Sometimes it's hard to know how a mobile graphics processor will perform based on its name alone. Both AMD and Nvidia refer to their mobile solutions using branding very similar to their desktop parts. To help us nail down expectations of its fastest laptop GPUs, Nvidia sent over ten grand worth of Origin PC notebooks armed with GeForce GTX 780M, GeForce GTX 770M, and GeForce 765M cards.
I also wanted a bit of relativity, though. So I called up the folks at Eurocom for something comparable based on AMD's top-end graphics processor.

Origin PC recently unveiled its Genesis and Millennium cases, which were custom-designed for the company's gaming-oriented desktop PCs. Fortunately for us, though, Origin's Eon17-S uses Clevo’s P177SM chassis, which meant that Eurocom could send over a comparable system with a Radeon HD 8970M-based module with the same cooling system. An identical thermal solution is one more way we can give you benchmark results that are truly apples-to-apples.
Comparing Mobile GPUs
GPU-Z reports lower clock rates for Nvidia’s mobile GeForce modules than the manufacturer specifies, though that's likely a result of running at lower idle frequencies. Similarly, we had to load down the Radeon module with a 3D task to get its clock settings to show up at all.


A quick look at the GeForce GTX 780M’s specifications shows that it's derived from the same GK104 GPU used for several of Nvidia's desktop-oriented cards. Naturally, the company uses lower core and memory clock rates to bring wattage down to levels that are manageable in the confines of a notebook chassis.
In case you're not familiar with the name of Nvidia's GeForce GTX 760 Ti in the chart below, it's an OEM-rebrand of the GeForce GTX 670.
| Nvidia GeForce GTX 700-Series Specs | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GeForce GTX 780 | GeForce GTX 780M | GeForce GTX 770M | GeForce GTX 765M | GeForce GTX 760 Ti (670) | |
| Shaders | 2304 | 1536 | 960 | 768 | 1344 |
| Texture Units | 192 | 128 | 80 | 64 | 112 |
| Full Color ROPs | 48 | 32 | 24 | 16 | 32 |
| Graphics Clock MHz (Boost) | 863 | 823 | 811 | 850 | 915 |
| Texture Fillrate | 166 Gtex/s | 105.3 Gtex/s | 64.9 Gtex/s | 54.4 Gtex/s | 102.5 Gtex/s |
| Memory Clock | 1502 MHz | 1250 MHz | 1000 MHz | 1000 MHz | 1502 MHz |
| Memory Bus | 384-bit | 256-bit | 192-bit | 128-bit | 256-bit |
| Memory Bandwidth | 288 GB/s | 160 GB/s | 96 GB/s | 64 GB/s | 192 GB/s |
| Graphics RAM | 3 GB GDDR5 | 4 GB GDDR5 | 3 GB GDDR5 | 2 GB GDDR5 | 2 GB GDDR5 |
| Die Size | 561 mm² | 294 mm² | 221 mm² | 221 mm² | 294 mm² |
| Transistors (Billion) | 7.1 | 3.54 | 2.54 | 2.54 | 3.54 |
| Process Technology | 28 nm | 28 nm | 28 nm | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Price | $500 | ~$750 | ~$400 | ~$300 | ~$300 |
AMD’s Radeon HD 8970M is also the product of recycled naming, though more severely. Once upon a time, this exact configuration was called the Radeon HD 7970M, though it was based on the desktop Radeon HD 7870. AMD makes big cuts in power consumption by underclocking the Pitcairn GPU sitting on its flagship notebook module.
| AMD Radeon HD 8000-Series Specs | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Radeon HD 8970/7970 [280X] | Radeon HD 8970M | Radeon HD 7970M | Radeon HD 7870 | |
| Shaders | 2048 | 1280 | 1280 | 1280 |
| Texture Units | 128 | 80 | 80 | 80 |
| Full Color ROPs | 32 | 32 | 32 | 32 |
| Graphics Clock MHz (Boost) | 1000 (1050) [850/1000] | 850 (900) | 850 | 1000 |
| Texture Fillrate | 128 Gtex/s [109] | 68 Gtex/s | 68 Gtex/s | 80 Gtex/s |
| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz | 1200 MHz | 1200 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Memory Bus | 384-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit | 256-bit |
| Memory Bandwidth | 288 GB/s | 154 GB/s | 154 GB/s | 154 GB/s |
| Graphics RAM | 3 GB GDDR5 | 4 GB GDDR5 | 4 GB GDDR5 | 2 GB GDDR5 |
| Die Size | 352 mm² | 212 mm² | 212 mm² | 212 mm² |
| Transistors (Billion) | 4.3 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.8 |
| Process Technology | 28 nm | 28 nm | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Price | $400 | ~$500 | ~$500 | $200 |
Using the stats reported by GPU-Z, this is how our hardware and software is being benchmarked. We had to make a couple of small changes to Eurocom's notebook as it was delivered, though we didn't have to mess with its cooling system. We’re relying on both Origin PC's and Eurocom’s best assembly efforts to show off the highest possible performance from each piece of hardware.
| Test System Configuration | |
|---|---|
| CPU | Intel Core i7-4930MX: 3 to 3.9 GHz, 8 MB Shared L3 Cache, FCPGA946 |
| Motherboard, Chassis | Clevo P177SM: Intel HM87 Express, 4 x DIMM, 3 x SATA/2 x mSATA/1 x eSATA 6Gb/s, HDMI, Dual DisplayPort, 17.3" FHD 1080p |
| Cooling System | Dual-blower air: 2 x CPU pipes, 2 x GPU pipes, 1 x GDDR5 pipe |
| RAM | Kingston 99U5469-035.A00LF (8 GB) 2 x 4 GB DDR3-1333 CAS 9-9-9-24, Dual-Channel Mode |
| Nvidia Graphics | Nvidia GeForce GTX 780M: 771-797 MHz GPU, 4 GB GDDR5-5000 Nvidia GeForce GTX 770M: 706-797 MHz GPU, 3 GB GDDR5-4008 Nvidia GeForce GTX 765M: 797-863 MHz GPU, 2 GB GDDR5-4008 |
| AMD Graphics | AMD Radeon HD 8970M: 900 MHz GPU, 4 GB GDDR5-5000 |
| Hard Drive | Samsung 840 Pro MZ-7PD256, 256 GB SSD |
| Sound | Integrated HD Audio |
| Network | Realtek 802.11b/g/n + Bluetooth v4.0+LE Combo Half Mini-Card module |
| Power | Chicony A12-230P1A: 100-240 VAC to 19.5 VDC, 11.8 A |
| System Software | |
| OS | Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium x64 |
| Nvidia Graphics | Nvidia GeForce Mobile 332.21 WHQL |
| AMD Graphics | AMD Catalyst Mobility 13.12 |
The top two GPUs in this line-up are capable of pushing playable performance at far higher resolutions than the 1920x1080 supported by each notebook’s panel. We’ve also seen a couple gamers tie their notebooks to larger displays. Fortunately, all four GPUs are able to fully implement the P177SM’s DisplayPort outputs.

StarTech's MDP2DVID DisplayPort-to-dual-link DVI adapter supplies the bandwidth to feed our aging Dell 30" screen its native 2560x1600 resolution. DisplayPort-enabled QHD monitors might be more modern, but QHD is still a step down in resolution from this behemoth.
| 3D Game Benchmarks | |
|---|---|
| Arma 3 | Version 1.08.113494, 30-Sec. Fraps "Infantry Showcase" Test Set 1: Standard Preset, No AA, Standard AF Test Set 2: Ultra Preset, 8x FSAA, Ultra AF |
| Battlefield 4 | Version 1.0.0.1, DirectX 11, 100-Sec. Fraps "Tashgar" Test Set 1: High Quality Preset, No AA, 4X AF, SSAO Test Set 2: Ultra Quality Preset, 4X MSAA, 16X AF, HBAO |
| Far Cry 3 | V. 1.05, DirectX 11, 50-sec. Fraps "Amanaki Outpost" Test Set 1: High Quality, No AA, Standard ATC., SSAO Test Set 2: Ultra Quality, 4x MSAA, Enhanced ATC, HDAO |
| F1 2012 | Steam version, in-game benchmark Test Set 1: High Quality Preset, No AA Test Set 2: Ultra Quality Preset, 8x AA |
| Metro: Last Light | Steam version, Built-In Benchmark, "Frontline" Scene Test Set 1: DX11, Med Quality, 4x AF, Low Blur, No SSAA, No Tesselation, No PhysX Test Set 2: DX11, High Quality, 16x AF, Normal Blur, SSAA, Tesselation Normal, No PhysX |
| Tomb Raider | Steam version, Built-In Benchmark Test Set 1: High Quality Preset (8x AF, FXAA), Motion Blur, Screen Effects Test Set 2: Ultimate Quality, (16x AF, FXAA), Tesselation, TressFX |
| Synthetic Benchmarks | |
| 3DMark Professional | Version 1.1, SystemInfo 4.17.0.0, Fire Strike Benchmark (Extreme Off/On) |
F1 2012 and Tomb Raider are the only two games in today’s test suite not endowed with an FPS-over-time graph, so this unlikely pair gets shoved together here.
The first test, F1 2012, is primarily bottlenecked by system memory at its High Quality preset, though the Radeon HD 8970M appears to suffer from a little of its own overhead, dragging the score a bit lower. But the fact that every GPU achieves high frame rates alleviates my concern over that discrepancy.


The GeForce GTX 765M falls behind in F1 2012 with Ultra quality applied, though a check through our logs shows it never dropped below 38 FPS, which is still smooth.

Tomb Raider is a more GPU-limited title. However, our logs reveal that the GeForce GTX 765M’s 27.2 FPS at 2560x1600 only drops to a 22.6 FPS minimum. That's still pretty playable. High Quality mode is easy for these GPUs.

Stepping up to Ultimate Quality is far tougher. The GeForce GTX 765M falls below a 20-FPS minimum, even at our lowest resolution. The GeForce GTX 780M and Radeon HD 8970M play through to the notebook panel’s native 1920x1080.
Arma 3’s Standard quality preset is light enough to allow all high-end mobile GPUs to play through 2560x1600. But the task gets far more difficult at the game's Ultra preset.


The GeForce GTX 770M achieves smooth frame rates at the Ultra quality level up until 1600x900; Nvidia's GeForce GTX 765M can’t quite manage to sustain playable levels even at that entry point, though.


Battlefield 4’s High Quality preset shouldn’t present any problem for modern gaming graphics cards. Shoot, we’re frequently forced to use three displays to push below its 200-FPS cap using desktop hardware. Notebooks are a different story, though; the GeForce GTX 770M and 765M struggle to achieve playability beyond panel's native 1920x1080 resolution. Fortunately, that the highest you'd expect a gaming laptop to go. Smooth performance hooked up to an external display is just icing on the cake.


The GeForce GTX 765M drops out of the race before hitting 1920x1080 using Battlefield 4's Ultra setting, and the 770M is pushed to its limit at that same resolution. Although the GeForce GTX 780M wins out over AMD's Radeon HD 8970M at each resolution in our average frame rate chart, the minimum frame rate numbers show Nvidia's mobile flagship dipping a little lower.


Even with many of the game’s advanced visual features disabled in High Quality mode, the GeForce GTX 765M can't quite exceed the notebook panel’s native 1080p resolution in Far Cry 3. Fortunately for that GK106-based part, our FPS-over-time charts emphasize 1920x1080.


Far Cry 3 looks great at its Ultra Quality mode, but you’ll want something faster than the GeForce GTX 765M to get there. Shoot straight for the GeForce GTX 780M if you want to push past 1920x1080 using an external display (though even then, you're just barely above 20 FPS on average).


Metro: Last Light is somewhat of a conundrum for me, since it looks great even at the Low-detail preset that allows integrated graphics solutions to survive. Making small improvements to image quality requires large upgrades in GPU capability, to the point that even a GeForce GTX 780M is unable to push playable frame rates at 2560x1600 and Medium Quality. Then again, the Metro games are known for their ability to throttle even high-end desktop hardware.

A look at the frame rates over time shows the problem for more mainstream GPUs at 1920x1080. The GeForce GTX 780M and Radeon HD 8970M barely pass the playability mark at 1920x1080.
No single notebook GPU is viable at this game’s High Quality setting, at least not without lightening up on a few of its more demanding features. Although the GeForce GTX 780M posts a reasonably strong 38.6 FPS average, it drops as low as 15 FPS in the most taxing sequences.

With all of our real-world testing out of the way, results from 3DMark are interesting only insofar as they confirm or contest the numbers already generated.
Nvidia's GeForce GTX 780M keeps ahead of AMD's Radeon HD 8970M, which is what we saw in the games. At least the scaling approximately concurs with what the real-world numbers indicated.


One of the challenges we run into with battery testing is that it's an imprecise science, very workload-dependent and varying over time as the lithium-ion battery ages.

Then again, this isn't a Clevo P177SM notebook review; it’s a graphics comparison. So while it's important to know that these systems sport 76.96 watt-hour batteries, gamers considering each of these modules will be more interested in how much heat they dissipate.

AMD's Radeon HD 8970M doesn’t properly report temperatures below a certain threshold, so we can only see how hot it gets under load.
All four notebooks use thermal fan controls to lock temperature between 60° and 70° Celsius, and none of them are forced to spin their coolers up to correspondingly-annoying noise levels.
As we might have expected, the order of graphics module performance matches the order of their price. Nvidia’s best asset is the performance of its GeForce GTX 780M, while AMD shoots instead for high-end value by offering a 33% lower price for its 13% lower performance.

While the performance chart uses a 100% baseline, efficiency can’t exceed 100%. The below chart is zeroed-out by subtracting 100% from those calculations.

Besides pricing for better value, the Radeon HD 8970M is also more efficient than the range of mobile GPUs from Nvidia that we tested today.
But GPUs don’t run themselves, and platform price has a larger impact on overall value than what you'll pay for any individual module. All four test systems employ Intel’s Core i7-4930MX CPU, for example, which most builders list as a $900+ upgrade from this notebook’s baseline processor. What’s the true value of the cheaper cards?
Today's tests show that Nvidia has the fastest single-GPU notebook solution in its GeForce GTX 780M. The catch is that getting it into your mobile platform adds about $750 to its price (as much as an actual GeForce GTX 780 Ti, the fastest desktop graphics card you can buy). That’s pretty steep, even by high-end-gaming standards, particularly when you compare it to AMD's second-place Radeon HD 8970M at around $500.
Then again, when you factor in the cost of an entire, expensive gaming-oriented notebook, Nvidia's GPU improves gaming performance by 13% compared to the competition's best effort, so it could even walk away with a value win.

If you start with a $2180 notebook (sans graphics module), the expensive GeForce GTX 780M appears to offer the best gaming value, in spite of its price tag. But how does it look on its own?

If we consider only the price of adding the GPU to a theoretically free notebook, value is inversely proportional to price. Comparing the two charts above, Nvidia's GeForce GTX 770M and 765M could present the best value in a lower-end notebook, but not the behemoth benchmarked today.
Mobile gamers who prefer high resolutions and demanding quality settings in the latest titles need a top-model GeForce or Radeon GPU to hit the minimum frame rate levels for a playable experience. Running a few more calculations, the value parity between Nvidia's GeForce GTX 780M and AMD's Radeon HD 8970M happens when you drop them both into a roughly $1450 platform. That'd be equivalent to downgrading these test machines from Intel's Core i7-4930MX to the Core i7-4800MQ.
Add in the price of the graphics module, and those same calculations show that a fan of AMD's hardware can justify going with the Radeon HD 8970M’s second-place finish if they're looking at a system priced below $1950. The GeForce GTX 780M’s higher price secures a value win when the total system cost is over $2200. If you're in between, don't feel obligated to go either way. The decision narrows to whichever company's value-adds (like GeForce Experience, PhysX support, or Mantle support) are most important to you.









