nvidia GT 650m vs GTX 670m

Hybrids are as expensive as the SSDs atm.

 

^ the hybrid trend shall end soon or need to be re-innovated

 

750GB hybrid $150.

120GB SSD $150

Tell me what I'm missing here.

Hybrid has more storage by a factor of six. The 8GB NAND cache greatly accelerates read times to near SSD performance.

Either you get an SSD + HDD or hybrid. In some cases, hybrid is your cheapest solution if you have one HDD bay and need lots of local storage, which is the case for many people.

 

Is there a list of laptops that will run the 650M+ series with Ivy bridge? Are any of them under 15"?

 

Thats the funny thing 60fps in game will take 100w load for something previous gen takes 180w. Someone has released the 7970m benchmarks and its more power then a gtx 580 desktop.

 

I think the gtx660m could now be a 75w but i think it is more a 50w card as it is just a 650m oc'd.

GeForce GTX 660M - GeForce

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570M - Notebookcheck.net Tech

Looking at this and expected 3dmark11 scores there is not much difference.

In fact get one of these 7970m if you have the budget as it scores 20k vantage and 6.1k 3dmark11:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/alienware-m17x/658084-amd-7970m-available-buy-11.html

 

GTX 660M is a complete joke

 

I reckon the tdp are exaggereated like the 9700m gt to 9600m gt tdp.

 

If you're talking about smaller than 15.6" the only confirmed model I know of so far is the Clevo W110ER, which is only 11.6".

The upcoming Lenovo Y480, which is 14", will come with the GT 640m IIRC.

 

M14X R2 will have a GDDR5 650M.

 

I was wrong, it does indeed contain space for two hdd.

 

NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M video card benchmark result - Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3520M CPU @ 2.90GHz,CLEVO CO. W150ER score: P2263 3DMarks

 

DDR3 or DDR5?

PS : This topic is funny , I was searching for 650m vs 670m but whole topic are mentioned about other gpus.

 

I believe the 650M on the W150ER is DDR5.

 

it is 10char

 

Whose laptop is this? They managed to get a dual core ivy? Those haven't even been announced yet.

 

So Nissan thought gtx 660m is more power efficient because he thought it is under 50 TDP Watts but it is now cleared and irrefutable that it is indeed a 75 Watt power consumption card.

So the only thing that the GTX 660m have is the the new name being a kepler and 28nm while the gt 650 ddr5 creeps just behind closer and gtx 670m at the same TDP suddenly becomes more attractive assuming it doesn't cost more than the gtx 660m and is about 15%-25% more faster than the 660m.

 

gtx660m is a 50w tdp card. Difference though is the 660m consumes a similar amount to the 50w tdp. 670m consumes more then a 100w tdp 680m or 7970m.

you could run a 680m laptop and take less power then someone using a 670m. Its because of junk cards like 670m and 675m 660m had to be restricted. Kepler is great with more unified shaders but nvidia released the rebadged 670m and 675m. I saw on a link that the 680m took 70w less fully stressed then the 675m which is quite impressive.

Technically speaking you ran three 675m laptops and ran five 680m laptops fully stressed the three 675m laptops would consume more power.

Look at this:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/gaming-software-graphics-cards/675454-new-gtx-680m-review-truth.html

Using your logic getting the cheapish 7970m which consumes a similar amount to a gtx 670m or getting the 680m which consumes even less but is expensive is less power hungry. This is the biggest difference in efficiency seen for ages. 680m is more then twice as powerful as a 670m and the 680m takes 12w less.

Finally look at the energy efficiency section of this:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-GeForce-GTX-680M-vs-Radeon-HD-7970M.77110.0.html

In essence the difference in power consumption is a lot higher percentage then from the first fat 60gb ps3 to the new ps3 with the new tech that is going to be released 6 years later. Also tdp is the heat output. Thats why the 680m consumes less then the 670m. Different architecture, tdp is just the heat. Power consumption varies normally but there is a big difference between tdp of the kepler and fermi cards. For example a 100w 675m fermi card consumes like 150w on its own vs something like the 680m probably consumes around 90-100w.

 

Cute.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570M video card benchmark result - Intel Core i7-2720QM Processor,Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. MS-16F2 score: P4149 3DMarks

 

Cute.

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M video card benchmark result - Intel Core i7-3610QM Processor,CLEVO P15xEMx score: P7168 3DMarks

 

680m takes less watts power consumption wise to achieve the score 75% better then the 570m oc. In terms of power consumption comparing the gt650m gddr3 version to that 570m is liking a 6990m oc by 30% to a 7770m. One is designed for ultrabooks with 120w psu, the other is designed for a laptop that requires 220w psu.

 

Err I was comparing the GPUs asked about in this thread.

Comparing the 680M to the 670M is stupid, different price brackets for one!

Here similarly priced machines are being compared.

So don't be silly guys.

Yes the 670M consumes more power than the 650M with GDDR5, but when both are tweaked the 670M is in a difference performance bracket.

 

That P2k score is low if its OC

 

Thats my point the 680m is twice as powerfull and takes around 11w less then the 670m. 650m gddr5 is quite close to the 670m. Theres a similar gap from the 670m to a 675m then a 650m to a 670m. Anyway 650m is designed for thin and light profile machines, hence even the new slim macbooks have it as its easy to cool. 670m computers need a big chassis to cool it properly and a massive power supply to feed the beast. 650m laptops normally don't throttlebut virtually most 670m computers throttle because the gpu is thirsty and wants more electricity to feed it hence it throttles. It doesn't even throttle due to overheating.

To be fair to compare like for like performance power consumption categories this will be fair:

640m kepler gpu should be compared to a gt525m.
650m gddr3/5 kepler gpu should be compared to a gt540m/550m.
660m kepler gpu should be compared to a gt555m.
680m should be really compared to a gtx 560m.

So lets say nvidia release a 770m kepler gpu it should take similar power consumption to a 570m and perform better then the 680m by 20%.

Then lets say they release a 780m it should perform around 50% better then 680m.

This is related to power consumption

 

The 570/670 offers great performance per pound, if you dont care about weight or battery life compared to performance and you dont have the cash for the 680M the 570/670 is going to give you a better experience.

Exactly how its been stated many times.

What you think things should be like and what they are actually like seem to be a little different.

I can get an entire 560M machine for the price of a 680M, so comparing them is just silly.

 

QFT. So true. 670/675m are great cheaper alternatives to save you $700-800 off your purchase price

 

You can always get a 7970m. even a 7870m is similar to a 670m/675m performance wise. Its not cheap as you can already get 580m/570m machines a year ago and they were revisions of the 400m series.

Old tech depriciates quickly. Just look at the desktop market.

 

The 670m is still cheaper than the 7970m.

 

670m is overpriced. 670m should cost less then the 650m gddr5 version and 660m at least. Anyway a 650m/660m computer should have better resale value in the future then the 670m if people buying it know there stuff.

Also the difference between a 7970m and 670m is the 7970m is twice as powerful but 7970m takes on most occassions slightly less watts.

 

I just do not get it. There always will be better GPUs around the corner. 660M, even if some do not like it, still is behind a 670M. And if you OC both, the difference will remain. Even more, guys at xoticpc said that 670M performs better than 660M at OC. I guess they should know since they have tried (not like some people that just talk without even having any of them).

So right out of the blue 670M is garbage? Hardly. Since it will perform in a laptop that was designed for it, there is almost no problem at all. And I think people do make a mistake when they think the TDP will give huge battery life.

MSI GT60 has 180W power supply. Asus G55VW has a 180W power supply. First has 670M, second 660M. First has a maximum of 162W consumption, second 153W. First has a 87 mWh battery and will do 1h.23' under load, second has a 73mWh and will do under 1h (I can confirm this since I have one of my own, those guys at xotic and NBC have a decent estimation of things). So in real life it looks nothing like some people think. We cannot really do the math here since the machines are not exactly the same, but still things are about the same. BUT, shouldn't it be more like 660M with 2h or more as some people say 670 uses double the power (even if we consider that battery is ~20% less and LCD brightness is bigger in G55, there should be more time, but it's not).

Let's compare G55 to G75. Both have 180W, both have about the same battery. G55 under load has 153W, G75 has 187W (don't put all that extra power in GPU alone, but looks kinda over power source, I'm just looking at numbers here, I can't tell how accurate this is since users said to me that there is no throttling - so maybe it's on par with it somehow and things are OK). Strangely enough, under load the G55 has less battery time, 57' compared to 75'. So there are other more important consumers than GPU. So do not judge a book by its cover. Again 660M does not give huge battery time.

670 is "old news". 660 will be rather soon same old news. If people knew what they were buying, I guess they would get the best performance card for their needs, no matter how old it is. This is not like cars where gas is expensive and there are other things to consider.

This being said, I had 650M and 660M, but it has nothing to do with it. At some point I had the same impression that Kepler will give amazing battery for an even more amazing performance. Seems it's not that simple.

 

670m was 100$ more than my 660m... and the 650m (ddr5) was about 25$ less than 660m... Some people might argue that 100$ isnt much but... thats 100 extra dollar on my next laptop in 2 years...

660m (with or without overclock) is plenty for most gaming (medium/high) at 1080p without filter...

 

Right now where I am in Europe 670 is about the same with 660. But I do not think that's the issue here. It's not really what option is better (I have the 650/660 and yes, they work great), it's how people read specs and take action based only on those. They can be quite misleading.

 

Well I seen 650m take around 75-85w gaming with i7 quad. 670m is a no brainer, you have to understand if it had a 220w power adaptor it would use it. Its double power consumption.

 

blasphemy i say! i have a 485m, which is the first gen of fermi and is therefore less power efficient, and its a 100w tdp rated card, i overvolt and overclock it by 26%, and i have a sandybridge i7 quad, and while running furmark it pulls 150 watts from the wall, so under max load its using 120watts from the power supply itself. so if i wanted to i could easily use a 120 watt powersupply and have no problem.

nissangtr786 please stop spreading false information that you have gathered in your mind by perusing the intertubes, contrary to popular belief not everything thats on the internet is true.

 

Review MSI GE70-i547W7H Notebook - Notebookcheck.net Reviews

Also you have to understand is a 670m is just a more power hungry version of a 485m as it has more unified shaders and oc'd.

http://www.hardwareluxx.de/images/stories/galleries/reviews/gtx_680m/bench_strom_load.jpg

 

wow this just says it all! my 485m has more shaders, and i have it clocked higher, please educate yourself. 485m=384 shaders first gen fermi, 670m=336 second gen fermi shaders. and you still arent accounting for power supply ineficiency, if you know so much about power consumption why would you not factor this in.

 

You need to understand what you are reading.

For example Alienware M14x R2 Review - Notebookcheck.net Reviews with 138W. Little far from 85W, don't you think? And they know it since it has a 150W power supply.

But those with 120W power supply do manage to keep things under control Review MSI GE60-i789W7H Notebook - Notebookcheck.net Reviews with 106W.

Well, some of them (do take all of these with some consideration) Review Asus N56VZ-S4044V Notebook - Notebookcheck.net Reviews has 118W on a power supply of 120W that cannot charge the battery under full load. This is also far from 85W. All are using the GT 650M.

GTX 660M can do even better Alienware M17x R4 Notebook Review - Notebookcheck.net Reviews 166W. My G55 is almost there. MSI is under that with 670M. And it's not the only one. How can this be since 670M does by itself 160W?

You can't just take the lowest score and say it's "every" score.

Of course these values are not exactly for GPU. None of them. Take that in consideration as well. But they are part of real life scenarios.

 

I forgot meant to say 675m is just an oc'd 485m.

Well kepler is twice as efficient as fermi. You only have to look at the 680m and 675m or 650m vs 560m etc to see that.

Review GeForce GTX 680M vs. Radeon HD 7970M - Notebookcheck.net Reviews

Look at this.

Power consumption

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.

As well as this:
http://www.hardwareluxx.de/images/stories/galleries/reviews/gtx_680m/bench_strom_load.jpg

 

Yes but the 675m also runs at a lower voltage, giving it better power efficiency. So really you should be very angry that i have such a card that uses so much power, i mean you could run a 100w light with all that power hahaha. In all seriousness no one should care about power usage all we care about is price performance sometimes heat, and overclockability.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

aduy my main point is these people who buy 675m are when 7970m or 680m's were out. Its like buying a gtx580m when a 7970m is basically out and 680m comes out in a few months. Your 485m takes less power and you bought it when it was the latest tech. The people who buy 675m or 670m buying it for more then the cost of 28nm cards like 660m or 7870m etc.

 

actually i bought it when it was a 300 dollar upgrade from the 560m, at the time the 580m was a 500 dollar upgrade, and the 6990m didnt yet exist. the 675m is a lot cheaper than the 580m ever was, and the 670m is also cheaper than the 570m. and my 485m takes more power than the 580m, since the 580m uses the gf114 instead of the gf104. the gf114 is a power optimized version of the gf104, and it used 11% less voltage to run, which translates into less power usage.

 

I would be worried if it wasn't cheaper then the 570m etc over a 670m. Point is the 660m is cheaper then the 670m. Question is would you buy lets say a 9800m gtx when then the 485m is out etc. Thats what buying a 675m is now to a 7970m or 680m etc.

 

following your scenario are you suggesting they buy a gt 435m? instead of a 9800m gtx. the 670m is nvidias 3rd fastest card, why would it be better to get the 4th or 5th fastest card?

 

Nvidia's third fastest card lmao. 580m/675m is faster, k4000m and k5000m is faster. k3000m is on par and takes ha;f as much electricity.
I don't think you understand nvidia releases basic gpu's that are designed for ultra thin laptops as the 640m and 650m are low end.

Put it this way lets say the 640m is the 9600m gt and 650m is the 9700m gt. In essense the 670m is an 8700m gt sli rebranded to a 9795msli gpu based on old tech that consumes twice as much on idle and virtually double the power consumption to perform slightly better.

Using your logic its better to buy an 8700m gt sli over a new laptop with the intel hd 4000 as it can game better. Lets forget it takes 100w more it performs slightly better etc.

In essense power consumption and performance wise comparing the 650m to a 670m cpu wise is like comparing an i5 3210m to an i7 940xm oc to 3.2ghz. Lets say 3210m takes around 30w and the i7 940xm takes around 100w power consumption. Is it really fair.

In essense its like comparing an intel hd 4000 to an nvidia gtx 680m. The difference power consimption from this to the 650m vs 670m/675m. Of course the power hungry cards gonna win.

Another way to think of your logic is yes lets buy a pentium 4 3.8ghz p4 because it out performs the slowest atom single core cpu because its faster lets disregard the 100w extra it needs to beat it just because its faster right.

With that attitude why not use a pentoum 4 cpu oc to 5ghz and say yay my 8-10 year old machine beats the slowest lowest power consuming atom chip designed for web browsing.

Only noobs buy old tech for more money then new tech. Heck its like buying a 2010 car engine in a 2012 model for more money then a complete 2012 one. Also all the extras are taken off so it is bog standard 670m compared to 650m that has all the extras and has top spec. 670m machine car is slightly faster but is worthless resale value and does half the mpg while 650m does double mpg and while it may not be as faster 0-100 the car has advanced handling and top end break kit and spoiler and tyres etc and sports package to go round a track quicker.

Buying a 670m is buying a banger like lets say an american muscle car that goes in a straight line faster then a nissan gtr and buying a 650m is close to buying an advanced car like the nissan gtr that laps 20 seconds a lap quicker then the american muscle car. Also the gtr has luxury items while the muscle car is virtually an old banger with a big engine in it and is rubbish on mpg like 10.

In essense luxury wise 650m is like a mercedes s class while 670m is like a ord mustang. Different class.

 

Too bad it was just a temporary ban. It sure was a nice couple of days without the constant nonsense nissangtrnumbers spews. Oh well...

 

wow there is a lot of rubbish in this thread!

I own an m14x r2 with 650m and a Dell precision m6600 with 670m and can happily do some comparions for people. But just a quick summary:
670m is massively faster in BF3. With the 650m heavily overclocked (1100/2500) I play 1080p medium with fps between 40-60 with occasional low dips in massive firefights. The 670m with moderate OC plays 1080p high/ultra textures at 45-60fps with no dips.

Shugun 2 1080p dx11 bench:
650m OCed - 17fps
670m OCed - 29fps

Also I have a kilowatt meter so can measure power consumption

 

Like I've said, some people just never had any of them to compare real life products. But even so, there are numbers to make a decent judgement, if not biased even before seeing them of course.

 

Whats the processor on these machines. Also if you run the game at stock and oc settings and run the game at same settings it weill be interesting to see the power consumption numbers. The point though is the 650m is a low end card power consumption wise while the 670m consumes 12w more then the 680m. 680m is twice as fast as a 670m and cosumes less. 675m as well well takes 70w more then 670m and barely improves performance.

ocing 650m and 670m the power consumption difference could easily be 100w difference between the 2 cards. Theres a reason the 650m was chosen to fit in slim macbook pro retina and even clevo 11.6 laptops as it is in essence replacing the 540m. 680m in essence is also a low end power consumption wise card and really is replacing a 560m hence why when oc'd can score 8000 3dmark11 score.

 

So you're proposing that the 670m will take 140w+? You realize that the 670m is a 70w (or was it 75w?) tdp card, right?

 

Ignore Nissan. His point is that it is best to take advantage of newer technology to use less power and perform similarly. The problem is that his examples go to extremes and serve hardly any purpose.

A 650m sure consumes much less power than a 670m. The 650m is at half the TDP. Sadly, even an overclocked 650m, which inturn raises its TDP higher to near 50w depending on how aggresive, it still manages to underperform to a 670m.

So in reality while an older tech 670m will consume more power, the difference is not as huge, and specifically deciding between the 650m and 670m, the 670m will always outperform either stock or OC. The 680m is an unfair comparison because even a 680m puts to shame a 650m both in performance per watt and raw performance. With that logic, there is no reason to buy anything short of the highest end because it offers the best performance ever.

The 670m is still a relevant performer. Not necesarily a good power saving solution, but a decent graphics performer.