-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
gtx 780m vs 870m
- Thread starter treepop
- Start date
From what I'm reading the new 800 series of mobile graphics chips are rebrands of Kepler chips for the higher end stuff.
GTX 880M = Rebrand of Kepler GTX 780M
GTX 870M = Rebrand of Kepler GTX 770M
The GTX 850M and GTX 860M should feature the new Maxwell architecture however.
GTX 880M = Rebrand of Kepler GTX 780M
GTX 870M = Rebrand of Kepler GTX 770M
The GTX 850M and GTX 860M should feature the new Maxwell architecture however.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Location
- Birmingham, UK
Lvcoyote is right, only the mid-low end range have been upgraded to Maxwell - albeit still are 28nm (http://www.anandtech.com/show/7834/nvidia-geforce-800m-lineup-battery-boost - not sure why they chose two GPUs to be named 860M). I think battery boost is new on the whole lineup, which I believe cuts the GPU horsepower when FPS reaches above a threshold to save battery power. Other than that, the high end have just had a clock boost over their predecessors.
The GTX870M will probably be around the same performance if left at stock to the GTX780M - the former has a ~14% higher clock speed but has ~14% less cores, along with a smaller memory bus.
The GTX870M will probably be around the same performance if left at stock to the GTX780M - the former has a ~14% higher clock speed but has ~14% less cores, along with a smaller memory bus.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2002
- Location
- Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
OEMs require new models of mobile GPUs every year so NVidia and AMD have to accommodate them by rebranding the last lineup. That's it.
OP
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2003
- Thread Starter
- #6
http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-870M-vs-GeForce-GTX-780M
Am I reading this right? The 870m is only 10% less powerful than the 780m?! If that's the case then it's a hell of a bang for the buck. I can find a nice laptop with 870m for $1300 all day! Additionally this bodes well for the new razer blade laptop.
Am I reading this right? The 870m is only 10% less powerful than the 780m?! If that's the case then it's a hell of a bang for the buck. I can find a nice laptop with 870m for $1300 all day! Additionally this bodes well for the new razer blade laptop.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2002
The 780M was a decent improvement over the 680M even though they were initially thought to be similar the 770m ended up being closer performance to the 680m then the 780m was and offered much better power efficiency.
So even through optimizations and tweaks one would expect the 870m to be closely performing to the 780m by just past experiences.
And likely the 870m will use much less power to get there.
History doesn't always repeat itself but more often then not with technology they follow the same course of actions year to year esp nvidia.
So even through optimizations and tweaks one would expect the 870m to be closely performing to the 780m by just past experiences.
And likely the 870m will use much less power to get there.
History doesn't always repeat itself but more often then not with technology they follow the same course of actions year to year esp nvidia.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Location
- Birmingham, UK
I use notebookcheck to compare benchmarks of GPUs as it usually has a fair amount of comparisons. It shows around 15% slower than the 780m in most benchmarks. You always pay much more for the flagship GPU even if it isn't that much faster. The laptops with the 780m have mostly been replaced by 880m's now, which are at similar price points. I'm surprised by how much VRAM the 880m has though, 8GB!
OP
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2003
- Thread Starter
- #9
I guess what I'm thinking is 15% is like...the difference between 70 and 60 fps. Or less AA. Not super duper better, but better. Good to know. This thing could probably play any game for the next 4 years at High settings in 1080p....maybe. Eventually I would have to turn off AA and shadows etc etc, but I could game on the sucker for a long while.
Stupid question. How would a i7 4700 paired with a gtx 870m compare to the rig in my sig? I would assume better?
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Location
- Birmingham, UK
That's true, I doubt you'd notice it in most cases.
I don't think it's stupid at all - I think it's interesting to see how far behind in performance laptop GPUs are compared to their desktop counterparts. In both cases you'd assume the game would be GPU bottlenecked rather than CPU.
The 870M benchmarks I can find are here: http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-870M.107792.0.html, they put it at around 10-15% on average slower than the GTX660 TI in games. I am using the 660 TI as the 480 wasn't available to compare to here.
Now comparing the 660 TI to the 480, the 480 is also 10-15% slower than the stock TI (http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/asus_geforce_gtx_660_ti_directcu_top_review,16.html - note I'm looking at the reference TI rather than the card mentioned for this review).
So looking at this I'm going to say your system would be about on par with a 870m gaming laptop, which shows how well your card is holding up in terms of modern games performance.
I don't think it's stupid at all - I think it's interesting to see how far behind in performance laptop GPUs are compared to their desktop counterparts. In both cases you'd assume the game would be GPU bottlenecked rather than CPU.
The 870M benchmarks I can find are here: http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-870M.107792.0.html, they put it at around 10-15% on average slower than the GTX660 TI in games. I am using the 660 TI as the 480 wasn't available to compare to here.
Now comparing the 660 TI to the 480, the 480 is also 10-15% slower than the stock TI (http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/asus_geforce_gtx_660_ti_directcu_top_review,16.html - note I'm looking at the reference TI rather than the card mentioned for this review).
So looking at this I'm going to say your system would be about on par with a 870m gaming laptop, which shows how well your card is holding up in terms of modern games performance.
OP
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2003
- Thread Starter
- #11
awesome info sir! Thank you!
Similar threads
