The Asus G75VX with 670MX is about $500 cheaper than the Asus G750JW with 765M. Both systems are close to the ones used for the tests here. If the only increase in performance is 4%, then it doesn't make sense to go to the 765. For anybody who can splash the cash on a 780M system I think it is worth it. I also believe that a better investment is a system with 770M, on a price/performance ratio.

the results for luxmark are missing the 770m.

These benchmarks aren't right I played AC3 on high textures, shadows, and environments with a 2Gb  765 and I got 45+fps

Quote from: Florian Glaser on June 01, 2013, 00:21:31
No, that should be the difference between Fermi (GTX 675M) and Kepler (GTX 765M). Kepler has a better DX11-performance.

So you're saying the 675M is a higher performing GPU than the 765M when taken in totality? Grumble.. Looks like I'll have to look to the 780M as my next. :) But, i'm impressed by how the 7970M showed here. If the price on those go way down over the coming months it might be a good buy.

I don't mind taking a 20% hit in gaming and get 500+% improvement in CAD work. AMD is way superior in CAD/CAM.

Pity no Cinebench OpenGL bench. I found it good to have a good feedback in application OGL.

No, that should be the difference between Fermi (GTX 675M) and Kepler (GTX 765M). Kepler has a better DX11-performance.

There is also something I don't quite understand where the new 7XXM GPU are slotted in the Class 1 performance list.

You have the 765M below the 675M, yet it appears that the 765M scores higher in 3DMark11, or is that partly the difference between Haswell and the 3610 Ivy Bridge?

I don't understand, the 780M official base clock is higher than the boost clocks in your GPU-Z screenshot. What happened?