PDA

View Full Version : GTX 660M vs. 650M



jdotjdot7
07-05-2012, 05:02 PM
Hello people, I have bought the G75VW-BBK5 (with a few personal modifications like an additional Hybrid Solid State) for college. (I'm also an avid gamer).

Anyways, I have been going through the specs as I was worried about settling for a 660m instead of the 670m version of this laptop. Now, I have been going through 3Dmark11 scores (I scored the highest score on there atm with an overclock of +135 Core and +350 Shader EDIT: OH, it appears ive been beat by about 50 Marks) and noticed something.

The 650M Overclocked was outperforming the 660m by about 200-250 3Dmarks. These all came from a single guy with a Lenovo laptop. Both of these cards are near identical being they both are 128-Bit and have similar clock speeds while the 660M has 835MHz as its base with a boost up to 950MHz. The 650M has 850MHz Base with a 900MHz Boost. Okay, a fine line between the performance clocks. The 660M also has a few other factors listed on their website that are a bit faster. They both have 28nm Architecture and both came out around the same time.

Why is the 650m able to outperform the 660m. I mean, even though that guy using the Lenovo was the only one able to reach those levels with his card. The others are a bit lower in all aspects than the 660m. But either that guy is running his Lenovo in a refrigerator with a severely high overclock. Orrrrr the 650M is outperforming the 660M at overclock levels. Why is this?

jdotjdot7
07-05-2012, 05:11 PM
Here are some instances, the 660M Result is mine.

650M: http://3dmark.com/3dm11/3803009
650M: http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2492348 <-- this is the Lenovo one with the Graphics card dominating the 660M in Graphics Performance.
660M: http://3dmark.com/3dm11/3760403

xeromist
07-05-2012, 05:13 PM
Cards as well as CPUs are binned. They all have different performance characteristics so in order to sell a consistent product companies choose a bin somewhere below its capabilities and set it there. Sometimes if the market demands more cheaper parts a company will artificially bin a part even lower than necessary in order to meet that demand. So to use your example it's possible that this guy has a 660 (or better) quality chip that was binned lower because they were running out of 650 quality chips. Makes sense?

Or he could just have his laptop in the refrigerator as you say.

jdotjdot7
07-05-2012, 05:19 PM
I don't think the "binned" card would show up as a 650M though, but then again, ive never heard of companies putting a more expensive chip in hehe. Hopefully its just a driver issue of not utilizing the full boost potential on the 660m. These kepler chips can be overclocked hard. The 650M is also getting better FPS on average in a small number of games like Diablo 3. I feel like it isn't performing up to its potential. A GT series card sould NOT beat a GTX series card. Nvidia promised a 40% boost over GT series. Although TBH im more of an ATi Fan. :) That 7970M is a beast

xeromist
07-05-2012, 08:06 PM
I don't think the "binned" card would show up as a 650M though, but then again, ive never heard of companies putting a more expensive chip in hehe. That's the whole point of binning. You make a run of chips and when you test them you find that some are capable of going faster before they fail. Those higher quality chips are assigned a faster clock rate and sold as a more expensive part. The lower quality chips are assigned a slower clock rate (because they can't handle the faster speed) and sold as a less expensive part. They all came out of the same process and they are all identical in architecture but they are not the same in terms of capability.

But, as I said if you have more high quality parts and not enough lower quality you might downclock them, disable cores, etc in order to meet demand. That's where overclocking and core unlocking live: in the space between the bin and the actual capability of that chip.

jdotjdot7
07-06-2012, 01:31 AM
Alright, that makes sense, but still, 200 higher GPU marks than the fastest 660m on 3dmark? It seems like the 660m is not functioning as well as it should

Holy
07-06-2012, 01:48 AM
we know this drivers will help.

xeromist
07-06-2012, 07:02 PM
Alright, that makes sense, but still, 200 higher GPU marks than the fastest 660m on 3dmark?
Last week the ASUS team had an i7-3770K clocked to 7GHz and benching; They were cooling it with liquid helium. We don't know what your friend with the 650 was up to. He might have modified the cooling system or he might have figured out how to game the software just to mess with people.

If all 650s were performing consistently better then you should be wondering, but one guy is a statistical outlier so it's not worth worrying over.

On a side note, I've seen specs where the 650 was theoretically capable of better than the 660 so I don't really find these results surprising. I'm not sure what game Nvidia is playing but there must be some reason they have them numbered lower. They're probably crippled in some fashion or the specs I read were wrong.

UltimaRage
07-07-2012, 06:13 PM
This almost seems like fraud on the part of Nvidia if a seemingly lower-end card can outperform a card that costs much more.

Why are notebook components so screwy compared to the desktop counterparts?

Liquidus
07-07-2012, 06:15 PM
This almost seems like fraud on the part of Nvidia if a seemingly lower-end card can outperform a card that costs much more.

Why are notebook components so screwy compared to the desktop counterparts?

Are you... hinting at a class action law suite? :eek:

Zygomorphic
07-07-2012, 06:16 PM
Because vendors like to pull the wool over people's eyes. Most people who buy notebooks are not as wary, and so think bigger number==better performance. The enthusiasts go and look at the specifications to determine, and more often build their own systems, so the marketing gimmicks will not work on them. A real interesting psychology game, if you ask me.

From what I understand, the 670M is indeed faster, but the 660M has more OC'ing headroom, making for a faster card when OC'd. Just repeating what I have heard. If true, it makes sense to number the cards in increasing performance order.

UltimaRage
07-07-2012, 06:16 PM
I admit that I am new to laptops, but I have been building PC's for years. I had no idea about the disparity of hardware. I just had thought that comparable parts were weaker than the desktop counterparts of similar architecture/naming scheme....


I'm happy having a new architecture with Kepler, and the thermal performance is extremely impressive. However... it's still not right. I guess it's just business... but it shouldn't be like that.


Are you... hinting at a class action law suite? :eek:


You know, there might be grounds for one... which is why you mentioned it I bet. xD

Actually, is there one?

Zimba
07-07-2012, 08:42 PM
GT 650 and GTX 660M is 100% identical. They are the exact same card. They both have 384 cores.
The difference is what clock the cores and VRAM runs at. Nvidia make some basic specifications on how fast the cores and VRAM should run and its up to each notebook OEM (Asus, MSI etc) how fast they want the GPUs to run, based on resources available for each notebook. Example: based on power consumption and how hot the GPUs will run for each MHz they add.

Apple have a GT 650M which runs much faster than other notebook OEMs GT 650M. It is actually on par with the Asus GTX 660M, if not slightly faster.

So you can effectively just buy a cheaper GT 650M and overclock it to GTX 660M speed and flash the VBIOS to that speed, and BAM, you got yourself a GTX 660M.

jdotjdot7
07-07-2012, 09:39 PM
GT 650 and GTX 660M is 100% identical. They are the exact same card. They both have 384 cores.
The difference is what clock the cores and VRAM runs at. Nvidia make some basic specifications on how fast the cores and VRAM should run and its up to each notebook OEM (Asus, MSI etc) how fast they want the GPUs to run, based on resources available for each notebook. Example: based on power consumption and how hot the GPUs will run for each MHz they add.

Apple have a GT 650M which runs much faster than other notebook OEMs GT 650M. It is actually on par with the Asus GTX 660M, if not slightly faster.

So you can effectively just buy a cheaper GT 650M and overclock it to GTX 660M speed and flash the VBIOS to that speed, and BAM, you got yourself a GTX 660M.

Well yeah but that also means a 660M can pull the same, i can OC my 660m to 670m speeds with only a 5-7 more increase in temperature, the cards ARENT 100% identical, on the GEforce there are some small changes in the 660m which make it a bit faster. Apple putting their card at 900MHz just means it cant boost anymore. While the 660M can still boost to 950MHz.

*Also, an OCd card with Apple its going to overheat lul

Zygomorphic
07-07-2012, 09:55 PM
Well yeah but that also means a 660M can pull the same, i can OC my 660m to 670m speeds with only a 5-7 more increase in temperature, the cards ARENT 100% identical, on the GEforce there are some small changes in the 660m which make it a bit faster. Apple putting their card at 900MHz just means it cant boost anymore. While the 660M can still boost to 950MHz.

*Also, an OCd card with Apple its going to overheat lul

All too true. It shows why fruit computers are fruitcake compared to real computers that other companies make. The 650M also has less VRAM than the 660M, and so it is texture limited...not to mention thermal limited, unlike the ASUS.

jdotjdot7
07-07-2012, 10:21 PM
All too true. It shows why fruit computers are fruitcake compared to real computers that other companies make. The 650M also has less VRAM than the 660M, and so it is texture limited...not to mention thermal limited, unlike the ASUS.

Yeah, it seems they are TRYING to at least get into the graphically intensive field, but it wont go over well. You cant put an amazing graphics card in a laptop 1/2 inch thick. It wont get enough airflow. From there, this happens.

a) During an intensive session, the graphics card will overheat and shut down
b) medium usage of the graphics card will cause it to die out much quicker due to how hot it will be, even at idle temperature (if it doesnt have optimus)
c) it will cause the other parts in the laptop to heat up too (heat dissipation) making the laptop die quicker.

I can just see an unaware user running Diablo III on high settings while their temperatures are skyrocketing into the 80s or 90s (Celsius) and then it shuts down. Not to mention the fact that the 650M will have to run that stupidly high resolution on the new Macbooks (you wont even notice a difference in quality but your graphics card will) so in real world performance, you would see a decrease.

Asus actually has some cooling plus the larger case allows better airflow allowing you to even overclock and keep it at 60C or below haha. Hopefully the 660m is just having some driver issues, if not, its still a nice card and will fit my needs.

xeromist
07-09-2012, 02:56 PM
This almost seems like fraud on the part of Nvidia if a seemingly lower-end card can outperform a card that costs much more.

Not really. Nvidia sets specs for these which is what they are sold as unless otherwise stated. If an OEM wants to release an "OC" version or a customer overclocks it that has nothing to do with Nvidia.

jdotjdot7
07-10-2012, 07:58 PM
Not really. Nvidia sets specs for these which is what they are sold as unless otherwise stated. If an OEM wants to release an "OC" version or a customer overclocks it that has nothing to do with Nvidia.

Well yeah, but I remember when buying my G75, i saw an advertisement when comparing the 670m and the 660m and Nvidia claimed the GTX series was 40% faster than GT cards, which is obviously not the case

xeromist
07-10-2012, 09:37 PM
Well yeah, but I remember when buying my G75, i saw an advertisement when comparing the 670m and the 660m and Nvidia claimed the GTX series was 40% faster than GT cards, which is obviously not the case

I'm not sure the context of what you saw but often they are referring to things like tessellation performance or improvement in a specific game. I'm not saying they don't distort the truth to make sales but they almost always have appropriate disclaimers to ensure it isn't an outright lie.

Regardless, you can only compare stock reference cards with respect to marketing publications unless they are explicitly making an overclocking comparison. Your 3D mark and the 650 guy's 3D mark are irrelevant to the 40% claim.

Zygomorphic
07-11-2012, 12:30 AM
I'm not sure the context of what you saw but often they are referring to things like tessellation performance or improvement in a specific game. I'm not saying they don't distort the truth to make sales but they almost always have appropriate disclaimers to ensure it isn't an outright lie.

Regardless, you can only compare stock reference cards with respect to marketing publications unless they are explicitly making an overclocking comparison. Your 3D mark and the 650 guy's 3D mark are irrelevant to the 40% claim.

Very true! The GTX cards are usually judging 3D mark in various versions to get the highest % increase claim that is not a bald-faced lie. Also, read the little disclaimers, sometimes they cheat a little and add RAM, or do something else (at least, Apple does). Real gaming performance is better judged by notebookcheck.net, who gives the ranges of results turned in by various computers with various processors and cards. They also post benchmark results.