Who is going to Switch their order from a 7970M to a 680M in a few days?

As the title says who plans on switching their order from a 7970m to a 680m in a few days? The reality is they are both pre-orders and most people would probably end up receiving their laptop with a 680m only a couple weeks after the majority of people received theirs with a 7970m.

Even if the 680m is 10% slower and 30% more expensive. I will still probably buy it.... can't put a price on reliability when your investing $2k+ in a laptop.

 

I'm not sure why you're bringing up reliability....both AMD/ATI and NVIDIA have had issues with reliability in the past. And both companies are equally reliable right now.

Mr. Mysterious

 

Exactly!

The only reason to go with Nvidia is 3D Vision.

 

I just woke up. The GTX 680M has been revealed? Does it have a date or something?

 

Lol that was my first thought too!

@OP, do you have the source?

Mr. Mysterious

 

1. OP probably does NOT have any source, this is a part of his imagination as he states:

That doesn't sound like a man with a source to me.. anyways.

2. nVIDIA has and will for some time have better drivers, I know this for a fact, several of my friends had crashes on their 6990M etc etc. also this thread: http://forum.notebookreview.com/ali...8x-r2-hd-7970m-xfire-gtx-680m-sli-when-8.html

3. nVIDIA has CUDA and PhysX and more.. ahem

4. but, yes BUT ATI has without DOUBT the best bang for buck performance to say the least! they are the winners of price (even thought they recently lost the desktop market price war to nVIDIA)

 

Not sure if this is reliable, but it's worth a post:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/8572030-post1242.html

Mr. Mysterious

 

Thanks, I was about to post it but wasn't sure.

Maybe the 680M will turn out to be faster.. and it probably will, who would release a competitor that's slower than the current one out in the market.

Anyways, I just wanted to say even if the score is legimate, we must take CPU and other things into consideration ~14% or not, my guess is either slightly lower or higher, something in between maybe?

Damn rumors man

 

Plus, 4GB is just overkill I have a 1.5GB GTX460M and that's perfectly fine for me

In the next generation, we'll see a whopping 8GB in video card memory! Whooaaaaaa Talk about a waste lol

Mr. Mysterious

 

Lol 8gb, we might as well as use the extensive memory allocation as RAM.. at some point it might be worth it.. I think

 

That big camel's mouth will not be big enough to eat your words if nv do come out with a core that can fill up 4 gig of buffer

 

Mr. M. Please don't forget to add that one to to this classic quote regarding main memory, "640K ought to be enough for anybody."

Seriously - who knows what advances / breakthroughs we'll see over the next 2, 5, or 10 years. Quotes like these can be fun when viewed through the sands of time!

 

I'm not sure where you get this idea that nVidia is more reliable than AMD. As Mr. Mysterious has stated, they are both equal in terms of reliability and both have had their share of issues.

Point in case, the nVidia GT8400 and GT8600. Google those and lawsuit.

As I have stated before, I have had my share of both graphics cards and I can honestly say there is simply no difference between the two in terms of performance and reliability (if we are comparing apples to apples here).
I can ramble on with the list of graphics cards I have owned since I got into computers, starting with the ATI Rage II integrated graphics in my old Gateway computer up to my current nVidia GTX-580 but I think I have made my point.

I would be happy to see nVidia put out a card that is faster than the ATI, because we all know that ATI will respond with something faster, and then it goes back to nVidia. This has usually been the case, and because of this fierce competition we all win with better performance and fairly competitive pricing.

 

Try running Skyrim with a sh!tload of texture and other graphical mods. Chews up and spits out my 2gb like nothing. I've also noticed Civ V using as much as 1.6gb at times.

 

Ah yes, the NVidia, 8600gt. Worst gpu I've ever owned. Constantly crashing, then burning out. And they new it was dodgy when sold. There is no way I'd ever pay a premium for nVidia. Price should be based on performance. If it's 10% slower, it should be that much cheaper.

 

Folks, I was told although it is not confirmed that the information about The GTX 680M will be released on June 6th.

In regards to my poke at ATI's reliability. What I had meant is that Nvidia tend to have better drivers with more frequent updates, which leads to better compatibility for most games.


In regards to my statement about Nvidia card being 10% worse and costing 30% more. All I was trying to say is I will still go with Nvidia even if the ATI card has a better value.

Nobody REALLY knows what the performance of the new 680M will be. I seriously doubt Nvidia would release a card which performed significantly worse than the 7970 for significantly more.....

 

Seriously?

I hear all these horror stories.. and I'm still running on my 8600M GT overclocked core clock to 720, shader to 1450 and memory to 1100! been running BF3 at lowest at stable 30-40 FPS 1440 x 900

Needless to say I've overclocked my T9300 2,7GHz my M1530 is running quite well so far..

I guess I'm the lucky one

 

I'm sure most manufacturers have horror stories with their products. Sometimes you can just be unlucky.

 

I sincerely doubt nVidia would release a card with lower performance than their competition, this is almost a given.

As far as driver updates, it seems AMD is tightening the controls on how they release their drivers. AMD is moving to a dynamic Catalyst release schedule - TechSpot News
From what some people here in the forums have reported, the AMD drivers can be a little sketchy depending on which version they download.
Here's hoping their new plan for driver releases pays off then.

 

Nvidia has more then a driver a month release?

I am a self admitted ATI Fanboi, how ever my experience tells me each company has had great, good, and terrible hardware. I also have found their drivers are both in the same situation.

What differs mainly is more companies take money from Nvidia to optimize for them, and ATI is left to do it on their own. Giving them a slight edge.

3D is the same gimmick it was 50+yrs ago when it first arrived. PhysX is an advantage, though largely will be gone as compute takes over and we are back to common ground. Havok is still one of the best engine and its none partisan.

In the end, both will be good cards, with advantages and disadvantages. But if the 680 desktop is any indication, the mobile space will be just as hard to get.

reality here is fabrication is the issue not ATI or Nvidia. I do not suspect until August will either be readily available.

 

Precisely! Which would explain their delay on the card

 

Sigh personally I wanted nvidia from the start, realized it when I picked 6970 my last purchase.

Also, dont know about anyone else but I'm really getting into the 3D hype, in either case nvidia or ati I'll have my 3D but... Nvidia is just so much better at it...(tear drops).

 

They said mid-June, why would you switch in a few days? Might as well switch right now or wait until mid-June.

 

I actually posted those numbers yesterday morning

What kind of lead time did we get with 7970M pre orders? From what I've been told, resellers are poised for an August release date for the 680M. Still a ways out, and probably two months before preorders for it start..

 

I'd be interested to see 7970M vs 680M in 3DMark 11.

 

I'd be interested in how many organs I'd have to sell to afford the premium.

 

I don't think thats true, I mean people are estimating June 5th or 6th for announcement and the polish reseller who posted benchmarks are listing availability in June so it could very well be that its a lot sooner then people were estimating. I mean people thought the 680m was going to be significantly weaker and look how it turned out, could just very well be the same for the release date.

 

I don't think anyone realistically believed that the 680m was going to be weaker upon release than the 7970. Although it does seem plausible that it was quite a bit weaker earlier in the development/pre-release phase given the length of delay on the cards announcement.

Optimistic release dates are July but given the availability of of the other Nvidia cards, it seems far more likely that late August/early September will be the ship dates. All of his is just speculation at this point, it doesn't hurt to be optimistic but lets also try to be realistic

 

3d mark scores are not always that reliable. The 460M for instance has higher 3dmark scores than my 280M, but in-game performance is almost the same.

 

yup! also, AMD cards are known to kick in 3DMark11 altho their in-game perf is lower than comparable nvidia cards (see 6970/6990M vs. 485M/580M for example)

lets just hope that the 680M wont have any starting problems like sandy bridge and 7970M, with first batches being recalled / not shipped because of some kinda crappy error, ugh

 

3Dmark 11

680M --- 5917
7970M -- 5809

~+1.8% gain

3Dmark 11 p GPU

680M --- 5762
7970M -- 5480.5

~+5% gain

This looks like an askew 3Dmark06 test.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

NBR reveals this test to put the 680M at a~+1.5% gain over the 7970M and not this 14% .

 

yeah ive wondered about that as well. altho i must say id rather trust notebookcheck numbers than official ones by nvidia

Sent from my GT-I9001 using Tapatalk 2

 

Here are some gameplay numbers supposedly done by Nvidia

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M - Notebookcheck.net Tech

Is it just me or does the performance not seem that much greater than the 7970m, especially since these are by Nvidia rather than a third party?

 

well the nvidia numbers put the 680m about 15% ahead on average. id wanna see a proper review by notebookcheck tho

Sent from my GT-I9001 using Tapatalk 2

 

I have always been an nvidia user, but my newest card is a GTS250 in my desktop, and back then it was different, and nvidia was way better. Nowadays, the line is much thinner. I really don't know what to go for yet, but the price for performance issue is a big one for me, so I wouldn't want to spend all that much more to get a 680. Also, anyone know if the 680 is going to be kepler, or will it be fermi?

 

both desktop 680 and mobile 680M are kepler, whereas 675M and 670M are fermi

Sent from my GT-I9001 using Tapatalk 2

 

You are sorely mistaken, in that belief. The GT 555M is equal to your card. The 460M is easily 25% faster than both of them.

 

I almost bought the 7970 it is really an awesome card and certainly blown everyone minds and that is why it has very short availability, but I really prefer the Nvidia drivers and additions like CUDA, Physics, and the thermal interface Kepler promises, for me it alone justify the price diference. Performance wise both are on pair with Nvidia a bit ahead like always. So I just pulled the trigger on a computer that must be enough for me for the next long time (if I can control myself LOL) 95% matte screen (with calibration), i7 3720 and gtx680m (with icDiammond), 12 GB Kingston HyperX, 240GB Intel 520, and Intel 6235 wifi+ bt ( if the Bigfoot 1202 shows up before shipping it will be included). Expensive I would say just wish it surpasses my expectations and that it makes me good for a long long long long time LOL! At least until I give up those dam demanding games! Cheers for all AMD and Nvidia owners.

 

As much as I would like to switch to the 680m, I just can't convince myself to do it.

If it was $100 or $150 more than the 7970m, I could do it.

If it was $200 more, I could probably talk myself into it or give up some other upgrade for it.

At $300 more, I feel like I'm being screwed with no effort to hide it. 7970 -> 680 looks to be less of a performance upgrade than 675 -> 7970, yet costs 3x as much to upgrade.

I suppose if I really needed CUDA or PhysX, things would be different, but I don't. Sticking with the 7970 . . . .

 

I have never wished I could use CUDA and I don't support the use of proprietary tech to just one brand when Gaming should be for everyone. 3D Gaming is supported by AMD, but something I'm not interested in.

I just don't see any good reason to switch to 680M considering it's price. I have NEVER had issues with ATi/AMD drivers using the HD5870M or a 9600 Pro from years ago.

 

not even CUDA, just physx,since gpgpu perf of kepler sucks a s s

Sent from my GT-I9001 using Tapatalk 2

 

But most games/developers have stop using Physx...

 

u got that right

 

What score is that 3dmark06? Really? You can't predicate anything based on a 3DMark score.

4GB vRAM? lol. 1.5GB is more than sufficient. Make it 2GB if you must. But 4GB is stupid.

 

Haha I remember MSI's 4GB GTX 675M when the 675M only uses up to 2GB I think.

 

Crysis 2 Dx11 Hi-res pack ultra setting can reach 1.96GB, don't really think 1.5GB is that sufficient .