660m or 670m - need gaming benchmarks

[noneone]

Hi all!

notebookcheck.com

clearly shows the 660m slower than the 670m (10 to 20%) and 30% slower than the 675m. Yes. I know the 660m uses less power, is cooler, newer platform, and can be overclocked a bunch, but, the 670M can be OC too. Of course, the 680M is tons faster than even the 675M, and is the card to get for the most power, but, alas, not for Asus G75.


I currently have alienware m17x Dual gtx 280m SLI. I'm considering G75VW with a 660M ($1200 USD, Best Buy) G75 with a 670M (Tigerdirect, $1500), or an MSI GT70 "maxed out" $2500 G680. I would rather get (probably get more longevity) a G75 for $1200 now, and then a G7x for $1200 next year, but, the 680M is tempting.


I need to get a better handle on how fast the 660M really is right now.


SO, it would help me if you all could post some FPS for games. I am MOST interested in WoW at 1080P at max settings, and for BF3, at max settings.

If I could get some real world 670M VS 660M gaming FPS benches that would help me out.

Thanks much for any help!

[noneone]

bignazpwns wrote:
NP. They also only list it as high. Not Ultra so that mans either they just put some random numbers in a template or some how traveled back in time to run wow since ultra has been around for a long time. Also most people don't know that with 5.04 they did some graphic updates in terms of settings. They also don't tell you if they were sitting in a corner or looking at the ground. My results are what you get sitting in org on a high pop server during peek hours or in the middle of a 24m or 40m bg in all the aoe they stuff you care about.

My guess big is they keep the lower res and settings so that folks can compare to tests they ran 3 years ago.

[Hi2uHorde]

Which GPU would people suggest for gaming? I know one runs hotter than the other but I want the one that will give me the best benchmarks either overclocked or not. I don't mind overclocking because it will always be on a NotePal X3 and the venting on the laptop itself is really good from what I've read so temperature shouldn't be an issue and if it doesn't become too hot I can always take it down a notch.

[bignazpwns]

Ok i can help you with the wow part of this. Game can be played on a piece of paper however over the years we got some new eye candy with it and most recent was SSAO in patch 5.04.

Now i have a G75 and a i have bolth the GTX 660m and GTX 670m and i played around with both since the patch and here is what i seen. Bolth cards were overclocked and these are very common clocks. The GTX 670m can go a little higher the GTX 660m can go up about another 400mhz without any more volt mods.

When i did this i used the same drivers both were on fresh win 7 installs with fresh wow installs.

Res. 1920X1080
v sync . off
multisampling 8X
texture filtering 16x
protected textured, enabled
SSAO, high
All settings on Ultra
DX11

Game is totally maxed out. On average the GTX 660m was getting about 5-10fps higher. GTX 660m never went under 48fps and during raids typically 60+ "I tank i'm right in the middle of it all" However i did see that the 660m handled DX11 a little better then the 670m. But this is a given as the 670m is fermi and the 660m is kepler.

AOE the 670m bogged down a little faster then the 660m when there were heavy spell effects. Both cards never went under the 45fps mark ever even in 40man bg's but the 670m dose not seem to like heavy spell effects as much as the 660m.

Some of the fire and water effects look a tad cleaner on the 660m i did some side by side screen shots of the water and fire and the 660m looks better. You will never know from playing the game until you get 2 screen shots side by side but i will point that out but then again Fermi is a few years old now and Kepler is the latest so thats a given it will have slightly better picture quality.


To be honest with you the cards are pretty close in real world gaming performance when you start overclocking. Both can easily match the GTX 675m preformace i been seeing a few GTX 660m's run at 1,300mhz on the core no problem with no volt mods but its still to early to say if this is a common oc or some of the higher ones my 660m will run a little over 1400 on the core without a volt mod. Overclocking on kepler scales pretty good better then fermi.

Take those bench's with a grain of salt . 9 times out of 10 the results are way off of what you should be getting. Its good for a idea but don't take the numbers to serious. Bone stock clocks on the GTX 660m i found my self getting some higher numbers in games then what were listed and overclocked they are much higher. Also drivers can make or break some games. They don't run the same drivers for all their test on all the same systems so they can affect the fps pretty good i had some drivers that would get about 15fps less in wow then the ones i use now.

You will be happy with the 660m. Overclock it to 1100mhz and it really shows its teeth and in my G75 temps never went over 71c after a few hours of burn in. Its newer tech and future drivers should help get a slight performance boost out of it.

But as for wow. Given a equal battle field the GTX 660m is a better card. I ran both cards overclocked to the normal clocks everyone who has them runs at and the GTX 660m ran faster and handled heavy spell effects better. Also the new SSAO hit the GTX 670m harder then the 660m and that's the newest graphical update so i would just go with the GTX 660m.

Zygomorphic wrote:
1080P WOW - I would assume so, since Notebookcheck.net says maxed out for the 660M.

Nah those settings are all over the place. Settings are only upto high when ultra is the max and the results are not even close to what should be for 1920X1080.Also with the addition of SSAO in patch 5.04 those results are now invalid

[Woofyhugger]

I have the 670M. Depending on raid size and what's going on, I happily get 60+fps in wow on ultra, 30+fps in BF3 on ultra multiplayer. I don't experience any "bog down in spell effects" the above guy says he experiences. I'm happy with my 192bit card. You're really not going to notice much difference between the two. And depending on what other crap you have on your machine, or running at the same time as gaming, your mileage will vary.

[AlanMcKinnon]

I'm gonna throw a couple of inquiries in here as well.

On a 670m, with NCP Ambient Occlusion on and Texture quality set to High Quality, at 1920x1080 with V-Sync/Triple Buffering on,and all in-game settings at ultra, what FPS should I be pulling on games like CoD2, Bioshock, DA: Origins, and Mass Effect 1?

[noneone]

AlanMcKinnon wrote:
I'm gonna throw a couple of inquiries in here as well.

On a 670m, with NCP Ambient Occlusion on and Texture quality set to High Quality, at 1920x1080 with V-Sync/Triple Buffering on,and all in-game settings at ultra, what FPS should I be pulling on games like CoD2, Bioshock, DA: Origins, and Mass Effect 1?

Hi!

Do you have a G75VW yet? If so, could you post YOUR numbers for the games you asked about? Perhaps others will share as well.

Thanks!

[AlanMcKinnon]

I do own a G75, but my numbers are not as they should be, if my understanding is correct.

I max out at about 40fps on ME, drop between 40-50 during any action on CoD2, max out at 30fps on Dragon Age, and fluctuate wildly between 30 and 60fps on Bioshock.

Based on what I've read, I should be pushing at least 60fps on all of those games with no issues whatsoever.

[ForCeV]

I don't know why people think about overclock, and low voltage.... Simply, overclocking for laptop isn't good idea Plus 128bit vs 192 bit differences is depends on a resolution... When you want to play full HD go 670m even this is old generations fermi.... It's way faster anyway....Don't look over the overclocking even Asus G series has good cooling system...We don't know when u r GP card has gone(like problem) while you r playing games with overclock....Don;'t you afraid if gp card has problem?? It would be able to avoid warranty... You should pay for fixing also.. improvements through overclocking in your gaming experience will be just about 4~8FPS....However, if you want to save money too. go 660m.. and if you feel slow.. then overclocking with 660m. I just want to tell you one thing that you don't think about performance gpu only.. think about warranty either.... That's the one I would say it...

[noneone]

ForCeV wrote:
I don't know why people think about overclock, and low voltage.... Simply, overclocking for laptop isn't good idea Plus 128bit vs 192 bit differences is depends on a resolution... When you want to play full HD go 670m even this is old generations fermi.... It's way faster anyway....Don't look over the overclocking even Asus G series has good cooling system...We don't know when u r GP card has gone(like problem) while you r playing games with overclock....Don;'t you afraid if gp card has problem?? It would be able to avoid warranty... You should pay for fixing also.. improvements through overclocking in your gaming experience will be just about 4~8FPS....However, if you want to save money too. go 660m.. and if you feel slow.. then overclocking with 660m. I just want to tell you one thing that you don't think about performance gpu only.. think about warranty either.... That's the one I would say it...

Hi thanks for your thoughts and claims. Do you have any benchmarks to share? You say an overclocked 660M only gets 4 to 8 more fps. This thread isn't really about overclocking, we're asking for people with real systems and real games to share their numbers, but would be great if you could share YOUR system both overclocked and not overclocked so we could see that difference. ON THESE GAMES.

The problem is the standard sites (e.g. notebookcheck) often do NOT have the games at the resolutions people are interested in, and / or they have only benchmarked one or two machines.

I am hoping, given there are a bunch of folks here that DO play games, and DO have either the 660m or the 670m, that I'll be able to see some actual FPS for the games I am interested in. It would also be nice of some folks who have overclocked their systems post some benchmarks, but, not part of my origional request. Different games will respond to clock speeds, archetecture / cuda cores differently.

You can see this even on notebook check. The performance difference between the 670m and the 660m varries a bunch depending on what games you are looking at, or if you're using 3dmark, etc.. That is why I was hoping to get some specific examples here.

Thanks!

[ForCeV]

Do you need a screen shot to compare it?? here is the result..


27FPS is the 770 1650 overclock. 23 fps is the default clock. The temperture is 3"C differences.