nvidia GT 650m vs GTX 670m

like everyone else, i'm looking forward to the release of ivy bridge and whatnot. two specific laptops caught my eye and i'm trying to decide between the two

both laptops are pretty similar:
sager np6165: Sager NP6165 / Clevo W150ER - XOTIC PC - Sager 15.6" Laptop
sager np9130: Sager NP9130 / Clevo P151EM1 - XOTIC PC - Sager 15.6" Laptop

similarities:
1920x1080 15.6' screens
same processor options

differences:
np6165 ~$200-$300 cheaper
np6165 has gt 650m while np9130 has gtx 670m
np6165 has better estimated battery life.
np6165 has two hard drive compartments while np9130 has one hard drive compartment.

from my point of view, it looks like the np6165 is the better laptop (especially because of longer battery life and the two hard drive compartments). but before i decide on the np6165, what is the real world difference between the two graphics cards?

i'm a pretty hardcore gamer and i'm definitely going to be holding onto the laptop for 4 years+. do you think i'll be ok running up and coming titles on the gt 650m? or should i step up and grab the gtx 670?

 

If your a hardcore gamer and plan to use this machine for 4+ years get the best GPU you can afford. The difference between the two cards is 20-30%. The battery life is directly related to the GPU. Lesser card = longer battery life.

 

The difference between the two should be ~20-25% I think.

Hardcore gamer / plan to keep your notebook for 4 years => kinda inconsistent.

But at all events if gaming and raw power matters to you avoid both the GT 650M and the GTX 670M. Get a Radeon 6990M or a GTX 675M or if you can afford to wait a few months for the new Radeon 7970M / GTX 680M.

 

also if you are a hardcore gamer you have to see that the 2012 gpus are coming and you should be waiting for some good improvements regarding last year.

For example the 670m is a rebadged 570m and the 580m is a good 20% faster than it already, now known as 675m.

We are expecting the 7970m to be 20-30% more powerful than the 580m

 

gpu can be upgraded with 9130, not the 6165. if plan to keep in 4 years. 9130 is a better option as you can upgrade the gpu down the road.

 

Whatever you do don't get the 670m, if you are desperate wait for something like the 7950m or 7970m or 7750m or get a gtx660m. No point getting old gen rebadged cards take take 2x more power to do the same thing and the laptop is more thicker in size and weighs more and battery life goes down by a couple of hours.

Also wait for ivy bridge.

 

is there an ETA for the 7970m or gtx660m?

 

The 660M is a sidestep from the 570m. It uses less power but is also slower than the 570M.

The 7970M has no release date.

The 675M is a better choice as it is currently the fastest out, but the 680M should be out sometime in summer / fall.

 

The GTX 660M is right around the corner. I don't suggest you get a laptop with one either. I'd say it has more pros than cons against the GTX 670M since it's not too far behind, overall much more efficient and probably even better in some cases (because newer arch which is better for DX11 stuff), but it will be lacking in power if you plan on keeping it for 4y.

The 7970/680M should better it by >=60%. ETA is around end of may/june for both I think.

 

That's difficult to understand since you phrased it so oddly. It sounds like you're saying it's soon to be released, but don't get one...

The GTX 660M was stated to be ~5% slower than the 570M/670M but with the power draw of a 460M. So it'd draw around 45-50w instead of 75-80w.

 

5% slower? More like 15

 

That's the spirit of it, sorry for my perfectible english. What's so strange about stating that it'll be released soon yet advising the OP to wait for a more powerful alternative ?

 

7970 is slated for end of the month. Probably in time with ivy bridge.

 

do you think 7970m will be readily available by that time?

 

The 650m is a nerfed 660m. (either lowered clock speed or DDR3 ram instead of GDDR5)

The 650m will perform slightly better (GDDR5) or slightly worse (DDR3) than the 192-bit 560m.

The 670m is essentially the 570m with the BIOS upgrade.

The difference between the two AT STOCK will be 30% or higher. (especially if the 650m is the DDR3 version)

Because the 650m will be lower-binned (the better ones will be 660ms) the 670m will probably OC better than the 650m as well.

The 650m of course will have better battery life and lower heat production assuming neither are optimus. If both have optimus, then its not likely going to matter that much except for size and weight of laptop and cooling.

If gaming is the determining factor, the 670m will destroy the 650m as they are not even in the same league. Of course the 675/6990m is better but more expensive, and of course there are GPUs on the near horizon, but that is always the case.

 

This is false.
15-20% is closer assuming stock clocks.

Even notebookcheck lists the 670m 13% better than the 570m, and that would be assuming the 660m reaches the results of the original release of the 570m. (that would be optimistic IMHO)

 

Building upon Kernel's response, this is a false statement. Even according to nvidia's released benches with some games, the difference was between 15% and 25% sometimes more depending on game.

when both overclocked, the 670m will completely smoke the 660m.

If you are a hardcore gamer, the GTX670m would be a bare minimum for great performance.

 

if you are a hardcore gamer you will not want old gen technology rebadged and wait for something like the 7950m or 7970m or gtx680m which will take less power consumption and mae the gtx670m look like a basic card.

Its like saying to someone what would you prefer a 2.4ghz 65nm core 2 duo with 90nm high end graphics or a 3ghz 45nm core 2 duo with 65nm midrange graphics. Now the mid range would easily be better as it will have a higher Overclock possibility and draw less power power consumption.

Put it this way I would expect the gtx660m to smoke the gtx670m once overclocked as the gtx660m would overclock so much more. I have no idea why people want to get power hungry old gen cards when new gen cards are coming in a month. I don't care if a 670m beats a 660m easily.

At the end of the say if you like a car that does 0-100 in lets say 10 seconds and does 40mpg = gtx670m vs a car that does 0-100 in lets say 11.5 seconds and does 80mpg and you can add tune it like overclocking graphics card and have head room to make it go 50% faster gtx660m vs the gtx 670m which has not much head room as it is already at its peak with lets say care wise stage 4 turbo.

My point is who cares if the gtx670m is faster after all it is basically 2 and a half year technology. You might as well buy a gtx 480m afterall you won't notice any difference really. By the way a gtx 660m beats a gtx 480m on 3dmark11 and the gt 650m is about equal to a gtx480m and these 65/60m cards only take 35-45w.

 

Another simple logic is like buying the first playstation 3 60gb fat one then saying its more then enough for gaming when the ps3 slim lets say the 65nm gpu 45nm cpu one is out just round the corner that draws something like 70w less on gaming, is more thin and doesn't heat the room as much and you can barely hear it.

 

Lower power consumption, under load, has to be the most overrated stat being tossed around.

If both systems use Optimus, load draw matters why? Don't say lower temps. edit: Smaller PSU is something I'll grant as a definite positive.

 

thanks so much for all the responses. I'm gonna be ordering a laptop by may 1 regardless. hopefully the 7970M comes out by then. otherwise, i'm gonna end up with a 670M. thanks for all the clarifications.

 

hmmm .... come to think of it .... I really wonder how will the 660m end up compare to 670m and 675m since those 2 are rebadged 570m and 580m .
according to Notebookcheck

660m = 28nm , 384 unified , 128 bit GDDR5. Core @ 835, Memory @ 2000, shader @ 835
670m = 40nm , 336 unified , 192 bit GDDR5. slowest core speed (598mhz) memory speed same as 675m @ 1500 , shader @ 1196 mhz.
675m = 40nm, 384 unified , 256 bit GDDR5. Core @ 620 mhz , memory @1500, shader @ 1240

Now as we all know that 28nm compare to 40nm is lower power draw resulting in lower temp . But question is since 660m have the same unified (shader/cores) as the 675m so their processing power shall be really close not considering the bus bandwidth and shader speed , right ? And now the memory speed is up from 1.5K to 2K so memory shall be faster . Now the question is will the 192 bit bandwidth save the 670m considering a less shader slower core speed slower memory speed and a bigger die . 660m @ 28nm shall have a bigger potential to shader overclock (maybe not as much as 1196) than a 670m @ 40nm ?

but then again ..I guess we really will have to wait for real world result . I am waiting for the Lenovo Y480 with 660m see how that comes out . Looking at clevo P151EM1 with 670m right now . But considering Y480 @ 14" with a 1366x768 and P151 @ 1920x1080 , I guess the 660m will shine really well .

 

I know xotic says that the sager np6165 has two hdd bays, but i dont think that is right, it is an update to the 5165 and that one only has on hdd bay. Also looking at the 9130, you get, msata slot, and a built in subwoofer. I would wait until ivy bridge, and get the 9130, it is much more of a gaming laptop over the 6165.

 

Can't the 9130 be converted to hold two harddrives with a caddy for the optical bay anywaY?

 

This is the worst analogy I've ever heard, and your post makes zero sense. I'd rather drive a 2004 E46 M3 than a 2012 Prius, even though the Prius has "newer technology." Why? The ///M has more power and will be more fun, technology be damned.

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

Same heatsink: Lower fan noise
Different heatsink: Lower weight

Kepler shaders run at core speed, so you need twice as many at the same speed (not counting arch improvements).

 

Kepler cores are weaker than Fermi cores!

I made a math comparison earlier and I belive I found out that 1 Kepler core = 42% Fermi core.
Look at the official specs @ nvidia. There you can see that 670M cores do a Texture fill rate of 33.5 billion/second while 660M with Kepler cores can do 30.4 billion/second. Even though there are more cores in 660M and they are clocked higher. Plus the memory bandwidth of 670M is 72GB/s while 660M is 64GB/s. The difference between 660M and 675M is even bigger. So yeah, 660M does not compete with any of these GPUs

 

Well the 680 has a 50% effective shader advantage.

It then has a 25% clock advantage.

This translates into a 50% performance increase.

The 660M has an effective disadvantage of 43%, but it has a 40% clock advantage.

Using this very loose logic you would assume a stock difference of around 30% between the two in favour of the 670m.

However it does point to the 660M using about half the power of the 670M. TDP of 50W perhaps, but real around 45W.

You could technically see a 660M and quad ivy using a 90W adaptor. More likely to ship with a 120W but still.

 

Can we keep it real please?
Your comparisons are extreme and frankly not applicable.
The real reason to pick either a GPU or a car is NOT because its newer, but because of what it can do.

The 660m and 670m are aimed at two different markets.
A hardcore gamer (with sufficient funds) is not going to choose a 660m as its aimed at a balance of power consumption, price, and potency. The 670m sacrifices power consumption, and gets decent performance/price.

The use for a laptop with an enthusiast-class mobile GPU is usually:
1) gaming while plugged in - the primary concern is performance, of which the 670m wins...
2) battery life while not plugged in - the primary concern is power draw, but since its likely optimus, it isn't that big of a deal. Both the 660m and 670m will be turned off while the Intel integrated GPU handles the video.

The 660m will likely overclock, but once again, it will be hard pressed to reach the 670m.

Where the 660m will shine is in balanced value-priced laptops and lighter and thinner laptops focused on mobility. (and just how much gaming you can do on it...)

The 660m will also find a market in those people (like me) who have moved their gaming to the desktop, (where the real hardcore gamers are honestly) but still want to have their laptops perform well without having to deplete their "new desktop GPU" fund.

 

Go ahead and buy "new technology" just for the sake of it, if you are happy with that. And kid yourself some more by showing your friends how your power bill was $5 cheaper when they mock your 15fps in games they run fluently.

 

Yeah , that is where I am looking at too , using a 660m at a 14" 1366x768 ...compare to 670m running @ 1920x1080 , but price point is the breaker , if the 660m can run somewhere between 780 to 950 , it will be a winner for me since 670m with I7 will run me up to 1300 to 1500 . (that is a GTX 680 right there !!!!)

 

@kernelpanic

he is always like that, just ignore it

 

You aren't likely to find a 660M for less than ~$1,100.

 

But who cares, right, as long as you have the newest technology.

 

that's a funny guy, don't think about what he said too much he indeed likes new tech, 28nm feels like gold to him

anyway, I think buying 670m doesn't really make a ton of sense, definitely the ability to game 1080p is a nice thing indeed, but the performance of 660m should be slightly worse than a 570m/670m, and indeed new tech means better driver support, better clockability, better durability (well, in most cases ) hence longevity..

even though 570m is NOT 2 years old (@nissangtr, man, at least put some sense into it), it is still about a year old card..

 

The difference between the 660m and the 670m is roughly the same as that between the 670m/570m and 675m/580m.

The 570m has been woefully underestimated at every turn. It is quite a solid GPU and is available at reasonable prices for how much oomph you get.

The 670m is essentially a factory-BIOS-patched and OC'd 570m.

If you were purchasing now, the 670m is not a bad choice.
If you can wait a month or two, you might have higher-performance options (with higher prices to go with them) available. However, this is almost always the case.

 

Purchasing now would be a very bad idea

 

This and the room to OC the 570 make it rock solid for today's games, given the price range it stands at. The 660 will surely have a much higher price tag when it comes out.

Indeed battery life should be better with the 660, but you are still going to have to compromise in the end... So this point is moot and it is a foolish thing to discuss.

 

Why? Have you looked at prices? Do you think newer releases will be on the same price par?

 

And why would the battery life on the 660m be any better? If you are wondering gaming on battery, both will downclock horrendously, basically since there is optimus, it wont matter what card is in it. That was the whole idea, to shut down the dgpu when its not doing something intensive, thus more battery life.

Although since the price of the 675m is 100 bucks up from the 670m, I would surely go for that.

Or at least wait a bit for the 7970m

 

Nah, they will be more expensive for shure. I was thinking if money was no problem
Some guy in this forum payed 100 euro more for 7970M over 675M. 680M will also cost more of course

 

Well, the 660 on load would consume less power overall, but as I said - this is moot.

I would also go for the 675/580 over the 670/570 for 100 bucks more for sure. The 7970 will be expensive for the first few months after it comes out, so essentially you'd have to wait quite a bit to get better performance without upping the price too much.

 

The idle power will likely be a tad lower.

 

Of course, any laptop can be converted to hold two hdd by getting rid of the optical drive. I never understood the draw though. Who needs two hdd? Why not ust one sata 3 ssd? Or a regular hdd with an Msata.

 

I'm not sure but I was responding to this post which made the comparison between the 6165 and 9130; which remember is the actual debate at the heart of this particular thread.

 

Not all notebooks support mSATA. Many users want a small SSD (cheaper) and an HDD. 120GB SSD + 500GB HDD is a lot cheaper than a 256GB SSD, and over twice the storage space.

 

I was responding to another user in regards to the sager 9130 which does have an msata slot.

 

Why not go hybrid?

 

I have a hybrid, not worth the money...