8800M GS and 8700M GT are indeed one

Goto clevo.com.tw, and download the M570RU/M575RU manual. Here's what it says:

NB8E-SE is the codename we've been seeing for the 8800M GS, and spec-wise they fall around the same category.

But it's MXM-III, which means lower chance in C90S? I can't think of any upcoming ASUS models in that class other than C90S, and latest ASUS drivers do list NVIDIA_G84.DEV_0409.1, so it seems possible to me. 50/50.

This still leaves room for the rumored NB8E-GT and NB8E-GTX to show up and be cool in future models.

I also downloaded the Clevo VGA drivers. They lists two different 8700M GT

Note the space at the end of the second one. Maybe one's 256mb and the other 512mb?

 

Different types of ram is another possibility.

 

Maybe one is MXM-III, and a little cheaper or faster or something to make up for the biggerness, and the other is MXM-II for C90S and other 15.4'' purposes? Wishful thinking, I know.

I guess this being a Clevo driver, this is intresting information too:

We haven't seen any Clevos with 8600M or 8400M yet if I'm not mistaken?

 

The differences between .1 and .2 are just the memory sizes. Right now toshiba is selling a 256 and 512 versions of the 8700M GT.

 

Yeah, that's what I thought.

How exactly does Turbo-Cache work? Like, I only see it advertised on some notebooks. Doe sit work on any GeForce notebook, or what?

 

the basics of turbo-cache is when it is needed, the card will share system memory (RAM) once it's used up the dedicated RAM. This is pretty much how integrated cards work...but i think turbo-cache is more efficient at how it allocates system memory.

 

Woohoo.. the 8series line is nearly a failure, except for DX10.. they dun really have much else. Even the top of the line 8800M turns out to be a 128bit weakling called 8700M... how bad can it be? Curse u nvidia... But guess we din have much of a choice.. ATI is no better...

 

Hey, it's top-of-the-line now. There's still NB8E-GT and NB8E-GTX. And last generation, after Go 7800GTX, there were two more even better: 9900GTX and 7950GTX.

And GeForce 8 as a desktop part is fantastic.

 

not quite.

the 8600m gt rocks. i can't speak for the 8400 or even 8600 gs, i just don't know.

the 8800's aren't out yet. and the 8800m is NOT going to be just a higher clocked 8600m gt. its going to have a 256 bit bus. its going to have more shaders, and its going to be clocked high. relax.

 

generally, all gpus below 8800 from nvidia is widely regarded as a disappointment

previously, the new gen mainstream card equals last gen high end card (7600 = 6800)

not with the 8 series (desktops). the 8600 is so bad that in real life performance, it can't match the 7900 while priced similarly.

and the 8800's specs aren't out so no one can say what its going to be. and i think the 8800 has 384 bit bus

 

Once again my opinion lets just see how the cards perform with dx10 games and bioshock in august will be the first benchmark for that. Don't you find it odd that nvidia and ati have both gone the 128 bus route and have not outdone each other with 256 in the mobile gpu market? (Yes I know its to keep prices down but they could have made the top end a 256 bus) I have a feeling that the unified shaders (among other things including DX10, mainly DX10) are the reason behind this..

 

nvidia doesn't have a 256 bit for the 8 series

this is because the 8800 has 384 bit (hence the weird 768mb vram on the gtx) and 320 bit on the gts (hence still weird 640 and 320 mb vram)

they made all the rest of the 8 series 128 bit because it was cheaper

if they made a line especially with 256 bit,they'd have to redesign a boat load of crap and that = $$$ and delay

it would likely be way to expensive for them to make a 256bit JUST for 1 high end card, so they just used 128 bit, which can be used from the low to the medium (8700m)


call of juarez, CoH, flight sim x, lost planet are all dx10 (abit its hacked on) and the performance of dx10 cards in dx10 mode is dismal

 

True but I think mobile versions will need to be 256 but they could also be 384 but they are going to make some form of 8800 series and my point was lets just wait to see how dx10 cards perform in dx10 games. These are the first batch of dx10 games (bioshock and so on) and drivers are still not even optimal for vista and directx9 forget about DX10 so this will just take time.

I agree with everything you said hmmmm except the last part. I dont consider those games dx10 games. They are either shoddy patches or not true directx10 games and nonetheless coded very badly for DX10. Its simply a matter of a ground up dx10 game and the drivers that take forever to appear. ..

 

The 8800 M would be 320bit/384 bit, for sure... But I believe it would be on the G81 core.. The G80 is too power inefficient...

Usually blamed on bad coding of Demos.. I tend to agree...

 

The 8700M GT is an 8600M Ultra.

 

so does this mean mxm isn't dead yet?

 

wow

if that is true, the 8800m is going to be KILLER

hope they make it 65nm too

 

lol the sad thing is, it doesn't really matter what they do, because ATIAMD has nothing to offer in that whole segment.

 

Seriously, AMD/ATI needs to get its butt into overdrive. I know they are already playing catch up, but they need to get some hardware into the market soon if they don't want to get COMPLETELY destroyed. I mean, if the stuff they are coming out with is 20%+ better performance than the competition I think the market will wait another month or so, but it doesn't seem like that is very likely.

Also, can a 8600m GT pump out enough pixels to saturate a 128-bit bus? I thought this was the reason it and the 8700 were built with 128-bit. Even at max rendering, I can't imagine they'd be able to fill up the 128bit bus bandwidth. Anyone know?

 

ATIAMD is DYING

amd is always the underdog and its damn hard for someone to have less fabs and capital to compete with someone more

Intel has near limitless funds and crap

i mean, they spent enough marketing $$$ to allow the craptacular p4 to survive and causing the gigahertz myth.

a lot of my dumb friends still think 3.8ghz p4 > 1.5ghz core 2 duo

stormeffect, i think that the 8600gt can, i mean its core is almost as powerful as the 7900gs (at low res where the pipelines count for less).

i think that if it had a 256 bit, he 8600gt would meet or exceed the 7900gs

 

It is on par with the 7900gs or ballpark area of it. AMD is just surrounded in all fronts, intel is beating up on it in the processor and nvidia just has the head start in the gpu market. When intel joins the gpu market next year....well.....lets pray for amd.....

 

*Bursts out laughing* Are we talking dedicated graphics cards from Intel, or just more integrated? Seriously, I'm going to have an awesome day when the first benchmarks on an Intel brand videocard come out. Either its going to mysteriously destroy all competition and usher in a new (new) era for Intel, or its going to crash and burn. It seems Intel does one or the other: whoop butt or get smashed by the competition.

 

Well Intel is working on a GPU/CPU "fusion" (yes like AMD, used purposely) and supposedly they are looking to enter the dedicated gpu market next year. The fusion project is larrabee. More competition= good for us.

 

thats only at 1024x768 or 1280x800

bump it up to 1650x1080 or higher and it will be a different story

and the fusion (ie gpgpu) will NO WAY be more powerful than a dedicated vid card

they aren't designed to match dedicated vid card, but to offer a low budget, low power consumption gpu and cpu all in 1 package




oh and with intel's history of crappy vid cards and their lack of experience, i'd say it will be a dismal failuer

 

The Fusion designs ATI and Intel are pursuing might end up altering the fundamental way GPUs work. If they are successful, there are many different things that could happen.

One, things could turn out exactly as you said, with Fusion tech being nothing more than cheap integrated graphics.
Two, Fusion tech could result in a sort of AGP/PCI-E 3.0 where processor communication with the GPU is done at a very base level, kind of like how AMD puts their memory controller right into the processor. The kind of processor you have could eventually act as a multiplier for your GPU power or even the other way around. Fusion might even bring about widespread support for the new concept of an external graphics chip for mobile computers.

With such a fundamental change in CPU architecture, something big is going to happen, and I have a feeling that cheap integrated graphics wont be the end of it (in a good way).

 

Intel has the money and the corporation size, along with mastery of 65nm technology and soon 45nm. I think that if Intel decides to go for a part in the dedicated graphics segment, they just might become superior to ATI and NVIDIA.

 

I'm sure AMD will come out with their "Griffin" Mobile Processor and "Phenom" Desktop Processors soon. Which should beat intel at it's own game. Not to mention it running at 65nm, and the Level 3 Cache. Q4 this year.

 

Nah both Nvidia and ATI has most experience in the field of dedicated GPU´s. I don´t think Intel can compete with these two in the GPU field.

ATI was my favourite before but now it´s Nvidia since I bought the 8800GTX

By the way I had Nvidia before too in my XPS M170 laptop. I think Nvidia is fast to release new drivers for it´s GPU´s

 

they should uh... put the 8800 in the asus g2s... uh... so i can afford... to... uh buy it!

 

Why is this thread still alive?

 

Because it puts out.