It's a lot easier to see detail on Jupiter, or pick out the rings of Saturn than it is on Mars.
Although Mars is closer to us, Jupiter and Saturn are a LOT bigger - and so appear larger. And because Mars is closer to us, its apparent size changes a lot berween closest approach (opposition) and when it's further away. When it's close to opposition, it's significantly larger than when its further away; From memory, I think there's a least a 3X difference in apparent size.
Even when it's close, it's still pretty small. And unlike Jupiter and Saturn, where the details are easy to see, Mars tends to need more patience and practice. Look at jupiter or Saturn and the details are immediately obvious. Look at Mars, and you really want to keep looking for several minutes. Most of the time you may not see much, but every so often you'll get a bit of good seeing and be able to glimpse some detail. (planets are also best seen when higher above the horizon; when it's low, you're looking through much more atmospheric crud and turbulence).
You should certainly be able to see the rihgs of Saturn and details on Jupiter with your current scope - but even at high magnifications the planets are still going to be small. We're spoilt by the full page images we see in magazine photos - through the eyepiece things aren't going to be anything like that big. Expect to see a small planet in the middle of the eyepiece - your O is typical :) .it may not be big, but can be nicely detailed.
A bigger aperture scope has more resolution, allowing you to see finer details, and allows more magnification before you get to the point where increasing magnification just makes things bigger and blurrier without showing more detail.
Typical maximum everyday magnification is usually around your aperture in mm, which you get with an eyepiece focal length equal to your scopes f-ratio (so 8mm for an f8 scope, and so on).
With very good seeing (steady atmosphere), which can be rare, you can go to around twice the magnification. This is what manufacturers usually quote as the maximum magnification; what they don't say is that it requires near perfect conditions which may only happen a few times a year.
I have a N11GPS, the model before the CPCs. Views are nice, and it's a good light bucket but it's a bulky and heavy beast that's a pain to move any great distance. Not a problem if you can leave it set up in an observatory, but if you have to take it in and out then you might want to consider some sort of trolley or balance better views with portability - I think the 8" fork mounted SCTS are probably the sweet spot between performance and portability. I can lift an 8" on its tripod, but I have to move the 11" OTA+Mount and tripod separately.
Although the specs quote 661x as the maximum magnification, I've found that to be optimistic in practice - while I can use a 12mm eyepiece all the time (233x) It's very rare that I've been able to use an 8mm (350x) and I don't remember ever being able to use a 5mm eyepiece (576x). I think the quoted 661x is being wildly optimistic, at least for the seeing conditions where I am, but those can vary significantly with location. Just remember that a lot of the time, the atmosphere will limit how much magnification you can use.
But also remember, that for a lot of deep sky objects, it's more about light gathering than it is about high magnifications. Many objects work better at lower magnifications.
(By the way, magnification = focal length of scope / focal length of eyepiece, so a 10 mm eyepiece in a 700mm focal length scope will give you 700/10 = 70x magnification. Adding a 2x barlow doubles that, a 3x triples it, and using both multiplies by six - which is likely to be way over the useful magnification for the scope and won't do wonders for the image quality...)