Another GPU comparison that troubles me

If you'll look at this video from XoticPC:
Sager NP9150 (7970M) vs. Sager NP9150 (680M) Review by XOTIC PC - YouTube
and jump to ~19:10, you'll notice that the 7970M pulls 37.9 FPS on BF3, while according to them the 680M pulls only 33.8 FPS in the same game.

I really don't want it to degrade into a useless contest, but is that really correct? Is the 7970M really works better at stock than 680M?

Another point in that comparison, is that according to them, the 680M is running hotter at 89 C while the 7970M runs only at 84 C. How is that so? Is it because they're running it on a 15" laptop rather than a 17" one?

Any input based on real life performance from owners of these cards will be extremely appreciated. Thanks!

 

that cant be right, 680m is definitely cooler than 7970m. Fps wise they are close when enduro is disabled, but with enduro on 680m will get you far smoother gaming experience.

 

Maybe the fans are spinning faster in the case of the 7970M? The fan may be stuck in an upper tier (higher rpm) unless temperature crosses a certain threshold. So if the 680M was to cross the 90°C, the fan would kick-up a notch and bring the temperature down by a few degrees. But it may not drop the temperature enough to cross the low temperature threshold that would cause the fan to drop back to the lower rpm tier. The fan levels are discrete in these systems, which means most of the time the fan will be spinning too fast, or controller will be unstable and oscillate between two fan speeds.

So in this case, it's possible that the 680M is actually running "cooler" than the 7970M, it's just that the fan rpm is spinning faster in the case of the 7970M.

So you can't necessarily compare temperatures like that without knowing what the exact fan rpms are in each case. (assuming the heatsink contact pressure and paste job variances can be negelected, which is also unlikely).

 

honestly, its well established that 680m runs a fair bit cooler than 7970m.

 

That's the whole point - they are both from XoticPC, so they should know what they're talking about when it comes to heatsinks/paste jobs differences.

This is the exact opposite of all the real time performances guys in these forums are getting

 

I just tested my 680M (P170EM) and it peaked at 78 Celsius after 10 minutes of Furmark (my favourite game). No foil mods yet but I repasted carefully with a 4mm diameter spot of ICD. Ambient temperature is approximately 25 Celsius.

 

Nvidia does do a good job at updating drivers often though and alot of times greatly increases performance. Since the 680M is brand new we do expect to see its performance go up as those drivers are released.

 

Nevermind.

/care

 

Well yea GTX680 doesn't cost twice the HD7970, it's only $245 now as NVIDIA has recently just lowered its price tag.

 

That may indeed be so, but according to many guys in here who are talking from experience and have the 680M for a few weeks now, the results in this review are completely opposite to what these forum members have found out on their laptops.

Again, this might be due to the fact that this test was done on a 15", while many guys here have the 17", but it is still highly inconsistent. I think it's important to understand who's really right here.

 

Well I had my GTX680M running in a 15", doesn't go past 80C, the one in the video either had a bad paste, or high room temperature.