Well, I'm sure you understand how the desktop card order works right? So we can basically go from there.

I might have given you a poor example though, so forgive me. The GTX 680, 770, and 960 are different series, but they're more or less the same cards (in theory), and this works out if you understand what they replace.

680/770/960 (same card)

Let's use the 770 to make it easier. It's a 970m (more or less same card with probably minor differences like clockspeed and cores, but the mobile name is usually one higher).

The previous from AMD would be the same 7870 desktop would be a 7970m. Again though there are certain exceptions to the rule with cores so they might use 965m for more or less a tweaked number of CUDA cores for the Nvidia side.

I know my post reads like a jumble, but I wanted to quickly get my thoughts out.

860m would be a weaker 750 ti (they're never exact, but equivalent).

I played (and completed) that with an i5 cpu and an intel 4000hd graphics card, 6gb ram (obviously this was at a laptop resolution). Take what you can from that bud!

All of my posts are a jumble, don't worry about it :)

I must admit, though, that I can't see the patterns you are trying to show me. No doubt that's my fault. I have a list of GPUs which I wrote down from some site or other (!) and it's telling me the the following NVidia cards are roughly equivalent. I have an NVidia card so I didn't bother researching AMD cards :

590, 680, 770 (all equivalent-ish)
580, 670, 960 (ditto)
660Ti, 760 (ditto)
295, 480, 570, 660, 680m (my card) - (ditto)

I can see a few patterns here but also quite a lot of non-patterns. For cyberdunces like me a table is what I really need.

That went completely over my head but thanks anyway. I know that heat is a problem with laptops ; in fact, if I'd known beforehand (having owned several desktops) I might not have chosen a laptop at all, but it's actually been a joy to own this particulat laptop, though a pair of decent headphones has been a must, otherwise the noise of the fans would have been unbearable.

You can understand why I would want to know if my laptop meets the system requirements, though. If I can't get any reliable benchmarks then how can I know whether my GPU is up to the task ? As it happens, I've had a happy experience so far, but when I bought my laptop it was top-of-the-range and I didn't need to worry. Now that it's becoming obsolete I'm having to do a bit more research, and it's proving very difficult to get any reliable guidelines.

I'll take that as a green light then, thanks :)

Ah yes, but some of those you listed are also considered dual-GPU cards. You can tell this by their naming scheme. 9X and above are usually such.

The 7950x2 (older Nvidia series before the XXX naming scheme - ie. 200 series)
295, etc

Those are all two GPUs in one, which means they don't count in the order of things.

So yeah, you're not wrong. It's not always easy to determine for myself either, I have to look at the clock speeds and relative performance in comparison videos to keep track of this stuff, but since Nvidia and AMD have been the sole GPU vendors for well over 20 years, their hardware isn't exactly new naming wise.

I just wanted to add this: You can't really look at the relative performance and say that one series is better than the other based on the number alone, as some cards might perform worse on one architecture than another. You have to look at the predecessor card in the same series.

660 (ti) 670 680 690 (dual GPU)

700 series same really: 950 replaces 750 ti here, 760, 770 (higher clocked 680), 780, 780 ti,

9 series: 950^ up top, 960, 970, 980, 980 ti, Titan X

Forgot to mention the special regular Titan which is basically a 780 ti with the compute performance added.

Here's a decent way to use that Passmark site...
You look up your CPU and GPU on that Passmark site...
i7-3720QM = 8249
GTX 680m = 4356

So, if there is a game you are thinking about playing...
Search for the minimum and recommended CPUs and GPUs and see how they compare.
If the number is similar, it should work.

Not the best site but this one has proved useful, Sachys:

Low 3rd gen mobile i5: http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=883&game=Far+Cry+3&popSysReqRAM=6&p_make=Intel&p_deriv=Core+i5-3339Y+1.5GHz&gc_make=Intel&gc_deriv=Intel+HD+Graphics+4000+Mobile&ram=6&screenRes_width_FPS=800&screenRes_height_FPS=600&checkSubmit=#systemrequirements

Low 4th gen desktop i5:
http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=883&game=Far+Cry+3&popSysReqRAM=4&p_make=Intel&p_deriv=Core+i5-4460T+1.9GHz&gc_make=Intel&gc_deriv=Intel+HD+Graphics+4000+Desktop&ram=6&screenRes_width_FPS=800&screenRes_height_FPS=600&checkSubmit=#systemrequirements

:)

REDVWIN Theoclymenus, me too thinks that a 660 (desktop) is barely superior to a 680m. http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/index.php?gid=685&gid2=591&compare=geforce-gtx-680m-vs-geforce-gtx-660

When using game-debate try searching via category "old search" so that you can find the component of interest and then make comparisons from there.

REDVWIN

that's not what I'm saying. what I'm saying is that in general, no laptop, even if it has similar sounding specs will match a desktop part. on top of that, even if there are ones that are pretty powerful under ideal conditions, often times those ideal conditions can be hard to achieve.

to answer the question you asked though, I don't know. I haven't bothered to really find out what's out there on top of mobile because for me personally it seems an exorbitant amount of money for what you get. I imagine the best ones come from Alienware/Dell and ASUS.

Thanks. The problem I have with benchmarks is that there are different scores for different tests, but it's a good guideline.

That varies. E.g. GTX 980M (which I think is still the highest-performing mobile single-GPU) is considerably closer to its desktop equivalent (GTX 980), compared how it was with earlier generations where the mobile GPU was lagging more behind. Make no mistake, it is still considerably slower though, but more like 65-75% of its performance, than 50% or less.

I recall notebookcheck lists pretty much all mobile GPUs in the order of performance, and that list seems to include also some desktop GPUs for reference: http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-680M.72679.0.html

Also, check this: http://www.futuremark.com/hardware/gpu/NVIDIA+GeForce+GTX+680M/review
So maybe simply checking the Futuremark scores to desktop GPUs gives you a clearer picture where you stand performance-wise.

Highest notebook GPU nowadays is the 980 (without the m) which (nearly) has the same power as the 980 just a different cooling system. But it is only used in notebooks which can handle its huge heat output ;)

That's what console gamers usually say about PC gaming hardware. How much does it cost to buy a PC which runs the newest Batman game as well as a PS4? (Currently no amount of money can buy such a PC, as the current Batman builds apparently lack some graphical features from the PS4 version, even in the very highest end desktop PCs with six concurrent GPUs, water-cooling systems and its own internal nuclear reactor for electricity).

Yet, PC gamers don't seem to mind the price difference. You can't always just look at performance per buck, there are lots of other factors in there too. Like, it would be a nightmare for me to try to take a desktop PC with me to Thailand or the summer cottage, or simply move it around at my home when I want to connect it to the TV.

Whenever there is a laptop gaming thread, some desktop-only gamers pop up trying to convince the laptop gamers that their preferences are wrong and they should be playing on desktops only, even if they don't have any recent experience with laptop gaming themselves. I don't know why, maybe they are afraid big tower desktop gaming is becoming a thing of the past?

Yeah I read about that, but for now I consider it a bit of a special case. Are there laptops using it already? EDIT: Apparently yes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNYvF3E2m04

I am certainly interested to see how they will handle the cooling, and whether they can be really considered laptops anymore. This does show though that NVidia seems to consider laptop GPUs quite important to their business.

Even my aging ASUS ROG G75VW is pushing the meaning of the term "laptop", I don't really want to keep it on my lap for longer periods of time, if you take the term literally (it weights around 5 kg I think). But it still has the feature that I like the most in laptops, ie. I can quite easily move it around or put it away, if the need arises..

For real mobile use that I'd constantly use on the move, either a very small ultrabook laptop (without an internal DVD-ROM drive etc.), or even an Android tablet.

Just wanted to point out that notebook power goes more and more towards desktop and the rules from former times don`t apply that much anymore. I am happy with my MSI GS70. Using it mostly as a mobile workstation to do all my stuff regardless of where i am. And for 17" its very mobile. Although for real mobile use I agree, something smaller is really cool. What i would like is a Surface 4 pro, but its a bit too expensive considering I don't really need it.

Yeah i agree with that. Gone are the days when laptop graphics chipsets even lacked many Direct3D/OpenGL features that 3D games were expecting (***), and also the performance gap between desktop and laptop GPUs seems to have become narrower with each generation.

The fact that laptops are more integrated than desktops is both a blessing and a curse. It makes it harder (usually impossible) to e.g. upgrade the GPU, but I also like the portability and smaller size of laptops so much that it still makes it worth it for me.

(***) E.g. I recall when I played No One Lives Forever on some old Compaq laptop in the early 2000s or so, its mobile graphics chipset couldn't reproduce some of the more advanced lightning effects of the game, causing some quite obscure light shows in the game. I just disabled those offending features in the game's graphics options, and played it through on it.