460M + Sandy Bridge vs. 5870 Crossfire with i7 - which is better?

I’ll (without doubt ) have ordered an M17X by this time next month (hopefully much sooner ). The whole R3/R2 thing is the only prob. I really want the R3… but, can somebody please tell me: When comparing…

a GTX 460M (with a 2820QM) (R3)
to…
a 5870 CrossFire (with a 940XM) (R2)

… is the GPU/CPU combination of the new machine (R3) likely to produce results, while gaming, that are vastly/considerably/marginally inferior to that of the old? (I suspect only marginally, but I don’t have much to base that on… so seeking opinions)

The R3 is, by far, the more attractive proposition, and I could easily accept a bit of a drop-back in graphics performance, in order to choose it over the outgoing model. I’m just curious as to whether this may be a little or a lot.

Thank you

 

With the configs you mentioned the R2 will perform better in all but the most cpu intensive tasks

That comparison however is very far from fair.....that is what, a $2k (R3) laptop vs a $3500 (R2) laptop? You have to keep that in mind as well.....

 

It depends on the game....the benchmarks we've seen on the 2820qm will kill the 940xm....but the 460m is going to get smashed by the Xfire 5870's in anything that supports Xfire and probably still get beat even if it doesn't. Are the games you play more cpu dependant(R3) or gpu dependant(R2)?

Beat me to it Scook

 

In answer to both previous posts...

Yep... I definately have the price in mind... upper hand (by miles) to the R3

Until recently, I've not been that avid a gamer (and still just getting into it), so unsure... but I don't need to be at the absolute cutting edge... I'd just like to know that my GPU is reasonably future-proofed, for the next few years, against whatever the gaming industry might throw against it.

 

The one thing you need to keep in mind is the R2 is probably not going to see anymore upgrades at all, 940xm/xfire 5870 is probably it's max. The R3 on the other hand has quite a while for upgrade cycles for it to perform better.

 

You should be able to update the GPU down the road from the 460m. I think the 460m will be adequate for current games and earlier. Depends on games you play though. I'm anxiously anticipating Battelfield 3, of course probably won't see that until September or October. But games like Dead Space 2, Dragon Age 2, Deus Ex, Fear 3, Duke Nukem Forever, etc will tax it decently.

 

I think that I get your point; incoming and outgoing architecture. However, as things stand, were I to play a GPU-demand-heayy game on both machines (as spec'd in previous post... and I know it's only an opinion), how great, in visual terms, do you think the difference may be?

Many thanks far the info/help.

 

Again, thanks for the response. You suggest that the 460M will take care of current games reasonably well. But, were I to put an R3 (GTX 460M, 2820QM) beside an R2 (5870 CrossFire, 940XM), how much of a performance diffrerence might the average person notice?

Again, I realise that all anybody can offer to this is an opinion... that's all I'm seeking.

Cheers

 

5870 crossfire is about same as 460m SLI about the same as the GTX 485m. So roughly twice as powerful. This doesn't mean twice the framerates, maybe 50-75% increase.

If you look at the GTX 460m at notebook check: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M - Notebookcheck.net Tech

You can see the comparisons between games you're considering. Seems to be able to run pretty much every game out there at 1080p with high details >40fps, many >50fps.

 

A single 485m gtx is slower than xfire 5870 so the 460m is about 50-60% of that. If you want the R3, wait till Dell equips it with the 6970m or 485m.

 

Cheers for the reply.

I have already become quite familiar with notebookcheck. The prob is that, although I can view all the listed stats, I'm a (yet-to-be) newcomer to the high-end laptop market... therefore, I've little/no frame of reference... hence my seeking of GPU performance opinions in 'layman's terms'.

With this in mind (pretend that you're talking to a vegetable ), would you say that a > 40/50fps rate () is an acceptable level of performance, when buying into the upper range of the gaming laptop market?

Thanks again bud

 

Cheers Joker...

My prob with the 6970, is that it doesn't appear to support 3D. While I don't really need this, one of the big attraction points of the R3 is the 120Hz display (as, by ignoring the R2, I'm losing the RGBLED option).

Regarding the gtx 485m; from what I've read, I'd love to have it, but all info suggests that it's just a rumour at this point. Having waited a long time (12 months +) to order this comp, I’m unsure of how long more I’d be happy to wait for this rumour to materialize into fact (same for the existence of the M18X)

At this point, it seems to be coming down to compromise:

An R3 with:
• 2820QM
• GTX 460M
• WLED 120Hz 3D

Or an R2 with:
• 940XM
• CrossFire HD 5870
• RGBLED

Tough choice, but atm, long term, the R3 appears to hold the higher hand.

 

I can guarantee the top R3 will never outperform a loaded R2. Beyond the 6970/485m I wouldn't count on any further drastic gpu upgrades. The 485m is listed on the Dell site under the R3 tech specs so it's inevitable. Personally I'd wait on the 485m release or wait for the M18x. The R2 is fantastic but has less buzz features vs R3 (e.g. Hdmi in, wireless HD, USB 3, Sata 3).

 

It's all subjective and personal preference.

Again, depends on the games you're going to play. Personally for 460m performance I wouldn't spend much more than $1500 for a machine (disregarding a large capacity SSD RAID or some other thing unrelated to gaming performance). GTX 460m is a good performer for certain, but considering you have so many other options under $1500 with the GTX 460m or HD 5870, I think it'd be a waste, but that's just me.

The advantage of a 17" laptop and especially AW 17" at that is the high performance GPU.

For me, I look primarily for a great screen first, then GPU with great cooling, then a CPU. Everything else doesn't matter a whole lot (HDD/SSD, RAM, ODD, etc).

 

Cheers for the reply.

I've always understood that, as you say, "the top R3 will never outperform a loaded R2". I also understand that, at some future date, the 485m will become an option (time, as stated, is the issue... difficult not to become impatient after more than a year of waiting )

However, the answer to one particular question continues to elude me:

Would the average (uninitiated, however one might phrase it) person, playing a high GPU/CPU-demand game, notice much difference between:

An R3 with:
• 2820QM
• GTX 460M

and an R2 with:
• 940XM
• CrossFire HD 5870

Again, many thanks for your input on this matter.

 

Yes, you will get nearly twice the fps with the R2 than with the R3.

 

Interesting... I looked up the Sager system that you have on order. Very good deal... very impressive system; good for you bud!

We (Ireland) appear to get far less appealing deals than yourselves... I don't think that a $1500 machine would look nearly as well over here

 

Twice the fps rate? Even with the SB processor replacing Clarksfield? (I thought that this would have a significant impact)

 

I wouldn't exactly say twice the FPS, but twice the "performance". Just because you have SLI doesn't make things twice as fast usually, but a good at least 50% framerate improvement, probably more in most cases.

 

2 questions:
1. Is such a 50% fps improvement immediately noticeable to the human eye (or are these just stats that are relevant for GPU comparisons)?

2. Do you think that an after-market purchase of a GTX 485M would be less expensive than including it on an R3 if/when it becomes available…
… and… is such a replacement a complex procedure?

 

I think you are gradually realising you could live with the R3 (either now or when the 485M comes into it) enough such that you'd be happy with the money saved. A 460M is going to cost less as well and you could decide down the road, depending on how much you get into gaming, to equip it with a 485M later.

A 485M is going to be nearly as powerful as the 5870 crossfire. So were it me, I'd get the R3 (either wait if you really need the GPU power for the 485M to be released and pay more for it) or just get a 460 and see if that's "enough" before investing in a 485M.

 

Re fps.

30fps is more than enough for RTS titles where's there's rarely a huge amount of movement going on. Below 20fps the biggest problem isn't the slideshowness it's the input lag that goes on, the standard setting of pre-render 3 frames all of a sudden is adding 150ms or more of lag (3/20 sec) ON TOP of all other lag due to CPU rendering and network.

In a shooter, 40+ fps is generally needed for the feeling of "smooth" gameplay.

Also ask someone else about the issue of micro-stutter for multi-GPU setups at low frame rates. I've never had one so have NFI if it's been fixed or whatnot.

So the question of "will I notice it": the answer is "depends". Depends on whether you prefer high quality/1080p settings (where you will notice it because it's likely to be at or below 30fps) or med/720p where frame limit will probably exceed the refresh of a 60hz monitor for either of those GPU setups.

 

Regarding the GTX 485M, is there any consensus on when this may become an option?

I’d much prefer to include this as a selected option, rather than after-market upgrade (I’m unfamiliar with the ease/difficulty of the GPU replacement process, and, I imagine that this procedure carries implications for systems warranties)… (all that said, I’d still be happy to give such an upgrade a shot)

 

If you aren't a really heavy gamer why do you want dual graphics cards? A single is more than sufficent and remember the r3 will be upgradable to a 485m and 5970m while the r2 will not. Both of those graphics cards come close to crossfire territory. Don't go down the dual route unless you simply want a laptop purely for gaming and want to chase figures and benchmarks. r3 will be a lot lighter and have decent battery power. Better CPu architecture. The 460m is fine for gaming just upgrade it later on. Both laptops rock though but the r3 makes sense it will have lots of room to upgrade. If you have that sort of cash to splash its a losers game investing in older technology.

 

A GPU upgrade in a Sager / Clevo or Alienware isn't too difficult. However, it will be more expensive than the $495 they're charging to add it now.

Considering the power of the GTX 485m it should be sufficient for at least a couple years. Plus you can always update later if needed and sell the GTX 485m to recover some costs.

 

Don't forget you can use throttlestop to set the multiplicator of the 940xm... I don't think the 2820QM has an adjustable multi...


With throttlestop you can easily run the 940xm at about 3.3 Ghz across all cores, vs. 3.4Ghz turbo boost (best case scenario) on only one core with the 2820QM

I think a lot of people underestimate the first gen i7 extreme processors... they're not bad just because there's a more efficient CPU generation...


Anyway, both processors will do a great job, but the xf GPU configuration of the r2 pounds the 460m into oblivion.

Just my two cents.

 

I can't disagree with you bud... I'd just love to know when/if the 485 will become available... in truth, I'll probably have an R3 ordred before that happens

 

Logically, you can't be faulted, and for the last two weeks, I've been going over:
R3: (2820QM, GTX 460M, WLED 120Hz 3D)

R2: (940XM, CrossFire HD 5870, RGBLED)

Still no final call made, but edging ever closer to the R3 (from your perspective, probably a poor choice, but it's a really difficult balance of factors)

 

Well, get what best fits your needs...

If possible you should get some hands-on time with both systems, this would probably help you to come to a decision.
Too bad you can't just walk into the next BestBuy or similar and compare the systems.

 

At this point I still think the R3 is the better option. Your future CPU and GPU upgrade options are limited in the R2, where you have definite opportunity for significant improvements with the R3. Just my humble opinion.

 

In an ideal world, yep...

 

Yeah, as stated, I'm more-or-less with you there.

I know I asked this earlier on the thread, but if I decided to do a GPU upgrade (to the R3, replacing a GTX 460M with a GTX 485M), at some point in the future, would this be a major undertaking?

Also, (for a 485M) would it likely be more or less expensive than having originally specified this component from Dell/Alienware? (I know that answers to this are opinions & guesswork only - just seeking the best of these)

 

485 will be insanely priced wherever from. possibly over $800. who knows with alienware probably more. ati 6970m will probably be nearly half the price and will offer lesser but competitive performance like they always do. if you dont game hardcore and dont chase numbers you wont need a 485 to do the business with. you pay a harsh premium for nvidia. just my opinion. by the sounds of it you play games to enjoy not compare..... well get the r3, upgrade later. the 460m plays all games well anyway just not all on high settings with 60fps like most on these forums want.

 

Anyone have a 460m and find it lacking? Matching it up with the 2nd gen i core 7/sandy bridge expect noticeably significant?

 

Very useful posting - much appreciated.

So, you reckon that I'd be safe as a (non-compulsive) gamer in ordering the R3 with the GTX 460M?

 

Definitely, the 460m is really a great card (as long as you don't play 3D games in 1080p )

 

Cool...
I take it then, if (in the unlikely event) that I choose to play 3D games, this may be a problem?

 

Why is 3D play, in 1080p, restricted by the 460m?

 

Because you need to achieve 60fps to get an actual 30fps in gameplay because it's driving the image twice to produce the 3D.

 

Don't get an AMD/ATi card with the R3. You lose out on optimus and the 6 hr battery life. The R3 should only be paired with an nvidia gpu unless you don't care about battery life.


Another thing I want to point out with R2 vs R3: RGB LED is hands down the best visual solution for a notebook display. Only an IPS display matches it in quality.

This is one of the biggest reasons why I have no interest in purchasing an R3. Plus although the R3 is lighter, it's lid/shell are built out of cheaper plastic/rubber/magnesium vs anodized aluminum of the R2.

 

My only knowledge, thus far, regarding 3D displays, was the requirement for 120Hz (60Hz per eye, as it were).

Are you stating that, for effective 3D game-play performance:

The GPU must achieve 60fps (in any given situation)… because each eye requires at least 30fps for 3D interpretation? (I may have misunderstood you completely on this)

If, however, I understand you correctly, what (if any) is the purpose of the 460M/3D bundle offering on the R3?

Any answer to this greatly appreciated. Cheers

 

Re: the RGBLED display - this is one of the factors (along with the dual GPU and ‘Anodized Aluminium’ chassis) that keeps me with a toe in the R2 camp (regarding my soon-to-be-order).

It does seem a ridiculous back-step, on the part of Dell/Alienware to move from RGBLED to WLED.

They (Alienware) have created, for us, a very difficult pros/cons situation regarding the old/new m17x.

 

No, the screen refresh requires 120Hz to generate the 3D output. But the framerate can be whatever. I was just stating that your actual framerate will be half of what it can generate because it has to generate a frame for each eye. So if the game runs at 40fps, you'll effectively get 20fps.

Having a 3D display with that GPU and screen resolution is a question. I mean there are plenty of games out there that can run at 50+ FPS just fine with that card and resolution. Just newer games will most likely struggle.

 

Keep in mind the 120 hz display's benefit is not limited to just 3D effects. You are supposed to have a noticeably smoother experience in games and day to day use with it vs a 60 hz display.

 

Appreciate the info... cheers

I expect that nobody has yet had the opportunity to compare the following displays, but, can anybody offer a comparative (educated) opinion, regarding visual clarity/impact, of the…

WLED 120 Hz (R3)
Vs.
RGBLED (R2)

My suspicion is that each has its own advantages. I’d be very interested to hear opinions on this subject,

 

Not to thread Hijack, but im in a similar boat to Gabardine... Id like a 485 but it could be 3+ months away from what im hearing...

If I replaced the gfx card later, would the laptop retain its 3D functionality? Im assuming it will as long as the Nvidia or ATI card also supported 3D.

Also where do you purchase these mobile cards from? If I could replace the 460m later with an ati or 485 for <$400 I wouldnt hesitate pulling the trigger on this quite so much.

 

As a novice, I can't offer any info regarding wherefrom the GPUs may be purchased, but it does seem clear that only the NVidia chips will support 3D functionality (try ordering the 120Hz display with an ATI chip… you’ll likely see a ‘compatibility’ message, telling you to try again )

 

Well given that the 120hz screen is a standard WLED, there should be significant differences in color gamut between the two. I don't know what the specifications are of the WLED until someone opens it up and confirms the manufacturer and part id but most WLED's are about 40-50% of the 1998 adobe rgb led vs 110% of the RGB LED. That means you see a wider array of colors with the RGB LED (more saturated as well) but the down side of that is that the RGB LED needs calibrated color profiles and programs that take advantage of the color gamut in order to be 100% accurate. However, even when not doing the above, you still benefit from a higher color gamut because colors look far more vibrant and there's more detail visible vs a standard WLED. I know the RGB LED display is very bright as well at 315 nits but we don't know about the WLED yet, it could be equally as bright or not.

Here's a comparison I did of WLED vs RGB LED a year or so ago:

<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://picasaweb.google.com/s/c/bin/slideshow.swf" width='800' height="533" flashvars="host=picasaweb.google.com&hl=en_US&feat=flashalbum&RGB=0x000000&feed=http%3A%2F%2Fpicasaweb.google.com%2Fdata%2Ffeed%2Fapi%2Fuser%2F109631313223265896524%2Falbumid%2F5443905216321294721%3Falt%3Drss%26kind%3Dphoto%26hl%3Den_US" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed>

Dell spare parts will sell you the card but sometimes inventory takes a while. Alternatively, as long as the system bios supports it, you can use a Clevo manufactured card (e.g. from www.rjtech.com) since both Alienware and Clevo follow MxM 3.0b standards.

 

Your published photos (very nice shots) appear to display a stark contrast between WLED and RGBLED quality.

However (I must ask), as these screen-shots were taken from an RGBLED machine (I must assume), what steps did you take, in order to degrade them to perceived WLED quality?

 

Problem is only recent games are optimized for 3D, and you'll have a hard time to get a decent framerate with high settings on a 1080p resolution.

You don't necessarily need 60 fps (which results in 30fps because of the 3D), but a framerate constantly lower than 30fps isn't very nice imo.


The purpose of the 3D bundle is obviously to offer the hyped 3D technolgy... not only for gaming but also for 3D movies of course.

The 485m is already available in certain laptops. The laptop would definitely retain it's 3D capability, question is whether the card is compatible with the system at all.


You can already order the card, for example from eurocom, but it's over 800$....