NVIDIA Readies GK104-based GeForce GTX 680M for Computex

[blibba]

I find it unlikely that they'd use half a GK104 clocked so as to use 100W. That's no more efficient than the desktop part.

With Fermi, they got fully enabled GF114 down to this power envelope, and GF114 and GK104 have fairly similar power usage in their desktop versions.

I was expecting a 1536-core part at 600MHZ.

 

[KooKKiK]

You can laugh all you want. Stock HD7970M does ~5700 as shown by the link I provided. So I was not far off.

HD7850 does around 5500 too and it's clocked close, 860 Mhz.

So laugh, laugh all you want, you only look like an idiot.

PS: People who know me for a long time know my track record of nailing the performance of upcoming cards based on specs and I don't use methods much more complicated than that. Only difference is I adjust based on where I think or know there will be a bottleneck and some other things. And if you think it's not as simple as that, maybe you should think about taking some computer science classes.

EDIT: And/or read below.



Yeah I didn't notice that when I replied, then after that I moved on to other things. 1035 Mhz... hmm

P5746 @ 850 Mhz (stock)
P6951 @ 1035 Mhz

Let's do an stupid thing, let's normalize the 6951 result to stock clocks. You know that soooo stupid and laughable thing...

6951 * 850/1035 = 5708 what? wait... but no because that would be so stupid. To think that...

ok ok, THE 680M gonna beat 7970 even the desktop version.

dream on, boy

 

[Benetanegia]

ok ok, THE 680M gonna beat 7970 even the desktop version.

dream on, boy

And you keep looking like an idiot. I never said it would be faster. I said it would be 10% slower, maybe some more, because the HD7870 results I used for my calculations were apparently old, old drivers I mean, or simply in the low-ish side for whatever reason. In any case 10% or 15% (going by the 5746 OR 6951 results) difference does not fit any definition of "being eaten alive".

 

[KooKKiK]

already said

http://forum.notebookreview.com/gam...8185-amd-7970m-vs-gtx-680m-2.html#post8460234

http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/pp186/powwow71/Capture.jpg






ps. dont forget 3dmark11 at low res. prefer Kepler than AMD stuff.

and have a flagship got beaten by at least 15%, thats "EATEN ALIVE" for me ( even 580 cant beat 6970 by this far )

 

[Benetanegia]

previous argument lost -> move to next argument eh?

GTX 580 does beat HD6970 for more than 15%, and I've never ever heard anyone say that it eats HD6970 alive or HD6950 for that matter.

PS: Someone, a long time ago made a post requesting that users stop using expressions like crush, devour, eat alive, etc. when talking about performance differences. My opinion back then was "man leave people express themselves as they see fit". Now... Wow. Imagine how many posts and wasted time would have been avoided if you had not used that lame expression or if you had explained what it really means for you in your first repply instead of posting inconclusive scores and stupid laughin smilies...

 

[KooKKiK]

nope, thats all same argument ( as i told you "already said" )


and you havent answered me about the photograph either




ps. got beaten by ( 5746 ( from your score ) - 4905 ) / 4905 = 17.14% in favoring benchmark.

ok, thats really competitive for me

 

[Benetanegia]

nope, thats all same argument ( as i told you "already said" )


and you havent answered me about the photograph either




ps. got beaten by ( 5746 ( from your score ) - 4905 ) / 4905 = 17.14% in favoring benchmark.

ok, thats really competitive for me

I think you don't understand the use of smilies...

or you are flirting with me... unless you are Charlize Theron, I'm not interested.

 

[Andy77]

And what about that? That I find it very very unlikely and posibly fake, considering that not even the desktop HD7870 is so fast.

No! You forgot to read... the rest, Einstein. CPU is Sandy at 4,5GHz, GPU at 1035 MHz. These make up that score not some reference figures you thought of.

And yes, 10% means eating it alive!... Kepler can barely overtake Tahiti at default clocks, put Tahiti to its popper clocks and OC3D shows you it can beat any GK104.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

jebus guys , whats it matter, 680M or 7970M , ill take two of both, either or just one of any

in the whole thread i found this that was worth a read/mention

Cutting the sp count in half seems a little drastic where's gk 106?

+1 , i thought NV announced its release?? or was that in my head , must be as surely it would be more efficient etc.

 

[dieterd]

7970M will eat this alive and in breakfast, because 7970m in reviews show performance like 675m SLI (again 1x7970M = 2x675M)! and if Nvidia do not even dear compare 680m vs 675m (old 580m) then there wont be any +10% performance increase.
check out: http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-7970M.72675.0.html

7970M is based on 7870 desktop and cloked down to 7850 desktop performance level and it is HUGE power in mobile segment it is like 6950 desktop - if year before someone would say that there will be single mobile card at HD 6950 desktop level I would give him immediately

 

[Over_Lord]

not to believe from user review. thats ok for me.

but...



where did you get that 5500 score from ??? an official review ??? HA-HA-HA


and yeah, WE WILL SEE

Some people refuse to believe haha.

Yes buddy, rightly said. We WILL SEE

 

[Benetanegia]

Sorry for resurrecting this thread but I just couldn't resist, so stupid were some of the comments...

http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=6475&news=nvidia+geforce+gtx+680m

Yeah, it's soooooo surely going to be eaten alive by the 7970M...

And 744 SPs...

 

[Xzibit]

* This slide came from Nvidia too, and it's almost entirely true, so I don't see your point, show me a single Nvidia slide in the last 3-4 years that didn't turn out true (bare a slight exageration), it's not AMD's marketing department we ar talking about here

Thats easy.

Take any Nvidia slide that compares Kepler to competition and claims faster performance without specifing Game GPU. Even Fermi is a faster number cruncher then Kepler so there you have it.



Believing in marketing slides? You'd have to believe them from both sides.

 

[Benetanegia]

Thats easy.

Take any Nvidia slide that compares Kepler to competition and claims faster performance without specifing Game GPU. Even Fermi is a faster number cruncher then Kepler so there you have it.



Believing in marketing slides? You'd have to believe them from both sides.

Show one or STFU. I have not seen such claim made by Nvidia, no released Kepler (aka GK104 or GK107) has been marketed as a GPGPU powerhouse, so you fail, big time. Every single slide I've seen has the games listed in the X axis so... nice try, learn a little reading comprehension.

EDIT: I should not reply to you, because I give it 3 posts, max, before you talk about NVDA stocks and how that somehow means something related to this thread...

 

[Xzibit]

Show one or STFU. I have not seen such claim made by Nvidia, no released Kepler (aka GK104 or GK107) has been marketed as a GPGPU powerhouse, so you fail, big time. Every single slide I've seen has the games listed in the X axis so... nice try, learn a little reading comprehension.

Then i guess you have selected memory.

05/24/12 GeForce / DT - Jeff Fisher

Just browse thru it and those marketing slides dont have games just statements. 3 / 7 / 12 compared to Fermi

Dont get mad You asked i replied.

 

[Benetanegia]

Then i guess you have selected memory.

05/24/12 GeForce / DT - Jeff Fisher

Just browse thru it and those marketing slides dont have games just statements. 3 / 7 / 12 compared to Fermi

Dont get mad You asked i replied.

FAIL. There's only 2 performance slides. Both have games listed...

How could I be mad when you just proved you wrong??

And of course, no single mention of GPGPU performance.

What's more the entire marketing material is gaming oriented, it says it in the first page: Jeff Fisher, SVP GeForce: if your reading comprehension fails that means Jeff Fisher Senior Vice President of the GeForce division. GeForce division is the gaming division fyi. I know I'm patronising, I somehow felt like I should, don't know why...

And wait there's more, here's the GK110 white paper, you know the one and only Kepler chip Nvidia has ever claimed to be aimed at GPGPU: http://www.nvidia.com/content/PDF/kepler/NVIDIA-Kepler-GK110-Architecture-Whitepaper.pdf

First page, no need to delve more into it:

The Fastest, Most Efficient HPC Architecture Ever Built

Versus

The fastest, most efficient GPU ever built

See the difference??

 

[Xzibit]

I love his reasoning

Nvidia has never been wrong in its marketing slides ever in 3-4 years. Find one.

GeForce = Games only so i'm still right. Don't think thats what you asked unless you meant something else in your head.

Even slide 7 has 20% faster performance then competitor. I'm pretty sure it was 50/50 split and the games it came out infront the % wasnt 20%. Unless W1zzard is wrong.

Got to love these blinded fanboys. Even marketing is true for them to the letter.

 

[Benetanegia]

I love his reasoning

Nvidia has never been wrong in its marketing slides ever in 3-4 years. Find one.

GeForce = Games only so i'm still right. Don't think thats what you asked unless you meant something else in your head.

Even slide 7 has 20% faster performance then competitor. I'm pretty sure it was 50/50 split and the games it came out infront the % wasnt 20%. Unless W1zzard is wrong.

Got to love these blinded fanboys. Even marketing is true for them to the letter.

No, I love your reasoning, you gotta love it. You take marketing material from the gaming department which talks exclusively about gaming and pretend they are talking about anything but gaming. Bravo. Like I said they are very especific, in their GPU marketing material they talk about graphics performance, in their HPC marketing material they talk about HPC performance. You can try to distort that as much as you want, you are not right and cannot provide a single slide to support your idea.

My initial statement was clear, I never said Nvidia slides are accurate, I said that they have not been false, outright false, and hence their claim of 20% faster or whatever is not going to suddenly become into performance in which the 7970M "eats it alive". Again try to distort it as much as you want.

 

[Xzibit]

No, I love your reasoning, you gotta love it. You take marketing material from the gaming department which talks exclusively about gaming and pretend they are talking about anything but gaming. Bravo. Like I said they are very especific, in their GPU marketing material they talk about graphics performance, in their HPC marketing material they talk about HPC performance. You can try to distort that as much as you want, you are not right and cannot provide a single slide to support your idea.

I think i just did.

The problem is your brain cant accept it.

 

[Benetanegia]

I think i just did.

The problem is your brain cant accept it.

You might think you did. You didn't. They are talking about GPU not HPC or GPGPU. First learn the terms then come and discuss. If it's not the fastest Graphics Processing Unit on the planet, show me the one that it is.

Here, some help:

If it's not the GK104 in the GTX680, then which one?

 

[Xzibit]

You might think you did. You didn't. They are talking about GPU not HPC or GPGPU. First learn the terms then come and discuss. If it's not the fastest Graphics Processing Unit on the planet, show me the one that it is.

I dont think i did. I know.

You might want to start asking every reviewer out there to make the performance gap 20% or greater now.

Please go fix every review out there on the net please

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

ok where my posts go.. tut

anyways then

imho it would be worth awaiting a direct unbiased review prior to purchaseing this or a competitors solution, and that either way , this gpu looks very good for mobile gameing




I actually dont mind them(post) goin if cut

 

[Benetanegia]

I dont think i did. I know.

You might want to start asking every reviewer out there to make the performance gap 20% or greater now.

Please go fix every review out there on the net please

There's several games where it is more than 20% faster, who's to say that's not the real performance of the card? Who decides what is what? You have the same problem as theoneandonlymrk, you think you can take other people's words and decide what they mean. They don't say it's 20% faster overall, they say it's 20% faster period, which s something that cannot be completely tested or refuted. Just as an example if a card is bottlenecked by a CPU it's no longer faster than another card? That is only an example, what if games are not optimized for it, drvers have yet to implement optimizations, etc? It make the card slower, or is the other conditions which make the SYSTEM slower?

Like I said, there's plenty of games where it's 20% faster. In the ones where its fps are not 20%, it could be because it's bottlenecked, because it's not properly optimized for, because of many other unknown issues or because it's just plainly slower. The fact is that you don't know and that makes the claim as true as it could be false. And that's why PERFORMANCE slides exist, where you can see exacty where they say that it is faster, and I never said you have to believe them, but like I did say Nvidia's ones have been far more honest lately: they included Deus Ex in which it's slower and they had absolutely no need for that.

They are not saying it's 20% faster in any specific situation, only that it's 20% faster and in dozens of cases that is just plainly true. So stop taking ONE SINGLE statement, make your own interpretation of it and pretend they are saying what they are not saying. Hint: they are not saying it's 20% faste in GPGPU.

And like I said, in the end it IS faster and as such 680M IS going to be faster than 7970M, it's not going to be "eaten alive", and that has been my only point. In fact until mrk did it, I did not mention the slides AT ALL. I linked to that page for the specs, not the slides, it's not my problem if all of you can't see past some shiny marketing slides. based on specs 680M is far more likely to "eat the 7970M alive" than being the dinner...

 

[Xzibit]

There's several games where it is more than 20% faster, who's to say that's not the real performance of the card? Who decides what is what? You have the same problem as theoneandonlymrk, you think you can take other people's words and decide what they mean. They don't say it's 20% faster overall, they say it's 20% faster period, which s something that cannot be completely tested or refuted. Just as an example if a card is bottlenecked by a CPU it's no longer faster than another card? That is only an example, what if games are not optimized for it, drvers have yet to implement optimizations, etc? It make the card slower, or is the other conditions which make the SYSTEM slower?

Like I said, there's plenty of games where it's 20% faster. In the ones where its fps are not 20%, it could be because it's bottlenecked, because it's not properly optimized for, because of many other unknown issues or because it's just plainly slower. The fact is that you don't know and that makes the claim as true as it could be false. And that's why PERFORMANCE slides exist, where you can see exacty where they say that it is faster, and I never said you have to believe them, but like I did say Nvidia's ones have been far more honest lately: they included Deus Ex in which it's slower and they had absolutely no need for that.

They are not saying it's 20% faster in any specific situation, only that it's 20% faster and in dozens of cases that is just plainly true. So stop taking ONE SINGLE statement, make your own interpretation of it and pretend they are saying what they are not saying. Hint: they are not saying it's 20% faste in GPGPU.

Looks like you agree with me.

You could have just said I was right instead of try'n to explain it away and contradict yourself.

I guess it hurts too much to admit your wrong. Let me know if you need a hug.

 

[Benetanegia]

Looks like you agree with me.

You could have just said I was right instead of try'n to explain it away and contradict yourself.

I guess it hurts too much to admit your wrong. Let me know if you need a hug.

You have some serious problem with comprehension, but ey I guess it's compfortable there inside your mind. I didn't agree with you at all and I'm still waiting for that proof where Nvidia claimed GK104 to be faster on anything but gaming.

You can't admit defeat and will fight any slight remain you think you have left, but you have none. You can't provide a single slide that isn't essentially true. And that's the key to all of this as I've explained several times, we are not discussing slides in general, their truthness. If you are just doing that, pff you couldn't go more off-topic. We are discussing the slides that pertain to this thread and how they relate to the real performance of the 680M. And we are not discussing about a difference of 10%, as in they said GTX680 (desktop) is 20% but it's only 10% faster. No, we are discussing the fundamental change between what was said before, the HD7970M beating it by a substantial margin, 20% or more and the reality being the absolute oposite. If you are discussing the truthness of slides based on the premise that they are false because they are off by 10%, you are doing something really stupid, because there's no single/absolute truth like that, not even W1zz reviews can represent that, they only represent a much wider array of results and that's all. Change the game selection or the settings and you will find another "truth". I never told you to find slides which were slightly off the reality, I told you show me slides which are false. There's none, you lose, time to move along.