AMD Radeon HD 6750M VS 6770M

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by yusukeaoki, Oct 24, 2011.

  1. yusukeaoki macrumors 68030

    yusukeaoki

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    #1
    Hi guys,
    So just out of curiosity, what do you guys think of power difference between these GPUs?
    They are both still 1GB from previous model (Early and Late 2011).

    15in seems to only have the 6750M with 512MB but high end of 15in and 17in got the 6770M 1GB.

    Would there be difference in performance?
     
  2. wikus macrumors 68000

    wikus

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Location:
    Planet earth.
    #2
    Difference is about 10% in speed. The 6770 is basically a 6750 with a higher clock speed and more ram.

    I have the high end 15" with the 6750 (got it about a month ago), im not really bummed about this.
     
  3. dusk007 macrumors 68040

    dusk007

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    #3
    Over-clocking the 6750M to 6770M speeds should be real easy. Which means there isn't really any difference.
    The 1 GB VRAM may help in some situations but 512mb isn't to bad either. 256mb was bad.
     
  4. bigpoppamac31 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #4
    This is the GPU specs that should have come with the early 2011 MBP. Why they had the low end 15" with only 256MB of graphics ram is beyond me. I have the the low end 15" (early 2011) which I got just a couple months ago so I'll just wait and maybe upgrade with the next revision or the one after.
     
  5. MarcBook macrumors 6502a

    MarcBook

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    Location:
    Jersey, Channel Islands
    #5
    Yeah, I overclock my 6750M with MSI Afterburner and it gives a lovely speed boost, beyond 6770M speed (780 MHz vs 725 MHz). Seems silly that manufacturers can increase the stock speed and call it a new card.

    EDIT: I'm referring to when using Boot Camp and Windows 7, of course.
     
  6. Gurutech macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
  7. spagthorpe macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    #7
    I guess my only question is whether there is under what situation would 512MB not be sufficient and 1GB would. I think the price point of the lower 15" is really the sweet spot if there isn't a real drawback.
     
  8. spacepower7 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    #8
    I'll add another question. Besides games, what apps will really benefit with the newer 2.2 512MB GPU vs the early 2.0 256 GPU. Apple motion, FCPX, and maybe aperture? Adobe stuff won't show a major difference for my needs.

    I was thinking of getting a cheap 2.0 early 2011 refurb to hold me over until Ivy Bridge MBP and iMacs with USB 3.
     
  9. dusk007 macrumors 68040

    dusk007

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    #9
    That depends on what you do. For some CAD work or stuff 1GB maybe a big deal better.
    For games it is often more a question of settings that the extra GB gives you.
    Most engines are pretty good in keeping the necessary VRAM down but that usually means that you are either not allowed at all to select certain detail settings or they come with a big hit in performance.
    Highend Desktop GPUs take today something of around 4GB VRAM with part of it in the main system memory if that one is big enough. Especially in huge outdoor levels like the tank trailer they show of BF3 1GB might give you much better framerates and less texture popping up out of nowhere.
    Usually most people don't notice it if they don't have "enough" VRAM. But mostly because Developers are good at hiding it. What is really ever enough. The 256MB were definitely already too little. Some minimum req. today ask for 512mb min. I still got a 256MB 330M and I still remember people saying yeah you don't need any more for such a slow GPU in this forum. The truth is yeah it works okay but there are some setting that you turn on and your 50fps avg goes down to 30 while in most benches it cuts performance only by some 5 fps. It is really a matter of settings and it if the trend continues one should also look at what the Game devs. look out for. If most people run 1GB VRAM or more in 2 years, 512mb might be where 256mb is now and you will optimze the setting of a new game and find that you could do better with that extra 512mb.

    With all current games I wouldn't worry about it. 512MB is definitely enough to get some good detail settings and for highest settings the GPU won't do anyway. I think the 1 GB is definitely not worth the price today.
    In the future it remains to be seen what part IGP, Consoles play and how the VRAM hunger grows.
     
  10. Meever macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    #10
    Can you overclock the 6770 for higher performance? Or is the 6750 a underclocked 6770?
     
  11. spagthorpe macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    #11
    If you don't game, or much anyway, do you think it would matter? I play some old stuff sometimes, like Half Life 2. Maybe goofing around with Minecraft too, but that's pretty much all CPU.

    My biggest concern might be driving 1 or 2 Thunderbolt displays in the future. I'd like to be able to.

    In all, I think the upgrades are nice. I'm guessing the faster clock speeds of the CPU and GPU are going to make the battery life even worse though.
     
  12. Erasmus macrumors 68030

    Erasmus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    #12
    I don't care about the battery life, I can get over 8 hours when i'm using integrated GPU. What I am a little frustrated by is that Apple don't make a power adapter that is actually capable of supplying enough power. The MBP can use over 90W when you're really pushing the CPU and GPU, but the power brick tops out at 85W. Which means the battery has to take up the slack.
     
  13. ct2k7 macrumors 603

    ct2k7

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Location:
    London or Florida
    #13
    Could do, but the impact would not be huge, the CPUs have the same power rating. I just saw an i7-3000K with a TDP of 77W :eek:
     
  14. spagthorpe macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    #14
    Well, screw it. I went ahead and ordered the 2.4GHz 15", hi-res, 750GB 7200rpm.

    I could debate on it forever, or just get it and know I won't have to question what it will do.
     
  15. jjahshik32 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #15
    But if you think about it, you can overclock the 6770 accordingly and it'll still be 15% faster, lol.
     
  16. MoonshineSG macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2011
    #16

    Why are we talking about 512Mb ? My MBP early 2011 (purchased about 1.5 months ago) reports 1024Mb VRAM for the 6750M and 512 for Intel... You're not comparing Intel with AMD....
     
  17. shardey macrumors 6502a

    shardey

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2010
    #17
    The new low end 15" with the 6750 has 512 ram where the higher end 15" and 17" has the 1024mb 6770
     
  18. Prodo123 macrumors 68020

    Prodo123

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    #18
    A more interesting question would be the difference between a 2.2Ghz and a 2.4/2.5Ghz processor.

    Geekbench score for 2.2Ghz, HD 6750M w/ 1GB VRAM, 8GB RAM: 11,000
     
  19. wikus macrumors 68000

    wikus

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Location:
    Planet earth.
    #19
    +1

    Altough, its again about 10-15% increase. Nothing substantial, but rather marginal.
     
  20. joecool99 Suspended

    joecool99

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    #20
    6770m vs 6750m oveclocking macbook pro 2011 late

    i want to know this too. anybody knows what is the difference in default clock on 6750m vs 6770m ?

    does the 6770m be better quality chip that can be overclocked even more then 6750m ?

    lot of people report 6750m overclocked to 800/950 (gpu/memory). the default clock i think is 640/750 (not sure)

    theoretically would 6770 manage around 880/1000 ?
     
  21. weemanpow3, Oct 26, 2011
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2011

    weemanpow3 macrumors 6502

    weemanpow3

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    #21
    Reading around on the net and this is what I gathered. From searching google 6770m clock and notebookcheck.net So it's the same card just different default clocks?

    6750m - 600/900 (default) 800/950 (OC Stable)
    6770m - 725/800 (1600 - data double)? (Default) 800/950 (OC Stable)
     
  22. Chasetastic macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    #22
    Bump, I'd like to see this thread continued...
     
  23. Quinoky macrumors regular

    Quinoky

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Location:
    Groningen, Netherlands
    #23
    Geekbench score for the 2.4GHz, HD 6770 and 8GB DDR3-1600 RAM (updated from the one in the Geekbench thread): 11613

    Difference might not be huge, but hey, every little speed gain is nice to have isn't it? Guess I just got lucky that I needed an upgrade exactly when it was slightly bumped. :)
     
  24. Prodo123 macrumors 68020

    Prodo123

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    #24
    http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/511016
    http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/508989

    I'd say the performance increase is nominal at best, with a Geekbench score bump of ~300 points on the processor itself and the 2.2Ghz beating the 2.4Ghz in more than 4 categories. The 600 point gain was from the 1600Mhz RAM, not the CPU.
    Conclusion? The CPU alone doesn't justify the upgrade. The GPU does though.
     
  25. Quinoky macrumors regular

    Quinoky

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Location:
    Groningen, Netherlands
    #25
    Granted, upgrading from an early 2011 MBP to a late 2011 MBP would simply be plain stupid. I upgraded from a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo iMac, however, which as you could imagine is a world of difference. At the end of the day I'm just glad to see Apple nicely keeping up with updating their MBP line, even if this means just a very slight difference in performance.
     

Share This Page