more) is what needs to happen, and 1% clock can't quite make up for 1% more cores. Running more than 30% clock bump will likely require a voltage bump. The 675MX isn't just an underclocked 680m. It's fewer cores and lower clock for a reason, otherwise they would have set stock clocks at 720MHz like the 680m. I'm not saying it's a bad card by any means, and much better with the MX that it's Kepler so power&heat to performance ratio is improved.

 

By that definition, the 680m and 7970m are "good enough" for most games and dual 680ms and 7970ms are "good enough" for all.

The 675mx is a long way off the 680m. Comparing an overclocked 675mx to a 680m on stock clocks is misleading. It would be more accurate to point out that the 675mx won't break 5k in 3DMark 11, even with a heavy overclock, while the 680m will do 9k overclocked. That's an 80% lead. Still "close" in your eyes?

 

We'll need someone with an overvolted 675mx to test this out. From my experiance nvidia scales well with overclocking so a 675mx at 1ghz should be at least equal to a stock 680m.

 

Possibly, but it would take one hell of an overclock to hit 6k+ in 3DMark11.

Anybody here have a 675mx? Go hit up svl7 and see if he'll mod a vbios for you so we can see what your limits are.

 

I've seen some 675mx overclocking somewhere on this forum. The guy hit 1 ghz. Don't remember where though. Would be nice to have some fresh oc results with a 3dmark11 run.
The pcb of the two cards are the same so I don't see a reason why a 675mx couldn't hit 1.1ghz or more if it gets enough voltage.

 

Haven't physically done it myself yet, but have watched as many videos as i could find. You unscrew the heatsink, seperate it from the card, clean off the thermal paste with coth (avoid cotton, anything that can leave lint) with some rubbing alcohol, swap out the card, reverse the process. I am sure someone will correct me if i am missing any steps

 

You guys make everything seem obsolete lol. Anyway I plan to play Guild Wars and Tera Online mostly with the laptop. For the most part I won't be playing any game that are on consoles as I have a PS3 and 360. With the exception for Borderlands 2 and maybe Skyrim. Anyone here play those games on the 675MX or 680M?

I'm probably better off sending it to somebody. I've opened various devices before but I don't wanna risk it since I'll be spending A LOT of money here.

 

Sagers are extremely simple to work on. As long as you make sure you're grounded (touch something that's grounded to rid yourself of static, like a plugged in powers supply or light fixture) you won't damage anything. Coffee filters work well for cleaning the heatsink and gpu/cpu. I use sterile gloves when handling delicate equipment like ram.

Here's a video specifically of the NP9170.

 

Here we go: http://forum.notebookreview.com/ali...-m17x-r2-running-gtx-675mx-2.html#post8979990

+390 Core (~+65% = 990MHz total)
+775 RAM (~+43% = 2575MHz total)

3DMark11 = 6332

That's about stock 680m. So it is possible, but how many machines can handle that kind of overclock, and need to overvolt as well, which means modded BIOS. He's lucky on the vRAM too, most people struggle to get it much past 2400MHz, although 2400MHz vs 2575 only made about 130 point improvement.

 

@daveh You should have put a better card in your M15x and saved yourself some money then. My M15x has as much GPU power as your "newer" M18x

Buying a new machine every two years is not necessary if you buy the right one. The M15x I think shipped with the 260M GTX anyways not the 8800M GTX so whatever.

OP if the 675MX is much cheaper than the same machine with 680M and you don't mind playing with the graphics settings a little then get it. You can pop in a AMD 8970M or Nvidia 780M in a year's time and enjoy a good 50% boost in performance stock for stock.

 

I dunno. I have bad luck with laptops. After 18-24 months from the ones I have kept usually end up breaking due to drop, spilled liquids, or just take a dump for some reason that will cost me $400-$500 to fix and at that point, buy a new one. Not to mention USB ports or other ports breaking/not working, LCD oddities, among other things. And newer technology like USB ports, SATA ports, etc that keep evolving.

If anyone wants to keep a laptop for gaming for an extended period, it's best imho to buy as much as you can afford at the time. In OP's case it sounded like a few weeks would buy a 680m. In that case I'd say go for it.

 

Yet another reason to go with Alienware my friend

Both times I bought from them the rep gave me a free 2 year warranty/accidental coverage upgrade. Then I can use the 5% rebate card to upgrade the warranty further if I want to (which I definitely will.) If anything happens to my M18x in the future, they'll give me a brand new sli setup from the current year.

 

I'm still playing the F out of games with a 675M. I rarely have to turn things down and when I do have to crank a few things down the game still looks great. Ask me this question in a year i might have another answer.

I would say if you can afford it go with 680M. I would rather have a 675MX + 512GB SSD to install all my games on than a 680M. If you can afford both go for it all. Just my opinion.

 

This should help you make the decision.

It is a direct comparison between the 680m and 675mx on all the games out today. Make sure you don't get hung up with the FPS on games you don't play.

I only play COD and Battlefield so I focused on those. You can click the graphics cards you're interested in comparing on the side and then click the "Restrict" button.

Computer Games on Laptop Graphic Cards - NotebookCheck.net Tech


EDIT: How long do you plan on keeping this laptop? If we were having this conversation 8 months ago, I'd say go for the 680m. But the 700 series cards will be out in laptops in a few months anyway (add a few more weeks to the few weeks you are willing to wait). And from what I've seen on the internet, the 800 series should be out in 14 months and they will have a much bigger jump in performance over the 700s, than the 700s will over the 600s.

14 months for a card (880m?) that will be WAY better than the 680m. That's it. Go with the 675mx. Upgrade the GPU or upgrade to a whole new laptop in 14 months.

If you look at the games FPS from the link above, the 675mx will definitely be "good enough" for almost all games. And it will lag when the 680m lags too.

 

Now that comment above I agree with completely. If you're willing to upgrade after 14-16 months then sure 675mx will do fine. But if you're looking to buy and keep for 3 years or more then get as much as you can afford (within reason of course).

I'm not a proponent of eye candy. I mean it's nice, but I'm fine with reducing detail to improve FPS, especially with online games. But there is nothing worse than buying a new game with what you believe is a powerful card only to have it humbled and/or deal with FPS drops into the 20's. It just ruins the experience imho. Then again I don't get much time to play so I feel my game time is precious and don't want to worry about such things, so I buy higher end these days than I used to.

I bought my Vostro 1500 (loved that machine) with Core 2 Duo and GT 8600m just before my first son was born. I played all the latest titles in 2007/2008 including Crysis, Warhead, Bioshock, Modern Warfare, etc with that machine, late nights on my watch for the kid. Had lots of good times with it, and clearly had to compromise details. I could barely finish Crysis at the ending because it was a slide show. Actually ended up having to finish it on my desktop. So I guess I'm just trying to say that I've been down that road before with a GPU that managed "good enough" but in the end I found that higher end does offer a better experience and lasts longer. The one benefit of the 675MX though is that it is at least 256bit GPU so 1080p shouldn't bog it down like a 128-bit card would.

 

Thanks for the responses guys.

@dna2008 - I plan to keep the laptop as long as I can. Buying a new laptop in 1 or 2 years I don't see myself doing. I dont really see myself playing any game available on consoles on it. In actuality the only games I'm interested are Guild Wars 2 and Tera Online maybe Borderlands 2. Sadly, I did not see Tera Online on that site you provided. Hopefully I can get someone to upgrade it to a new graphics card of that case arises where a game I actually want to play is only on PC.

@HTWingNut - Thanks for your intake. I'll probably end up thinking the same way you do but then again I'm not really going to playing all those console games you mentioned on the laptop.

In the end I'll probably end up getting the 675MX and upgrading the processor to i7-3740 since I plan to do more video editing than gaming. (60% video editing and 40% gaming) I'll do more research to see if the 675MX can handle Guild Wars 2 and Tera Online moderately. If it can I'll be a happy man for the next 16 months lol.

 

Guild Wars 2 and Tera Online no problem...

 

The 670MX I had handled GW2 very well @ 1080p so a 675MX should be more than fine. You should be good with all maxed out aside from supersampling. Wv3 makes everything lag unfortunately but I'd say most of your frame rate dips will come from the CPU being taxed, not the GPU.