Advice before purchasing an MSI

So recently I've been looking at picking up a gaming laptop and after considering most of my choices it seems like the GT683DXR is going to be my best bet but I am having trouble on deciding on whether I should get the GT683DXR or the Malibal Lotus. With the configuration I made for the lotus I was able to get the Intel® Core™ i7-2820QM, 8MB L3 Cache, 2.30-3.40GHz which is, from what I've seen, a faster CPU and I was able to get the whole configuration for $1,699 although the lotus would have the 560m instead of the 570m. Would the faster processor be worth the extra $200 or so?
So with the trade off of the faster processor for the slower graphics card, which notebook would perform better as far as gaming goes? Also, the MSI would come with the turbo feature which from what I understand, overclocks the CPU for you to 2.9ghz. Would the Lotus come with a feature that would overclock it to 3.4ghz? If not how would you use the CPU to its full potential i.e the 3.40ghz? I'm sorry if some of this doesnt make sense as I'm pretty new to the whole computer thing and I'm still trying to get a basic understanding of things before I make such a big purchase. Thanks in advance for your help and sorry for the wall of text.

 

Graphics ALWAYS trumps CPU in notebooks. Even more so when it comes to sandy bridge.

The clock frequency range is turbo and is handled by the CPU itself. The MSI turbo feature allows you to apply a small overclock to the graphics card.

The 570M is a good bit faster than the 560M.

 

Yep, always go GPU. You'll reach a celing on your GPU far before you do for your CPU, at least in terms of gaming. And you can always upgrade a CPU, a GPU on the other hand is a different story.

 

Yeah, a new CPU is a case of removing part of a heatsink, swapping the CPUs around and applying thermal paste before reseating the heatsink.

The GPU upgrade route you need to research heatsink compatibility, bios compatibility, heat output, actually finding the graphics card for a reasonable cost and finding a supplier you can trust.

CPUs are far more robust and simple, they are just the chip and a package, there is WAY more to go wrong on a graphics card.

 

Do you know how much faster it is? Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any benchmarks for the 570m since its not in any laptops yet (as far as I know).

 

Upgrading the CPU brings me to my next question: How difficult is it to upgrade the CPU on the MSI? I've also considered getting a sager but I'm not exactly sure the difference between the two.

 

the 570m should be VERY close to 6970m

or even faster

 

Maybe once overclocked (I expect them to OC well) but at stock they have a 12.5% shader cut and 25% memory bandwidth/ROP cut compared to the 480M, considering the 6970 is around 5-10% slower than the 485M then I would expect the 6970 to come out ahead.

 

It is very easy to upgrade the CPU on thiis laptop.

They have designed easy access from the panel on the bottom of the laptop

 

For gaming the Intel® i7-2630QM is plenty, but the nVIDIA GeForce GTX 570M w/1.5GB GDDR5 is substantially faster than the nVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M 192bit w/1.5GB GDDR5.

In addition the MSI GT680DX will hold two hard drives where the Sager and the Lotus will not. I would strongly recommend getting a Solid State Drive in your primary bay and keeping the 7,200 RPM drive as your secondary for storage. Then put your OS and all your applications and games on the SSD, and all your data on the 7,200 RPM drive.

For perspective, your processor, memory and graphics card will score in the low 7's in the WEI (Windows Experience Index) and your 7,200 RPM drive will score 5.9. Put the SSD in and it will score 7.7, moving your hard drive from the slowest component, to the fastest. Once you use an SSD you will never go back!

The SSD is a much smarter upgrade than the CPU.

 

The 570m is a cut-down 580m, so your base starts a little low.

I believe that benchmarks were actually posted from engineering samples and beta drivers... the 3dmark vantage resuls were pretty much dead-on for 6970m. (P12600 and 12800 or so)
Note, no actual game benchmarks have been posted yet... and of course we are talking engineering samples and beta drivers.

As compared to the 560m the results were easily 20+% better than the 560m in the same tests...

I'd expect the 570m to pretty directly compete with a 6970m...
being slightly faster in some things and slightly slower in another.
I too expect the low-clocked 570m to overclock extremely well.

 

Agreed with Donald. You will hardly notice the diffrence between 2630QM and 2820QM. SSD will be more noticeable upgrade.

 

So what I'm getting is that upgrading the CPU wouldnt be worth the money compared to the improvement an ssd would be? How big of an SSD would I need to install the OS and a few games? Ive also noticed that the lotus and sager can be upgraded to the 6990M which from the research I've done, albeit a small amount, performs better then a 580m so I imagine it would perform better then the 570m. Would it be worth it to go with the lotus, satori or sager and get the upgraded GPU? How much of a performance difference is there between the 570m and the 6990m?

 

IMO a cpu upgrade in a notebook is not worth the cost at all. A ssd upgrade gives a very noticeable increase for a relatively low cost, so ssd for sure, at least 120gb for OS, programs and a few games. When the 570m gets real world user testing, it should be similar to the 6990.

 

Clock for clock and fully unlocked the two chips perform the same and the 570M is clocked identically to the 485M, so I think in games (especially with AA and a 1920x1080) it will lag behind.

 

Now hold on there... while I believe the 570m will be similar in performance to the 6970m, the 6990m and 580m will likely be a good 10-15% or so faster at stock clocks. While I am sure the 570m will be OC-able, so will the 6990. Then again, the 6990m-equipped clevo will likely be more expensive than the 570m-equipped MSI notebooks.


Meaker.. only time and some real benchmarks/games with updated drivers and release hardware can tell...

Since a 6970 scores a 12800ish P score in vantage with a 2720 behind it, (the 570m's 12800 score was with a 2630) I don't think this one is going to be as clear cut as you seem to think. In the only benchmark we have so far, the 6970m holds such a small advantage that it really doesn't matter.

Honestly, the stock clocks of the 570m are really not going to matter as the570ms are cut from the 580m. I sincerly doubt anyone with a 570m will have any trouble running them at 580m speeds. Especially given the cooling in the MSI machines they are slated for... I wouldn't be that surprised if MSI ships their 570m oc'd.

 

I don't have to wait.

I can see perfectly well what loosing the shaders do to it when comparing the 560ti to the 560.

So not only is this card loosing that performance, it's loosing ROPs and memory bandwidth too.

As for clocking we will have to wait and see how heavily the voltage in the chip is cut down and if the bios will allow 580m voltage levels.

 

So would I be better off going for something that has a 6990 or a 580 or would a 570m perform similar to those two?

 

If you want the absolute best, you need to stay with the AMD Radeon HD 6990M 256bit w/2GB GDDR5 or nVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M 256bit w/2.0GB GDDR5.

The nVIDIA GeForce GTX 570M w/1.5GB GDDR5 will be a notch under both of those, but, is an outstanding performer, especially for the price.

Right now, unless you really need the big hogs, the GTX 570M is the sweet spot.

 

So far, it looks like the 570m is only offered in two MSI models, a 15 and 17" to come out very soon. Do you know if it will be offered in more notebooks soon or as a separate MXM card? Thanks.

 

And the MSI is easily upgrade-able as far as the GPU's concerned?

 

More so than most.

 

People often forget... as long as memory bandwidth doesn't become a bottleneck, it doesn't make for a huge difference. 128-bit GDDR5 is more than enough bandwidth for 1080p as the 58xxm ATI cards have shown us.

The 570m is 192-bit GDDR5. As long as you are not exceeding 1080p (who games on a latop above 1080p??) I don't see that being a huge issue.

Note, the exception comes with heavy AA settings or other memory intensive things combined with 1080p+ resolutions.


Lower number of shaders most certainly lowers performance... however, I think we should expand upon the desktop comparison.

If we take alook at Benchmark Results: Crysis 2 : The Nvidia GeForce GTX 560 Review: Take Off Your Ti, you might notice the TI's 5-10% advantage over the 560 in crysis at 1080p. You will also note the desktop 6850 (the card the 6970m is most like) is notably LOWER than the GTX560 (non-TI).

Heck, take a look at the GTX 460 768... which is pretty much exactly an overclocked 570m... its within 10% of the 6850 (an overclocked 6970m) lowered memory bus and all at 1080p!

Given the results of using similar desktop cards AND the early results, I think we can conclude that the 570m will be pretty much dead-on the 6970m's performance, or at least could be moved up to stock 6970m performance with an almost-guaranteed overclock to 580m clocks.
(like I said, MSI might even do this stock)

I'd like to point out that the desktop GTX 460 768 (the closest desktop card o the 570m) is STILL among one of the "best price/performance" cards in existance. The 570m more than likely will get the SAME core/shader speed and HIGHER memory clocks than the desktop GTX 460 768.

 

I threw out Tom's benchmarks when I saw they used different driver sets for the two cards which contain performance enhancements, all the results for them are rubbish.

MSI have not put much of a boost in their recent turbo modes (560M has a 36mhz boost when the core can easily do more).

Again while you cite early results the drivers are for the same core as the 580m (and GTX560ti) so I don't see why you dont think the drivers are mature.

So yeah, no way are MSI going to slap a 100mhz core overclock on an already hotter card.

Also where the hell are you getting higher memory clocks from? The GTX460 has a 900mhz (3600 effective) clock while the 570M will have a 750mhz (3000 effective) memory clock.

So it will release with a slower core clock and slower memory clock.

EDIT: Also if you are not running 1080p with some AA/AF with a GTX570m/6970M you are doing it wrong.

 

So.. any information that disagrees with you, you toss out... got it.

MSI "Turbo mode" is a gimmick and we both know it.
The 560m OC's very well... (much better than 36MHz) so will the 570m.

The 570m is being artificially gimped to distance it from the 580. As evidenced by the desktop results... the shaders only add a 5-10% increase.
The 560m is far enough behind the 570m that they don't have to gimp anything. The 570m is already 20+% better, so they don't artificially downclock the 560m.

Nvidia's mobile drivers have this tendency to not perform well until a release driver is made. My 8700m and 9800m GS have both gained 10-20% with release driver.

I am confused... you say the 560m OCs well and the 570m won't?
Hotter as determined by who? What evidence are you backing this up with?
No indication of heat issues was given on the only pre-release results I saw.
The MSI laptops have very good cooling... I doubt they will have much in the way of problems. Let's face it... this is little more than guesswork on your part.

In addition, it appears your math skills are a bit off. Both nvidia and notebookcheck list the 570m@575 and the 580m@620.
620-575 = 45.
You just told us the 560m handles a 36MHz core OC without question.
I am going to stick to my guns on the 570m running at 620MHz core without issue.

notebookcheck lists 1150 for memory speed... (575 seemed too low for GDDR5 speeds)

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570M - Notebookcheck.net Tech

Perhaps they have the wrong numbers... but it depends which memory MSI matches with the card.

Nvidia lists 1500, (as compared to the desktop GTX 460's 1800) so I'll concede that point for now on the reference design until we have the actual numbers off the 570m release.

Some being the key word... most wise users will add eye candy until the card drops significantly in frame rate or drops below a certain point.

 

No I throw out benchmarks conducted without good practise like using the same driver set. You are the one clinging onto bad results that agree with your opinion.

My memory clock rates are taken straight from nvidia, 1150 is the shader speed, so someone has misread this as memory speed.

OC results are always luck of the draw, but don't forget the 6970 OCs as well.

If the core voltage is low enough, there wont be much overclocking headroom, these are harvested cores that could be of lower quality so not much can be said about OCing until people have the cards.

MSI will run these cards at stock, with a slight turbo boost mode, I don't know of any one releasing overclocked mobile cards.

Also you were making comparisons to the desktop 460 in terms of core and memory speeds as was I. Please note memory speed is completely independent of the memory used as the limiting factor with the mobile cards is the IMC and the core voltage being fed to it.

If you really want to argue specifications with someone then I suggest you might want to pick someone else since I ran the mobile specs chart when this web site first started and have been in touch with the mobile game since it properly started. That or get your facts straight.

570m = GF114 336 cores, 575/1150/1500, 192bit GDDR5, 24 ROPS
580m = GF114 384 cores, 620/1240/1500, 256bit GDDR5, 32 ROPS
460 (756mb desktop) = GF106 336 cores, 675/1350/1800, 192bit GDDR5, 24 ROPs

I suggest you get to know these figures before making any more claims.

 

I may not be as set in as you, but from several sources including notebook check i read that the 560 uses f116 not f114

 

It does use the GF116 (mobile 560), but how that relates to the 570, 580 or 460 desktop I have no idea.

 

Incorrect, you are throwing out ALL results and are making performance comparison and heat claims backed by nothing at all.

My point was the 6970m and 570m will be CLOSE. You are insisting on a difference which doesn't seem to fly on any evidence available.

The ONLY evidence we have are the prelim results given by MSI and the comparison of desktop cards.

Yet both of those indicate "in the ballpark" for 6970m and 570m.
Indeed this is the aim of Nvidia's release as well.

I conceded this ancillary point.

I do not doubt the 6970m's OCing capability at all. I am simply pointing out that the 570m is cut from the 580m wafer. It will have LOTS of headroom as the 570m is likely to be artificially underclocked to differentiate products.

So... 36MHz core turbo boost is inconsequential and 45MHz core boost is unlikely to work? Really?

Some manufacturers have a better and more reliable process than others and make chips stable at higher clock rates with less voltage. Of course, everyone who has actually played with memory clock rates knows this...

Oddly enough people with the 560m (including you) get the 560m memory up to 1800+ when the reference speed is 1250.

Are you REALLY telling me you believe the 570m's memory will have less OC potential than the 560m?

And yet, you have trouble with addition and subtraction...
You are not immune to mistakes and it seems you are unwilling to accept when you have made them. Your claims on relative performance are backed by nothing but your own ego.

The above are Nvidia reference designs and clocks. It is not uncommon for manufacturers to choose to use different ones. However, accepted for now as reference design.

And I suggest a little refresher on 2nd-grade math.
620-575 = 45.

 

I want to believe that the 570m is at least on par with 6970m :cry:

 

Well KernalPanic, if you are so adamant about the fact that all of these specifications are not set in stone yet, then what exactly is the point you are trying to make?
Your only argument against meakers is the fact that no real 570m has been benchmarked yet. Meaker can argue on that same basis, but instead he is arguing based on actual identical hardware and architectures which HAVE been benchmarked, a concept which you do not seem to understand whatsoever.

Things you say like this:

WHO? Why on earth are you looking for someone else to determine these things for you? Do you place that much trust in larger institutions like toms hardware simply because they have logos, a company face, etc?

This simply is a flawed way of thinking. Evidence of heat issues? You act as if prereleased "results" are the only concrete way to tell. While also arguing on the basis that nothing is concrete.

I'll give you evidence of heat. This is a VERY simply thing that you appear to have no conception of.

-The cards are the same architecture
-The 570m is a higher performance card than the 560m
-The 570m is a uniquely manufactured chip that does not undergo the binning AKA 'harvesting' process nearly as much as the 460m and 560m which have the exact same core

THEREFORE

-The 336 shader 570m is NOT any more efficient than the 192 shader 560m OR 460m PER SHADER.
-Unless Nvidia literally threw out 3/4 of the 570m chip...
-More voltage will be required to run it. More heat will be created. Less overclocking capability overall.

Here is what NOT to conclude, which I see you probably have
-the 75w TDP rating is a specification which every single card matches precisely, whether or not one has more shaders and voltage than the others.

The TDP is a rating, it is something the cards adhere to accurately or stay under.

Point is, most of the 560m are UNDER 75w.
Essentially, the 560m is an overclocked 460m, this core was binned for overclocking.
The 570m is a high end, more specialized chip.
I wouldn't be surprised if they wont overclock half as much as most 560m.

 

That is just about right

 

Ok I was trying to hold back a little in my last post but here goes.

Are you, or are you not claiming that that the GTX570M would launch with the same core and shader speed as the GTX460 desktop here.

Lets look at what I posted shall we:

Lets use this table I so carefully constructed for you now:

GTX460 desktop core clock = 675mhz
GTX570M core clock = 575mhz

Difference = 675mhz - 575mhz = 100mhz

Only a fool who did not understand memory buses or MXM standards would assume a memory frequency of either 575mhz (2300 data rate) or 1150 (4600 data rate).

If you actually bothered to look at other reviews such as this one:

AnandTech - NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 560: The Top To Bottom Factory Overclock

(You know, where driver sets are kept consistent) That show a 20% difference in performance. Thats just with a shader decrease and a SMALLER difference in clock speed than between the 570m and 580m and not even touching the reduced ROPs and memory bus.

The 580M chips will be the best chips on the wafer, the 570ms will be inferior quality chips running very likely at a lower voltage.

LOWER VOLTAGE = LOWER CLOCK

Now I already said that if the bios is similar to the 580m you may get higher voltages, and the chips may well overclock well, but it's hardly a forgone conclusion.

When did I say these would not happen, I said MSI are likely to have a small overclock profile built in, but 36mhz is not going to cover the gap in any decent way.

All of Nvidias chips come from TSMC, so what process are you talking about exactly? Some secret chips made on Intel's 32nm process?

Last time I checked the 560m had a 1V core voltage, this is fed into the IMC allowing higher clocks.

The GTX580M has a 0.87V core voltage, operates at lower core clocks (you don't see many 580ms hitting above 900mhz core do you?)

Well same applies to the IMC which is the limiting factor in Nvidia cards. The 570m is likely to have a lower core voltage (around 0.85v) so the IMC will have a lower voltage and the memory is likely to not hit higher clocks.

MSI have ALWAYS released their cards at stock frequencies as far as I am aware but with a turbo button with an ever reducing overclock %. I don't see the 570m having some huge turbo built in.

So feel free to carry on, but all your assumptions are based on faulty data.

 

Almost right mate, the 570m uses a die harvested version of the 580m chip.

560M uses a tweaked version of the 460M using some slight design changes it uses a bit less power per Mhz than the 460M. I don't believe it's 75W rating for a minute.

 

@meaker: newbie here...thus this mean, 570m and 560m is pretty much the same on performance? cause im planning to buy the msi with 570m.thanks..

 

No there is a large gap between the 560m and 570m.

Just don't expect it to be faster than a 6970M.

 

Hey Meaker, just noticed your signature change. Have you updated your CPU for i7? Maybe you can post some benchmark runs with new CPU in 16F2 review thread. +rep from me

 

Ah, well I have one on the way, expect it Tuesday

 

Nice.Will be witing for your updated benches Now you have completed your beast.

 

@meaker: oh ok..thanks for the help.

 

Quick heads up the MSI GT683DXR-423US is being released this week or next for sure. Companies started recieving them last week i found this out on the inside: mines already on preorder so be ready