New 8970m/8990m Coming SOON!!

My 780M cards runs as cool as a cucumber... no hotter for me than 680M and actually cooler than 580M. It only runs hotter than normal in the Alienware 18 because the fans are not as aggressive as they should be. Even so, I'm not seeing silly scary GPU temps with the 780M cards in the 18 like the R9 290X is already famous for.

Yes, all of the smart people at Intel must have retired because the path to tech hell they are traveling on now is paved with feces. I expect Broadwell to be even more of an abortion than Haswell has turned out to be. Think about it... we have an entire industry being driven by the fads of inexperienced imbeciles, school kids and panty-waisted sissy-boys that are content to have a phone OS on their PC and are happy about a screen smeared with filth and slime-coated by body oils. They mess their pants over anything with weight measured in pounds instead of ounces. They have a brain hemorrhage if they can hear their fans and they value form or function. They get excited about angry birds and blame the acts of the insane and hardened criminals on video games. They think it's a great idea for people that work hard for a living to be forced into paying for everything on behalf of those that do not.

What was that phrase that Forest Gump made famous? "Stupid is as stupid does." The Micro$oft Surface commercials highlight the prevalence of social idiocy and the tragic dumbing down of high tech. They tick me off every time I see one one of their TV commercials, but I have a very low tolerance for stupid.

 

I have only experience with GT70 from MSI, and there we saw a pretty good increase with temperatures with the GTX 780M compared to the notebook with GTX 680M. Despite having better cooling than the last GT70 edition. GT60 see 90C and GT70 85C ish. But you know, its MSI...

I don`t see the logic behind that a GTX 780M with more cores and higher voltage run at the same temperature as GTX 680M with lower voltage and less cores. Even if it is Alienware. For that to happen there have to be either changes in fan speed (faster with 780M) or something like that. Or a new stepping, which GTX 780M doesnt have.
But you know, I have been wrong about temperatures before, but I can`t understand why 780M should be equally hot unless changes have been made to the system.

Anyhow, good rant on the Intel CPUs. lol
I feel the same. I wonder why they can`t see the value in producing a pure gaming CPU with IGP just enough for movie playing and stuff like that. Leave all the resources to the CPU part. Unlock everything, increase clocks, heck, maybe even do 6-core CPU for the mobile users.

But I guess that would increase the production cost by quite a bit of money. They just produce a few base models and cripple them according to how much money people are willing to pay. Isn`t that how Intel really operate?

 

Unfortunately, that's how most of the tech industry operates now. Intel is not alone in their mediocrity. We can probably blame a lot of it on the unintelligent consumers that have been drinking the Kool-Aid and are willing to waste money on "efficient" cheap garbage. They are giving those morons exactly what they want, LOL. And, leaving the rest of us with nothing to be desired.

We have AMD doing nothing impressive in terms of mobile computing for a couple of years now, and nothing impressive in the desktop CPU realm since back in the day of the Athlon processors that successfully competed with high end P3 and P4 CPUs. Fast-forward to 2013 and we have Intel and NVIDIA producing a huge SKU assortment of crappy processors that are less impressive than last year's tech and limited options for anything truly awesome. Look at how many mobile 700 series SKUs NVIDIA has released... an asinine variety... 710M, 720M, 730M, 735M, 740M, 745M, 750M, 755M, 760M, 765M, 770M... and only ONE (780M) is better than last year's best.

We have the Micro$oft Mafia driving the UEFI Secure Boot/Secure Flash dictatorship on top of all of this, so we have tons of poor quality mediocre hardware to choose from, plus firmware and an OS that further cripples what little is left to work with. Lovely, isn't it?

 

I hear ya brother. Absolutely lovely indeed .

I know more companies are doing the same. Take Nvidia and GK104 for example. We have 4 different mobile Nvidia GPUs using that die: GTX 670MX, GTX 675MX, GTX 680M and GTX 780M. And desktop have GTX 680, GTX 670 and GTX 660 that use the same chip. So basically we have 7 different GPUs, made out of one designed chip.
Its a bit funny to think that Nvidia actually only built 1 GPU

I wonder how much "value" we get from this, and how much the companies make, and how much more they could have done if people demanded new GPUs on new chips. Are they really limited to crippling the GK104 and producing these sub GPUs, or could they have done more while still earning enough money?

Whats the beef with UEFI Secure Boot btw? Thats something I haven`t heard about.

 

I just finished playing about 2 hours of Crysis 2 with CPU and GPU both moderately overclocked. Have a look at the temps in this screen shot. These are the same GPU fans that came with my M18x when it began life as an R1 with 580M SLI. According to HWiNFO64 the highest GPU temp reached during that gaming session was 74°C for GPU0 and 72°C for GPU1.


(click to enlarge image)

Secure Boot has some limited application where it might add value to a business PC with a lot of sensitive and/or mission critical information on it. It can stop malicious code (or legitimate code) from being executed for those that are OCD about that.

For the average consumer it doesn't offer anything of value, but does not get in the way most of the time because all most consumers ever do is press the power button and use their PC for mundane tasks (email, web browsing, etc.) without ever changing anything significant. Secure Boot requires firmware, hardware, software and drivers to be "signed" (approved) by Microsoft. Unless the vendor/author pays money for it, and the Micro$oft Mafia and computer OEM wants them to have one, they don't get a signature for their stuff. It's a revenue generating scheme that Micro$lop has passed off as an important security feature for consumers.

Without a signature things will not function in a Secure Boot environment. So, GPU upgrades, changing WiFi cards, SSD and HDD upgrades, etc. are subject to "approval" and need to have a signature. This also includes operating systems... so, that means potentially no Linux... even Micro$oft Windows 7 and earlier can be blacklisted once the full blown version is unleashed on consumers. Don't like Windows 8? Too bad, that's all you're allowed to have. It stops you from upgrading hardware as using modded drivers that are needed to support a non-reference hardware ID is not permitted.

In concert with Secure Flash it is impossible to even flash firmware that has no signature. So, yeah... very, very evil and a big deal to anyone that likes to have dominion over their private property and do with it as they wish. Secure Boot even makes it possible to put an "expiration date" on the BIOS. When that date comes, no more POST... *poof* time for a new PC.

 

Yeah, there really should be a bios switch to turn it off, anyone running a secure environment would have the bios behind a password anyway.

 

Damn fox you crack me up... you ol' bittervet..

 

No 8990M this year. Its coming out early 2014.
(And I don`t think it will be called 8990M either. It probably have R9 xxxM as name.)

Just recently AMD acknowledge the upcoming GPUs, during presentation about their next CPU line, Kaveri.
What this picture explain is that you can have an Kaveri APU and the upcoming GPUs work together to create a little better performance.

AMD Kaveri APU With SteamrollerB Core Features 20% CPU and 30% GPU Performance Uplift Over Richland - Platform Details Unveiled

 

The only problem with that is that you need an AMD APU/CPU and their performance is dismal compared to an Intel Core i7 processor. So, you might gain a little with GPU performance and sacrifice massively in terms of CPU performance. That's not a good trade. If you look at the Futuremark search result the 6- and 8-core AMD desktop processor scores in Vantage, 3DMark11 and Fire Strike they are pathetic, even when they are overclocked beyond 5.0GHz.

My M18xR2 outperforms a desktop with AMD FX-9590 @ 5.1GHz and HD 7990 quad-CrossFire, LOL. That's pretty horrible for AMD.

3DMark11 Comparison: Desktop AMD FX-9590 | HD 7990 (4) P16884 3DMarks versus Alienware M18xR2 Intel 3920XM | GTX 780M (2) P17100 3DMarks

Look at the Physics scores in these search results: 3DMark11 Results for AMD FX-9590

 

3dmark standard is a horrible test for quadfire lol, yoh would need to run at 1080p to let those cards actually work.

Its just a cpu benchmark pasr a certain amount of gph power.

 

Isn`t that FX-9590 an 8-core CPU lol?

There isn`t many optimized mass threaded applications that can test the AMD CPUs to the fullest. They still suck when you run those CPUs on most benchmarks and games because they are waaay behind Intel in single threaded tasks..

Since 3DMark 11 is so old benchmark, it is not optimized for Bulldozer and alike. Too bad so few are optimized for AMD CPUs.

So yeah I\m with you on this one Fox. Better to go Intel + AMD than AMD + AMD. The boost you get by running dual graphics with the IGP cores and dGPU is very small anyway. In fact, I think it is only usable with mid range GPUs and didn`t work with 7970M.

 

The amd cpus are quad cores with an extra integer unit.

 

No benchmarks are optimized for AMD CPUs because AMD processors are not optimal, LOL. They suck at almost everything compared to Intel. Kind of hard to give them any benefit of doubt on 3DMark11 not being optimized to suit them. Benchmarks should not actually be optimized for anything because they lose value as a benchmark when that happens. It's a level playing field when it treat all systems the same and subjects them to the same workload.

I wouldn't discount the value of 3DMark11 based on it being older at all. It's a far more definitive benchmark in terms of overall performance than other Futuremark tools, including Fire Strike. 3DMark11 is both CPU and GPU heavy. You will never achieve a good score in 3DMark11 unless you have both a killer CPU and GPU setup. You can get a really crazy high score and feel good about things in Fire Strike with a really wimpy CPU and powerful GPUs, so I consider 3DMark11 the better test of a system's overall performance.