AMD 7970m vs GTX 680m

This could happen if Nvidia make GTX 680M out of GTX 670 and they are able to get the same performance out of CUDA as AMD did with their cores :)

3DMark11 7870: P6619
3DMark11 7970M: P5600
18.2%

3DMark11 GTX 670: P9075
3DMark11 GTX 680M: P7691
18.2%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rorkas

This 670 performs pretty much like 680 and is within the margin error. I don't understand how Nvidia could release identically performing card to GTX 680 and give it a different name? Either they just shot themselves in the foot (which I doubt) or something is wrong with the tests.

---

Yes a very weird release indeed. They have benchmarked the Gigabyte OC version, which is rumored to cost $50 under the 680, and it performs better than 680 on stock. People are talking about building SLI with 670 instead of 680. Lower power consumption, lower heat, and cost less. Can`t see I blame them

I mean looking from specs, even 660Ti will destroy 7870 for sure.. but I don't think nvidia can beat 7970m that bad, I think they will end up being a little slower than 7970m.. (still will buy it :D)

I've read a lot of reports that put the 670 as a competitor to the 7950, rather then the 7870. Based on prior nvidia release patterns, it seems like the nvidia 660 is the card to look at for ball parking the mobile parts performance.

I'd certainly love it if this was the reference for the 680m, but everyone had enough trouble believing the 7970m numbers, much less something that blows it away by 37%. Kepler seems like a solid design by nvidia and I don't doubt it'll be king of the hill at some point, but just like the late desktop parts, I'd bet mobile Kepler is still at least 4-6 months away. Especially if the rumors of a delayed 660 desktop card are true.

37% better performance for 74% higher price? :p

but if they indeed chose to use the 670 as a 680M base wed definitely be in for a VERY hot summer/fall indeed! :)

^^ indeed bro! after all I don't get this war at all, the better the cards, the better the gaming, WE WIN!!! anybody employed by amd or nvidia? I guess not..

Yes, 660 Ti may be our 680M, but I think it will trade blows with 7950.

I don`t think 680M is far away. According to the people who got their hands on 680M several pages ago, 680M have reached late production. Which perhaps means Nvidia had a finished desktop version to work on?

I don`t know, just speculating :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaybee83

37% better performance for 74% higher price? :p

but if they indeed chose to use the 670 as a 680M base wed definitely be in for a VERY hot summer/fall indeed! :)

---

If those scores are true, I`m willing to pay a lot for it. Would you pay, lets say $150-200 extra for it?
Edit: Oh I see you already have your eyes on the 7970M. Nevermind :)

sure buddy, id deff pay the premium price tag if those scores proved to be true, but only when buying a new laptop. as for a gpu upgrade, im rather aiming for the best bang/buck, thus the red team :)

cheers

After a few weeks pondering on how technology is evolving in this moment, ive come up with some thoughts.

I have a 485m that i overclock based on what im planning to game. Lately im not overclocking at all, appreciating the power of the card at stock clocks with some high/maxed out details in some games, albeit most of them without AA or simply using FXAA.

But when i want to squeeze the most performance-eye candy wise, i hit my stable OC.

Now connecting my laptop to my brand tv, made me appreciate gaming on bigger screen, without worrying about crazy detail settings, leaving me impressed and satisfied with my "old and chunky" 485m.

What im saying is that, considering how games are running now on this old card, without pretending to run uber-ultra-marvelous-astonishing-max details, its still enough.

I dont know what nvidia is cooking, and what it will come up next. But for the first time, im intrigued by AMD and its 7970m, because theres so much power gain that hardly something even better will be needed.

I mean, once you get your laptop to run Witcher 2 with ubersampling on, what you achieved? Maybe youll be running around for half hour praising the huge power and huge detail but...then?
Isnt fine to play the game at decent settings, lets say very high, and still have a good blast with it?

The best is awlays the best, granted. But this time i will not wait for nvidia to make his move if a powerful card such the AMD beast can deliver up to 30% increase in perfomance - even in those games im currently playing that meet perfectly my taste of performance and graphic appealing.

Ive ran again Crysis 2 at 1080p with Extreme preset, while having Very High on water only, DX11 on and high res Texture pack installed. And god, that was a blast, on my new tv. My framerate was between 45-60 vsynched and im totally satisfied.
I dont regret a desktop at all if i can be satisfied.
And having my favourite titles such Dirt 3 running with a mix of ultra and very high with 8xCsaa while being vsynched at 60fps makes me drool all the time, and im not using my stable oc, a mild one does fine.

Probably we will see those new cards getting used alot in the next months/years, because supposedly newer games will require better hardware, and so on. But taking a look at the current situation, even our current top end hardware does the work perfectly, and does it fine.

Ive seen people arguing with arguments like "this is better than that etc etc" i think the best way to face a revolution, wheter its a technology or human one, is to first appreciate to full extent what we have now, and then move on.

Probably i will regret my own way of thinking with Max Payne 3 seeing that it needs a gtx 680 and an hexa core to max it out - but time will tell i guess. Im sure our current gen will be able to make its name proud even at high details.

Sorry for the long post but as always i wanted to share my pov with you guys. For what is worth, considering that pc gaming is currently on idle speaking of graphic-intense things (because most of the sku's are based on consoles, and you know that you cant push consoles that much, they have limits), AMD wins this round with the best bang for the buck, price and performance wise.

Ill be more than happy to own one if it turns out to be compatible with my HM, now we only need some serious work on drivers like nvidia does, and we're sorted.

But one last thing: if its either 580m, 6990m or 485m, this generation gave us alot of fun, and sometimes we're always pretending too much from those cards. And i think its wrong, because if everything is used or approached in the right way, youll find your hardware more than capable of anything you throw at it.

Thanks for reading ^^

Damn, i wish this GTX680M to come out next week. I need my 7970M cheaper!

The biggest change the shift to 28nm GPUs in desktops has brought about seems to be the performance per watt TDP. This seems to have translated to an ENORMOUS performance jump in mobile GPUs, as it seems the biggest limiting factor of mobile GPUs has been the performance output per watt.

A quick question to current AMD owners: I have owned Nvidia mobile GPUs since 2004, apart from a 5870M in 2010. The 5870M was a great card, however the lack of proper forced vsync and triple buffering in the amd catalyst driver control centre was a source of frustration for me.

Could any 5870M - 6990M (or possibly even 7970M) owners please confirm whether forcing vsync and triple buffering now works in the catalyst control panel? If so I would definitely considering purchasing a 7970M system now rather than waiting for the undoubtably more costly Nvidia counterpart.

As international companies typically ignore exchangerates (£1 = 1$ HURRR) i'll be paying 2200$ for a 1500$ system, so the price difference between Nvidia and AMD GPUs becomes more of an issue :/

Note: as I mentioned a few posts back, UK resellers are currently selling the 7970M around 30$ cheaper than the 675M.