Thursday, May 17th 2012
NVIDIA Readies GK104-based GeForce GTX 680M for Computex
NVIDIA is readying a high-performance mobile GPU for a Computex 2012 unveiling. Called the GeForce GTX 680M, the chip is based on its trusty 28 nm GK104 silicon, but with about half its streaming multiprocessors disabled, resulting in a CUDA core count of around 768. Reference MXM boards of the chip could ship with memory options as high as 4 GB, across a 256-bit wide memory interface. With the right craftsmanship on the part of NVIDIA, the GTX 680M could end up with a power draw of 100W. A Chinese source had the opportunity to picture the reference board qualification sample, and put it through 3DMark 11, in which it was found to be roughly 37% faster than the GF114-based GeForce GTX 670M, scoring 4905 points in Performance preset. The test bed was driven by Intel Core i7-3720QM quad-core mobile processor.
Source:
VideoCardz
54 Comments on NVIDIA Readies GK104-based GeForce GTX 680M for Computex
dream on, boy :laugh:
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... :laugh: 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...
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 :laugh:
or you are flirting with me... unless you are Charlize Theron, I'm not interested.
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.
in the whole thread i found this that was worth a read/mention+1 , i thought NV announced its release?? or was that in my head , must be as surely it would be more efficient etc.
check out: 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 :slap: immediately
Yes buddy, rightly said. We WILL SEE :nutkick:
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... :laugh:
And 744 SPs... :laugh:
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.
:nutkick:
Believing in marketing slides? You'd have to believe them from both sides.:rolleyes:
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...
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.
How could I be mad when you just proved you wrong?? :roll:
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... :laugh:
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: www.nvidia.com/content/PDF/kepler/NVIDIA-Kepler-GK110-Architecture-Whitepaper.pdf
First page, no need to delve more into it:VersusSee the difference??
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.
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.
The problem is your brain cant accept it.;)
Here, some help:
If it's not the GK104 in the GTX680, then which one?
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 ;)
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:)
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...
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 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.
You even went back and tried to edit what you said out..:laugh:^I like the "Almost entirely true" part and then continues to ask for slide thats isnt true in 3-4yrs when he doesnt even believe the one hes refering to as 100%.
Somehow you have a problem with competition slides. I wonder why that is, Just curious.
So tell me again how you can prove or disprove Nvidias 20% performance claimWell if your going by Performance slides. Do all reviewers score said GPU at 20% or more all the time since after all Nvidia didnt specify the situation. Do Nvidias own results give a 20% increase all the time ?
05/24/12 GeForce / DT - Jeff Fisher
On page 8 where the games are I only see 5 games out of 13 meet the 20% or better performance claim. Less then 50% of the games.
It's not like i'm taking them out of context its the very next page.So like you said yourself that claim only applies to a dozen cases as you see it. I didnt see that footnote in the slide but I guess you know how to translate Nvidia graphs:)
That would make the 20% claim false the rest of the time. By there own graph 8 games out of 13 it doesnt meet 20% faster performance claim so I dont know how you can say its plainly true. :laugh:
So even you know its not right yet you continue to argue the fact that you said show me 1 slide from Nvidia thats not true.
How much more clearer can you get when you said it yourself. Do you not beleive yourself now ? :laugh: