Is Graphics card in new R3 better than in old R2?

Hey all, I am a bit upset, as I ordered my Alienware MX11 back in March, and received it shortly thereafter, but now I find out that the R3 is out with what seems to be a better graphics card.

Can anyone actually confirm, if the Nvidia GT540 is significantly better than the GT335 that is in the R2? If anyone owns both laptops, how would you describe the comparisons between the two? Any other features which are better in the R3?

Thanks in advance,

Vas FURY

 

Computer Games on Laptop Graphic Cards - Notebookcheck.net Tech
Check GT540m and GT335m then click to restrict.
According to that list the increase is about +/- 10FPS but there isn't just a new graphic card on the R3 so the ram, the proc, ect can increase the perfs too. I think that the perf increase in the R3 compared to the R2 is good and worth it.

 

Thanks man, appreciated!

 

Don't lose a moments sleep over it. The 540 doesn't change how well your 335 has been performing for you. If you've been happy with your r2 then stay happy.

If you found your r2 to be underperforming that would be a different story.

 

Of course not! What crazy company would want to improve past year's products by including better, updated components, so that they can not only catch more attention from new customers, but also those who already purchased their product?!

Common sense much?!...

 

Apple, and also Lenovo at least one time, has a history of actually adding a worse performing GPU than their previous year's model. Just saying. But for a gaming company like Alienware, it would be suicide...

 

Apple is just retarded and probably did that to test their customers' loyalty but selling even crappier products at higher costs. And Lenovo... well, they're struggling financially for a reason.

 

when comparing graphics cards, the higher the second number, the better the graphic card. i.e. gt 3(3)5 and gt 5(4)0

 

It is slightly better. If you can sell your R2 close to $800 then do it and add another $100-200 to get r3. If you have to pay more than $1,100 for R3 then it is not worth it.

 

so an 8(8)00gt is better than a 4(6)0gtx?

 

If it makes you feel any better:

(1) Your M11x R2 did not suddenly become less-awesome because a different laptop model came out. Your M11x R2 still performs as well as it did the day you bought it.

(2) You probably paid far less for your M11x R2 than you would for an M11x R3. Dell / Alienware have been running crazy deals and discounts on the M!1x R2. Meanwhile, buying an Alienware M11x R3 right now would require that you pay full retail price.

 

that is completely and totally wrong. lol

@the OP

when the gt335 is overclocked it can easily match the GT540.

 

You are doing it wrong: 88(0)0 and 4(6)0, lol

 

here we go again...

comparing an OCed card to a non OCed card...


in the end, the 540 is slightly faster, but the R3 is a faster system overall because of the faster CPUs included.

 

all i was trying to say is a mild overclock can push the GT335 as far as the GT540 can go. jeez.. who cares if its overclocked or not?? its set it and forget it....

 

then an overclocked 540m will still be faster...

 

aaannddd? it doesnt matter as long as a GT335 can even compete with the newer GT540 lol.

 

Oh I can't see that.

 

nuff said...

 

I can't see how that says anything that relates to comparing the CPUs.

 

The GT540 (M11x R3) is faster than GT335 (M11x R2)

The GT555 (M14x) is faster than GT540 (M11x R3)

The GT460 (M15x) is faster the the GT555 (M14x)


Am i right on AM i right??

FTW!!!

 

Side note but still on topic. Does the shader count not reflect the actual power jump like it does on the other fermi cards.

Example (I dont know sharder counts off the top of my head).
The GTX460 has far more shaders than the GTX285 but is about on par in DX9 and 10 games.

If this is the case with the 335m and the 540m then that might show why the improvement is nots as vast as the shader count might suggest.

EDIT

Looks like I was right. Found HERE. Although that is refering to the 460M but it just shows that the different core types can't be compared on shader count.

 

Yea. the 540 has more shaders at a higher freq. but the card is under speced in other areas that make it not what it should be. for the shader count/freq & newer tech it should kill the 335. but it just edges past it IMO

If you buying new why not get the R3? if on a budget get a used R2/R1 depending on your battery life needs. if your trying to upgrade, i would just hold on to my cash.

 

in general; as the series number (1st #) increases the equivalant model number (remaining #s) decreases.... eg. the 280~370~460~550... its not a hard and fast rule, but a pretty decent rule of thumb.

 

The 425m is better than the 335m.

 

Guys. Your all missing the point of the r3. Its not to be faster but to be able to have laptop whos color matches the color of their scooter. My scooter is red and black, so is my laptop. Arguments are over!

 

Dang it! Now I gotta go get a scooter. Just can't keep up with technology these days.

 

this is an alienware forum lol the 425m can be found in sony vaio lappies...

 

I'm just showing you that your number theory isn't always true. It has nothing to do with Alienware. Your first post is very general and one could assume you are talking about any Nvidia card.

 

I love Nvidia but thier numbering system sometimes falls victim to marketing. aka rebranding and or modifying.

 

AKA 8800GT and 9800GT

 

Well 8800 GTX = 9800 GT

 

On this occasion, it has everything to do with alienware, thats especially why you guys come on here. alienware is the king its the best its in our blood... (LOL) when you mentioned the Nvidia 425m, that is a card not in production with alienware therefore doesn't come into conflict with my number theory right or wrong? you tell me...

never mind my first post, my other post made up for it

could you by any chance tell me how you know the 425m is a better gfx, how can one know without carrying out any tests?? enlighten us

 

the 540m is roughly 30% to 35% faster in benchmarks
in fps the improvement is anywhere between a 20% to 40% improvement

 

thats a huge improvement, i working with a 335m, if i were to try o-cing that how would if then compare to a stock 540m ?

 

what it comes down to is if the games is written to take advantage of shaders rather than the core. most games made from 2010 on up are

 

every chip is different so i make no promises. 20% to 32% is the highest ive seen without artifacts

 

Your other post just shows what card each system has, it doesn't say "Oh hai guyz it's for Alienware only!!!"

Here read this and this. There are variations in tests obviously because of ram and cpu differences, but for the most part one of the cards usually is higher. Go enlighten yourself.

 

can any1 tell me if the GT460 is a better card than the GT555 ???

 

Nope..

8800GT = 9800GT

 

I've read it and your right the 425m is superior than the 335m.

so the number theory is totally wrong! Does anybody know how the numbering system works or if it even makes sense?

 

There is a logic behind nVidia's numbering system. The only problem is that all of the theories presented so far are wrong.

The numbering scheme is *NOT* about performance. The 2nd & 3rd digit in the numbering scheme denotes market segmentation. ( source)

(*) A numbering scheme of x00 - x55 indicates a Mainstream product. These are typically lower cost cards with fewer shaders, slower memory bandwidth, and fewer connectivity options.

(*) A numbering scheme of x60 - x75 indicates a Performance product. These are high performance cards for gamers. They do not have the highest performance you can find, but offer excellent bang-for-your-buck for gamers.

(*) A numbering scheme of x80 - x95 indicates a top-end Enthusiast product. These are the highest performance cards you can find within that generation of nVidia GPU. They offer the best performance money can buy, and are also relatively expensive.

So, a product like an nVidia GeForce GTX460 is a GF100 Fermi-generation GPU (4xx series) for the Performance market segment (x60 numbering). An nVidia GTX240 is a GT200 generation GPU (2xx series) for the Mainstream market segment (x40 numbering). An nVidia GeForce 8800 is a G80 generation GPU (8xx0 series) for the Enthusiast market segment (x800 numbering).

The nVidia GeForce 335M GPU in the Alienware M11x is a GT200 generation GPU (3xx series) that was originally intended for the Mainstream market segment (x35 numbering). Alienware chose to take that GPU, and put it into an Alienware M11x R1 and R2... probably because the performance of that GPU was "good enough" for its 1366x768 native res display, given the low power draw of the GPU.

The rule for the numbering scheme indicates market segment. People can assume performance and bang-for-your-buck ratio from that market segment... but those are assumptions, and not rules. These assumptions are why there has been so much disagreement over the past few pages of this thread, that try to explain nVidia product numbering in terms of performance. The only 100% surefire reliable way to determine performance between two GPUs is to look at standardized benchmarks, like a benchmark suite (3DMark) or an in-game benchmark.

 

this was posted by nando4

here: http://forum.notebookreview.com/ali...40m-overclocked-benchmarks-6.html#post7460895

should answer the OP

 

fps in gpu heavy games say otherwise
for example crysis i am going by "gpu only" averages
low-65.1% increase
med-42.1% increase
high-25% increase

my references are bellow if you would like to compare
NVIDIA GeForce GT 540M - Notebookcheck.net Tech
NVIDIA GeForce GT 335M - Notebookcheck.net Tech

 

Generation has an impact.

You are comparing products "4" generations apart (3 real generations).

That's like comparing a 2900xt to a 6870.

 

Ah, this is very interesting. I never knew their numbering brackets were broken off like this.

 

with the same settings of the original notebook review for the R1 with overclocked su7100 in left for dead 2 my average frame rate for my overclocked R3 averages 82 fps over 10 minutes of playing. Where as the r1 averages 42. My lowest frame rate was 42.

My overclocked r3 is 800 core, 1600 shader and 980 off the memory... pushing the memory 80 mhz had 0 effect on performance. This is with the i5 processor.

Essentially,
L4d2
R1-42 fps average
r2- 46
r3- stock with i5, 72
r3- max OC 82.

As far as temps go, 70c on a flat surface is the max in l4d2, completely OC.

If anyone is wondering, stock in league of legends with everything maxed except for shadows which are on low i get around 60-80 fps, late game can drop into the low 40's but it doesnt hang up like the r2 i had did. Also my r2 only got around 50 with everything on low-medium. Had this weird animation "stutter" to it where the animations werent very fluid. Safe to say that isnt the case for the r3.

 

the gtx 460m with 1.5 GDRR5 is definitely faster. I don't know about the 1 gig version, but I believe it edges by too. The 1.5gb version kills the 555gt (1.5 or 3gb) DDR3 by about 20 percent give or take. I don't know about the GDRR5 version

 

FYI : Source engine games are going to use more CPU than GPU. Result here pretty much add to my last post. Basically saying your getting a 50% bump in CPU power and about 15% GPU.

 

Seems like the R3 is a fair bit better than we first thought over the R1 & R2 at gaming, which to be honest is why we bought the things!

Decent upgrade if you can afford it!

I guess the R3 users are quiet on here ATM because they are all playing The Witcher 2... Unlike me.. on my wheezing R2