the advancement of laptop gpus, your opinion

8800m gtx
5870m
6990m
680m

8800m gtx can still play 99 percent of games at medium/high 720p
5870m can still play games medium high 1080p
6990m can still play 99 percent of games maxed over 30fps
680m maxes everything on the planet at 1080p

Now the question is does going from a 5870m to a 6990m or a 680m make the games funner having shadows cranked up and cause you to say "oooh wow look at the darkness of the shadows this game is funner now that the shadows look darker" so the question is what games out their for the 6990m or 6990m need settings turned down so much so that the game looks differant then maxed settings in a noticeable way. every game ive tried 100s... when i turn down AA/shadows/and ssao will boost performance nearly double and I will not even see a differance?

So why spend 1700 every year when the 5870 is still good at 1080p and the 8800m is still good at 720p.

to prevent a flame war please post pictures for everyone to see showing the huge differances between medium and ultra so that we can all see the justification in spending 1700 every 6 months!

ps

please post pictures if you have a game in mind...crysis is a bad example so avoid using crysis as a comparison for the 8800m try a comparison of the 5870m as the min and 680m as the max.

 

Only the most deep tech enthusiasts upgrades their GPUs every time there's a new one. Most laptop power users get a new laptop with new GPU about every 2 years or so, and normal user only gets a new GPU when they need a new laptop.

There's a large difference with antialiasing, and similar difference between 720p and 1080p. It's up to the user to care about the change, and personally I find both very noticeable differences. With shadows it's typically the last few options that make the game actually pop out as gorgeous instead of looking like a "3d game", if that makes sense. For example crysis has light rays (look at the sun behind trees) and other effects only in the highest settings.

Here's two screens from google:
http://www.thebuzzmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/crysis_low.jpg
http://www.thebuzzmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/crysis_high.jpg
(Note though, the clouds in low setting are just background sprites. They look better but they're flat and non-interactive. They would look completely wrong with the sun on the left side.)

It should also be noted, that older graphics card might not support new tech at all, and you will not see a difference because there is no difference. You would need a new card to see it at all.

Also here's all settings from best to lowest: http://oyster.ignimgs.com/ve3d/images/01/74/17453_CrysisDetailVert.jpg

Medium: Adds sun and shadows
High: Adds a color filter and higher resolution textures (the color filter looks bad when compared to the previous, but it looks fantastic and more realistic when there's not an oversaturated version next to it)
V High: Adds more lighting effects (noticeable on the shadow ray leaving from the palm tree on the middle) and tessalation (see the rocks on bottom left)

I don't see why Crysis is a bad example. Because older GPUs can't run it? Doesn't that negate the whole point of justifying to get a new card.

 

peope aways like faster things and when they want it, they put it on credit card. feels like its free so why not? I am ordering new laptop after 4 years with my 3650, which cant even play battlefield 3 smoothly anymore on 800X480

 

AMD's IGP and Intel's HD 4000 are about equivalent in performance to the 8800m GTX. So it's all about advancement in technology. If you're happy with the games you play and are older, perform well, no need to upgrade.

 

If you have the money and you want to play games on your laptop, one upgrade every 2-3 years is pretty reasonable.

The 8800m for power is between Nvidia's 550m and 555m. It's much faster than the Intel HD 4000.

 

I hear you.

Currently downsizing, and I am replacing my 5 year old Desktop(i7 920 with newer GTX 570) with my recent laptop purchase. I wanted this laptop to be an upgrade to the desktop, and I'm hoping this laptop lasts me a few years. I imagine my next laptop won't have to be as expensive and can purchase a mid range GPU as I will be upgrading a laptop, and not a desktop GPU. If that makes any sense..

 

it's not only about fancier graphics. my gpu has a hard time playing recent games at1920x1080 even on medium sometimes, depeding on game. I am a fan of tech and i will upgrade when the performance is 100%. which is why im getting a new gpu.

 

I am very picky when it comes to frame rate, I like my 60FPS at 1080p Also like having AA on.

 

256GB enough for you? Just curious since a lot of the games I have installed need 20GB-30GB. Or do you use an external drive for your games? Music, Office, Adobe Suite etc, with a few games, I'd go through 256 fast.

 

You sure about that?

8800m: 3422 3DMark Vantage / 35 fps crysis high
6620G: 3427 3DMark Vanatage / 43fps crysis high

HD 4000 is similar performance to 6620G

 

The 8800M GTX (or 9800M GT) is 2x the speed of the 6620G. It poops all over the HD 4000, and even the GT 540M.

 

My understanding is in line with Kevin's. I'm not sure where you picked up those figures. The Vantage GPU scores for the 6620G are more in the 1500 range, the 8800m gtx is correct as you listed it.

Maybe you accidentally looked up the wrong part?

It looks like an 8800m gtx fits somewhere between an Nvidia 550m and 555m, as well as between the AMD 6750m and 6770m.

The HD4000 is similar to the 6620G, that's true. The intel part is a bit slower, though.

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/not...a-8800m-gtx-512mb-benchmark-thread.html#Link4
NVIDIA GeForce 8800M GTX - Notebookcheck.net Tech
Sager NP8660 Benchmarks & Gaming Performance ( Notebook Reviews - Laptop Reviews and Netbook News Picture)
http://forum.notebookreview.com/gam...g-benchmarked-various-ram-configurations.html

 

Yes and no. Since this laptop I use primarly for gaming, I do have it saturated with games. I have like 40 games installed, some do occupy a lot, others occupy few GBs to less than 1 GB. I finish single player games and if I won't be playing it soon, I erase it and give space to a new game haha.

I will upgrade in december to dual 256GB drives, but for now these 128GB work well enough. I mean, sure I don't have all my library installed, but I got enough. As for pics etc, yeah I usually pass them to an external drive (same for movies). I keep mostly software for productivity/programming and games here.

 

A major issue with those figures (particularly for Crysis) is that the 8800m GTX was tested using 2007 drivers on the Crysis demo (which was released before the retail release).

Crysis later received performance patches, and Nvidia released new drivers.

Your test with the 6620G was in 2012, and (presumably) on v 1.21 of Crysis.

 

Also the 2007 score of the 8800m GTX was already higher than the ones you posted for the 6620g both in 3dmark06 and 3dmark Vantage (specifically GPU score).

That's not to say that the 8800m GTX runs miles ahead, it doesn't but it sure is more powerful and beefier in general. Slight OC of an 8800m GTX will yield more gain than OC from 6620G. It was fun to see the 8k 3dmark06 score of the 8800m GTX in that thread an everyone praising it. My how have times changed... Performance has seen a huge increase!

 

Nope, it was with Crysis demo. AMD CPU is weaker too.

At 720p they're comparable, but with the 256-bit memory bus it can likely play 1080p reasonably well whereas an IGP will be a slide show. I can't find more benches that relate though.

 

I think it all comes up on how you want your favorite games to perform.
I like über graphics and smooth framerates, and I'm totally addicted to driving games.
Usually racing games have a good graphic compartment and it's imperative (like fps'es) to have a framerate at least of 60fps.
Dirt 3, wrc 2, Shift 2 and others have an outstanding graphics when maxed out, but I was not able to max it out along AA with my previous gpu.
So the upgrade for me was worth, because finally I can play those games (and others as a free bonus) maxed out like I did on my desktop without renouncing to gfx settings at all.
But not everyone bothers , I know this. There are people playing with driving games at 30fps while being happy. Let's say that it's not my target

 

There is no right and wrong here, just different people with different needs. I kept my 8800GTX for 4 years. And now I got a 670M for games. Yes, old tech. This old tech was very cheap (on par with 660M or maybe even a bit cheaper) and OC it gives 675M performance. I'm sure there will be a Kepler card that will top that, but it's not going to be at the same price any time soon.

But it's not all about GPUs in benchmarks or games. There are other uses for them. Other means of comparison. My laptop with 8800GTX can hardly play 4K videos, but my 315M could.

 

If there are two things I can't stand.

1) People with good systems making fun of those with bad systems.
2) People making fun of those with halo systems, usually due to jealousy.

 

I totally agree, but this happens everytime. Like some users with your 680m awesome vbios, that keep bragging how awesome is their card now while bashing other users with either 7970m or other gpus (and sometimes, there are people who cant afford a better equipment for countless of reasons). If you got a brain, you will not bother about what they say. But still, thats not the correct attitude, and by doing so you dont show any respect to the others, its not fair.
Naturally i have nothing against you, my post is not aimed to you mate. Just sayin'.

 

I think you answered your own question?

If your happy with present performance then why ever would you want to upgrade? Most of us just need an excuse if we can afford it

 

I seem to have a 4 year cycle with mine. My last laptop had an 8800 in it and I realized I needed a new one when I couldn't break 20fps in bf3 with settings as low as I could get them so I bought my current one. Hopefully it'll be another 4 years before I can't play a current game.

 

I've yet to buy a notebook but have been considering an AW. Dealing with desktops, I've tended to build a new rig every 2-3 years. Most recently, I just opted to upgrade the video-card. I felt like the cpu was plenty fast for everything I was doing, and I already have an ssd in it -- the gpu was the real bottleneck. I went from a 4890 to a 560 ti and it was a pretty nice upgrade, especially since I was able to nab the nvidia card on sale for a little under $200. If I get this AW notebook, I'll spring for either dual 7970s or dual 680s. It's maybe a little bit overkill, but I'd rather spend the extra now and know for sure I'll be able to run anything now and in the near-future.

 

What CPU? The 8800 should have no issues playing BF3 at 720P, maybe higher, as I kept 40+ fps with a 5730m at 1366x768. If you have a C2D, that's your problem. BF3 multiplayer is incredibly CPU-heavy.

Sent from my Tricorder using Tapatalk

 

I think upgrading a minimum of every 2 years is ideal, but that is if you're springing for the enthusiast class GPU every time.

Going after the best GPU available on a yearly basis doesn't make sense, for me. Like, though the 7970M and 680M are incredible, my 6970M is still moving along with High settings @ 1080p, so I don't envy them much. All I really want a new chassis for, is a backlit keyboard.

 

I think with a top end enthusiast GPU near the start of its life (i.e. 3-4 months of release) should garner you 2.5 years without much issue. Beyond that you're likely to see significant degradation of performance with newer titles. The real question is though, how will the new consoles affect performance of PC games? If the new consoles truly have GPU's as are being rumored, like AMD 7870 or similar performance, then it may not matter much as long as the game is ported over decently. It's similar performance to the 7970m or 680m currently available. I still have a hard time though believing that a console released a year from now would use such older tech like the 7870. But only time will tell.

 

wow, amazing. people actually gave their opinions. nice thread

I wonder to spark something else, is it still even viable to go for a gaming pc over a dedicated console? I say this because on my new TV with the xbox360 the games(99 percent) look really good, it suprised me then knocked my socks off as ive been a laptop gamer for 6 years. I heard so much talk about how bad it was, then i had the money to go out and buy it for the heck of it. TVs render 720p or upscale it extremely well vs laptops/desktops so sharpness isnt really the problem for me. the problem is games. its like every good game that is on pc is on xbox and more. so what the heck, why even bother with a gaming pc, iss gaming pc going to eventually die? probably not as its more of a sport now to build or own the best technology available at the time.

when the next gen consoles come out I think i'll avoid updating my computer and stick with the consoles so long as they are running native 1080p.

what do you guys think?

can we start a xbox360/ps3 vs pc gaming war?

 

No..........

<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/umDr0mPuyQc?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/umDr0mPuyQc?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width='420' height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>

 

The reason console games look so good is your TV. A good tv can make upscaled games look fantastic.

Plug your laptop into your TV and play at 1080p - you will really see the difference from your consoles' upscaled 720p

Also, laptop screens do not typically have the best picture quality. The black levels on my plasma tv can make some games look much better than on my laptop.

So ultimately, it's not the console making the games look good, it's your tv. And every laptop has a HDMI port and xbox 360 controller support so.....

 

I am replacing an AMD FX-53 Socket 940!! I built this in 2004 and went all out and it finally started to die on me this winter. I used to be snooty about getting the best all the time.. but since i've gotten older and have other things pop up on me all the time ( economy doesnt help) I just kept dealing with the old FX-53.. its only until the past 1-1.5 years where dual core become needed for many games where I was finally locked out. The chip OC'd easily into the 3.xx ghz range and had plenty of single core speed.

Anyway.. I think building the best PC/Laptop you can afford at the time is the best way. I am in the process of going for a 9170 or m17x and will have it pretty loaded to last me for as long as I can take it. Since all the 7970 issues have popped up I am just going for the 680 and stay away from whatever happens on the 7970 side of things. Once I build a PC I tend to get lazy and leave it alone in terms of changing out components, and usually technology architecture changes enough to prevent the major upgrades.

To sum it all up.. I budget break at the time of the computer build and then run it into the ground. Four years is a good number to reach but Id like to try and get more out of my PC. If building a laptop now I would go for a 680, but if I have an older card that still works fine for the games I play I wouldnt rush out to upgrade for minimal gains.

 

I do the same! My last desktop was a 3200+ 939 build.

...tapatalk...