GeForce GT 640M vs. 650M

[washburn]

ok so I might be getting one of the 2 but I'm not sure which..

I don't plan to do much gaming but maybe sometimes a little of Counter-Strike: Source or COD

and I think I will use the computer for like 3-4 years.

Is it worth paying more for the 650M and will it benefit other apps than gaming long term?

cheers

[Occamsrazr]

Is there 675MX available? I would highly recommend this

[washburn]

nope, this is for the 21" iMac only thoes 2 options

[Occamsrazr]

I do feel like the 675MX would be more performance

[MagicThief83]

Originally Posted by washburn

ok so I might be getting one of the 2 but I'm not sure which..

I don't plan to do much gaming but maybe sometimes a little of Counter-Strike: Source or COD

and I think I will use the computer for like 3-4 years.

Is it worth paying more for the 650M and will it benefit other apps than gaming long term?

cheers

I'm getting the higher-end 21.5" with the 650M. I think it's worth the extra premium, and yes, if you photo-edit and perform video/graphics work, the better GPU will definitely come in handy. I'm getting it because I plan on casual-moderate gaming, but don't want the 27" (although, comes with much more powerful GPUs, which would've been nice if they included similar options on the 21.5"). The 650M is a mid-range GPU, and you'll see about a 50-70% improvement over the 21.5" GPUs (6750M and 6770M) from last year. Check the link for a benchmark comparison of the 650M to the other GPUs, and their respective frame rates. You'll see the 650M trumps them all. Even in Counter-Strike, the 650M achieves 72 FPS on ultra settings and 1920 x 1080, while the 640M scores 49 FPS. If you plan on using the computer for 4 years and want to maintain optimal performance, get the 21.5" with the 650M period!

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Compute...s.13849.0.html

[marzer]

Originally Posted by washburn

ok so I might be getting one of the 2 but I'm not sure which..

I don't plan to do much gaming but maybe sometimes a little of Counter-Strike: Source or COD

and I think I will use the computer for like 3-4 years.

Is it worth paying more for the 650M and will it benefit other apps than gaming long term?

cheers

Yes. Its performs as much as 30% faster than 640M. If you have to ask, you need the pow-wer!

[MagicThief83]

Originally Posted by Occamsrazr

I do feel like the 675MX would be more performance

Did you not read the OP's post? He is limited to the 21.5" only. While I agree a 675MX is more powerful, it is unfortunately not included in the 21.5", heck, not even the 660M is, which is what they could have configured the higher-end 21.5" with. All in all, the 650M is a solid mid-range GPU.

[HurryKayne]

Are these cards on Mxm slots?

[Heresiarch]

From what I've seen on various benchmarking blogs and youtube videos, 650M on rMBP can run games like Skyrim and Arkham City very nicely on High settings (which means AA and Shadows are also on high), with 1920*1080 resolution, maintaining a smooth 50 - 60 FPS. It'll bog down to only around 20 FPS if you run on Ultra though.

On the other hand 640M seems to be quite a bit weaker. If you can accept only a 30 - 40 FPS on High settings or 50 - 60 only at Medium, then I guess you can go with the 640M.

[Zackmd1]

Originally Posted by Heresiarch

From what I've seen on various benchmarking blogs and youtube videos, 650M on rMBP can run games like Skyrim and Arkham City very nicely on High settings (which means AA and Shadows are also on high), with 1920*1080 resolution, maintaining a smooth 50 - 60 FPS. It'll bog down to only around 20 FPS if you run on Ultra though.

On the other hand 640M seems to be quite a bit weaker. If you can accept only a 30 - 40 FPS on High settings or 50 - 60 only at Medium, then I guess you can go with the 640M.

The thing to remember about finding benchmarks on the 640m is that there are two different 640m chips just like there are two different 650m chips. The more common 640m and thereby the more common benchmarks are being performed on last gen Kepler chips with ddr3 RAM. As far as I know and through some research the 640m and the 650m are the same chip. The difference being the 640m has about a 100mhz slower core clock. So in theory with the help of a few overclocking tools we should be able to meet or exceed the performance of the 650m with an overclocked 640m.

[MagicThief83]

Originally Posted by Zackmd1

The thing to remember about finding benchmarks on the 640m is that there are two different 640m chips just like there are two different 650m chips. The more common 640m and thereby the more common benchmarks are being performed on last gen Kepler chips with ddr3 RAM. As far as I know and through some research the 640m and the 650m are the same chip. The difference being the 640m has about a 100mhz slower core clock. So in theory with the help of a few overclocking tools we should be able to meet or exceed the performance of the 650m with an overclocked 640m.

But then, can't you over clock the 650M, thereby achieving the performance of a 660M? The 650M is superior to the 640M, even with the 640M over clocked. Those on the rMBP side have been able to successfully over clock the 650M, thereby increasing its performance.

[Zackmd1]

Originally Posted by MagicThief83

But then, can't you over clock the 650M, thereby achieving the performance of a 660M? The 650M is superior to the 640M, even with the 640M over clocked. Those on the rMBP side have been able to successfully over clock the 650M, thereby increasing its performance.

As far as I can tell it should be possible... The 660m's memory is clocked at 2000MHz while the 650m is clocked at 900MHz. But how is the 650m still superior to the 640m overclocked? Their the same chip as far as I can tell, just slower clock speeds.

[seble]

Also I swear the retina has more video ram, and the iMac only has 512mb, would that make a difference?

[Zackmd1]

Originally Posted by seble

Also I swear the retina has more video ram, and the iMac only has 512mb, would that make a difference?

Only at high resolutions. Newer games should play smoothly at 720p on the 21.5 while older games should be able to play at full 1080p.

[Bargle]

For the game the OP wants to play, the 640M will give him 50 FPS. So the 640M is fine and you will not notice any difference.

[GunZi]

im getting the 640M because i dont have all the money in the world

[Ice Dragon]

I mentioned this before though 512 MB of the 650M is in the non-retina MBP and the iMac is $300 less. I say go for it.

[Zackmd1]

Originally Posted by GunZi

im getting the 640M because i dont have all the money in the world

Exactly my reason! I'm a college student and my 2010 MacBook Air with 2gb ram just isn't cutting it any more now that I'm in a CAD design class...

[MagicThief83]

Originally Posted by Zackmd1

Only at high resolutions. Newer games should play smoothly at 720p on the 21.5 while older games should be able to play at full 1080p.

One question, don't console games runs at 720p and are capped at 30 FPS (by the way, what is the exact resolution of 720p e.g., 1000 x 300, etc.)? I'm totally fine with 720p for gaming, but would one notice a drastic decrease in visual quality by lowering the resolution? I used to game only on a PS3, but sold it, in favor of just gaming solely on the iMac for the occasional stint of gaming. Would the iMac's 650M run PC games better than their console counterparts? It seems to me that the 650M might even be able to handle newer games at 768p fluidly.

----------

Originally Posted by GunZi

im getting the 640M because i dont have all the money in the world

You can get the higher-end 21.5" with the 650M for $1399, with the educational discount. Not a bad price at all, and shouldn't break the bank.

----------

Originally Posted by Ice Dragon

I mentioned this before though 512 MB of the 650M is in the non-retina MBP and the iMac is $300 less. I say go for it.

What is the impact of extra VRAM on gaming performance (e.g., 512MB vs. 1GB)? Does it equate to extra FPS and faster loading of details, textures, etc.?

----------

Originally Posted by Zackmd1

As far as I can tell it should be possible... The 660m's memory is clocked at 2000MHz while the 650m is clocked at 900MHz. But how is the 650m still superior to the 640m overclocked? Their the same chip as far as I can tell, just slower clock speeds.

Because a base 650M is superior to a base 640M. In theory, an over clocked 650M will still be superior to an over clocked 640M. The 640M scores below the 10,000 mark on the 3D vantage benchmark, while the 650M scores a little above 10,000. Also, the 650M has a graphics clock of 900 MHz, while the 660M has a clock of 835 MHz. Technically speaking, the 650M should be able to achieve 660M performance with some tweaking-this isn't possible with the 640M.

[Zackmd1]

Originally Posted by MagicThief83

Because a base 650M is superior to a base 640M. In theory, an over clocked 650M will still be superior to an over clocked 640M. The 640M scores below the 10,000 mark on the 3D vantage benchmark, while the 650M scores a little above 10,000. Also, the 650M has a graphics clock of 900 MHz, while the 660M has a clock of 835 MHz. Technically speaking, the 650M should be able to achieve 660M performance with some tweaking-this isn't possible with the 640M.

Ah I see what your saying now. Really we would haft to wait tell people get their hands on one to see its true overclocking potential.

[Asgorath]

Originally Posted by Zackmd1

As far as I can tell it should be possible... The 660m's memory is clocked at 2000MHz while the 650m is clocked at 900MHz. But how is the 650m still superior to the 640m overclocked? Their the same chip as far as I can tell, just slower clock speeds.

Source? That 900MHz sounds more like a core clock speed, not memory clock speed.

[forty2j]

Bottom line, if you plan to use your GPU for anything more stressful than FarmVille, don't stick yourself with a 640M.

[joe-h2o]

Originally Posted by Asgorath

Source? That 900MHz sounds more like a core clock speed, not memory clock speed.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-...M.71887.0.html

The 650M's memory speed is 900 Mhz, it's clock speed is 735-850 MHz

The jump up to the faster cards really is quite a jump. The 650M is solidly mid-range.

[Zackmd1]

Originally Posted by Asgorath

Source? That 900MHz sounds more like a core clock speed, not memory clock speed.

650m

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-...M.71887.0.html

660m

http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-...M.71859.0.html

[icecoldart]

To be honest the 650m is still a slow card for a full hd resolution, it might be fine with 1440X900 or the 1680x1050 but not 1920.

It's still a laptop GPU so you will have to decrease some details to have fluid framerate at FHD.

If any gaming is considered, there's really only 2 options: 27 incher with 675mx or 680M build to order.