News - NVIDIA launches GeForce GTX 680M Kepler based laptop GPU

[HEXUS]

1,344 CUDA cores go mobile.

Read more.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

This looks like a downclocked desktop GTX670.

[dahools]

If its a down clocked GTX670, how can it put out ~65fps in BF3 if it is that spanks a full GTX670

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphics/39153-nvidia-geforce-gtx-670/?page=7

I think somebodies graphs are a bit misleading here. Do they just make them up?

[kalniel]

If its a down clocked GTX670, how can it put out ~65fps in BF3 if it is that spanks a full GTX670

http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/graphi...tx-670/?page=7

I think somebodies graphs are a bit misleading here. Do they just make them up?

You're not comparing the same graphs - you can't compare nVidia provided graphs to Hexus review graphs - they almost certainly won't have been using the same computer or settings.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

As with AMD,official benchmarks do include a level of cherry picking the best case scenarios. OTH,in the US it seems you need to pay around $250 to $300 more for a GTX680M than an HD7970M.

Nvidia says that the GTX680M is around 15% to 20% faster than an HD7970M:

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.ph...9007&Itemid=47

"1 Testing was conducted comparing the GeForce GTX 680M versus Radeon 7970M, running at a resolution of 1920x1080. Driver version used was 302.56 for 680M and cat 12.4 for Radeon. In 3Dmark Vantage P with PhysX enabled, 680M scored 25063 and AMD scored 20590. In Far Cry 2 Ultra-High 1xAA/AF, 680M scored 129.8 FPS while 7970M scored 112.6. Dirt 3 in Ultra 1xAA/AF, 680M scored 80 FPS while 7970M scored 64.5. For performance, a higher number is better."

Both games tested do relatively well on the desktop GTX670 and GTX680 at 1920X1080 when compared to the HD7870 and HD7970. However,15% to 20% higher performance for a 40% larger GPU in two games,probably means AMD might be overall still quite price/performance competitive in the higher end mobile GPU space.

Earlier leaks indicated the GK106 would be used in the GTX680M as there were even leaked pictures of the mobile GPUs and a few benchmarks. However,these were slower the HD7970M. It had 768 shaders.

It does make me think whether how competitive the GK106 will be when compared to Pitcairn and Cape Verde.

[bobharvey]

You watch. it will end up in laptops with 768 vertical pixels, rendering the twhole thing rather pointless.

[hudsucker]

I highly doubt it, considering all the laptops mentioned in the article are FHD res why would it appear in a 768 laptop????? Mind you:

"As well as within the @lienware M18x and M17x you will be able to get the new GeForce GTX 680M in the following laptops shortly; Clevo P150EM and P170EM, MSI GT70, Origin PC EON15-S and EON17-S."

- I take it Hexus is actually aware that the Origin PC EON15-S is a Clevo P150EM and same goes for the 17"er.


Still, good to see another 28nm card in the 6** series lineup;-) and considering the current recall on 7970M I know which direction I would be temped to go with Optimus support, massive CUDA power etc etc. Looks like it is faster than the 7970M too - perhaps if you take outright fps performance vs £ then the 7970M is higher bang for buck but if you take the outright fps performance and add the other features in then the 680M is surely a better overall card.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I highly doubt it, considering all the laptops mentioned in the article are FHD res why would it appear in a 768 laptop????? Mind you:

"As well as within the @lienware M18x and M17x you will be able to get the new GeForce GTX 680M in the following laptops shortly; Clevo P150EM and P170EM, MSI GT70, Origin PC EON15-S and EON17-S."

- I take it Hexus is actually aware that the Origin PC EON15-S is a Clevo P150EM and same goes for the 17"er.


Still, good to see another 28nm card in the 6** series lineup;-) and considering the current recall on 7970M I know which direction I would be temped to go with Optimus support, massive CUDA power etc etc. Looks like it is faster than the 7970M too - perhaps if you take outright fps performance vs £ then the 7970M is higher bang for buck but if you take the outright fps performance and add the other features in then the 680M is surely a better overall card.

The HD7970M recall was nothing to with AMD but the OEM who made the MXM packages for some companies. Even the GTX670 had a small recall as one card sold by EVGA had issues.

You do realise CUDA peformance in many applications is actually better in most cases on the desktop GTX580 than the desktop GTX680:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5699/n...-680-review/17

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/geforc...-32404-15.html

The GK104 has depleted compute performance and requires better software optimisation too. Compared to the GF114 based GTX580M ,the GTX680M is probably an improvement of sorts though but the peformance of the GF110 is not there. Luckily,Nvidia has incorporated a hardware video encoder,but since IB has improved Quicksync you could probably use Virtu too,which will be a competitor.

The GCN cards have better support for OpenCL,much improved compute performance over the previous AMD cards and common applications like HandBrake are introducing OpenCL acceleration this year. A test version managed to double encoding speed on AMD Trinity with no loss in quality according to Anandtech and that is with a VLIW4 based GPU. CS6 is getting OpenCL acceleration.

Intel is also pushing OpenCL adoption too,so expect more and more applications to support it in the near future.

Moreover,the 15% to 20% higher speed is in two games which do very well on Nvidia GPUs (if you look at the GTX680 and HD7970 reviews),means nothing until final reviews are out. Maybe the performance difference might be greater,or it will be less. However,£160 to £195 in the US without taxes ,which probably means at least £200 here in the UK,is a decent amount of money.

[hudsucker]

The HD7970M recall was nothing to with AMD but the OEM who made the MXM packages for some companies. Even the GTX670 had a small recall as one card sold by EVGA had issues..

That's not what I heard, though there doesn't seem to be proof that AMD wasn't at fault or that the OEM was at fault.....

You do realise CUDA peformance in many applications is actually better in most cases on the desktop GTX580 than the desktop GTX680

Yes I do realise this, we're not talking about desktop cards though are we and I didn't say that the CUDA power of the 680M was superior to that of the 580M either.

Moreover,the 15% to 20% higher speed is in two games which do very well on Nvidia GPUs (if you look at the GTX680 and HD7970 reviews),means nothing until final reviews are out. Maybe the performance difference might be greater,or it will be less. However,£160 to £195 in the US without taxes ,which probably means at least £200 here in the UK,is a decent amount of money.

I didn't actually realise that the pricing was out, though we have to assume that this initial pricing is not over-inflated (as the cards aren't available yet). With the pricing as it now is, I do agree that even if the 680M outperforms the 7970M in average fps then £200 is a big difference, too big to justify by far in fact. However if the performance gain does turn out to be 15-20% above the 7970M then the 680M gaming performance is not only a generation ahead of its predecessor (the 580M/675M) but also a generation ahead of the 7970M. I know that you can't justify £200 with the Optimus support either, or PhysX by itself, but it does all add up to something. A 7970M in a laptop which does support Optimus (I want/need an Intel CPU) not only technically wastes the graphics part of the CPU (ok quite a weak point) but also could result in 1/2 to 1/3 the battery life of the same laptop with a 680M installed (or 675M for arguments sake).

I certainally wouldn't justify £200 over a 7970M on any single performance or feature point. However, if you're looking to spend say £1200 on a new Ivy Bridge laptop, then spending £1400 (16% more overall) for a 680M over a 7970M, which would bring say 15% better gaming performance and 50%+ better battery life, is I think quite justifiable. Lets see what the actual performance of the 680M is when proper reviews surface then it'll be easier to judge.