8800m to be released soon for Dell XPS1730

According to reports, Dell will soon introduce a high-end gaming notebook (XPS 1730) featuring the highly anticipated and powerful mobility Geforce 8800 GPU.

Links to news:

http://www.laptoplogic.com/news/detail.php?id=3038

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2678&Itemid=1

http://laptoping.com/nvidia-geforce-8800-for-laptops.html

 

Maybe this explains the release delay? If it comes tomorrow without the 8800 I'll wait to at least end of Sept.

 

So its for a 17" notebook. I was hoping for a 15"......

 

ah finally, I´m glad I didn´t buy the M1710 since I own a M170 the former one, but now it´s time to upgrade, finally a high end DX10 card.

 

The 8800GTX is over a foot long, takes up two slots, and has a Thermal Design Power (TDP) of 185W(!). I hope the 8800 mobile is within 20% of the 8800GTX's performance.

 

HOpefully we see some benches soon, I'll accept nothing less than 5% decrease compared to it's desktop counterpart. It should accomplish atleast 8600+ 3dmark 06 score.

 

Hopefully its not too gimped now I'm really pumped for this XPS M1730.
More pics of the XPS M1730 here http://www.laptopspirit.fr/5345/dell-xps-m1730-decouvrez-de-nouvelles-photos/

 

hearing conflicting reports, is it going to have 8700 or 8800 or will you be able to choose?

 

Geeze, i hope 2300 is enough for a decently equiped model.

 

Man this thing will start at like 2500 just like the M1710 did. You know dell how they are with their damn configuration, I wish it was less myself.

 

Will this Mobile 8800 version outperform the 7950GTX? Or is it just too early to say?

 

The 8800m MUST outperform the 7950GTX. It's almost a given that it will. If it does not then it will be a complete failure.

 

I think that's the only way that Dell can live up to the Beast hype.

"A system so powerful and so advanced, gaming itself will have to evolve"

Can Dell really pull off getting the 8800 in the 1730?

I thought it wasn't even coming to notebooks until December.

 

maybe another, more powerful card is coming in december

 

yeah, probably, but dell definantly has lower prices now then a few months ago before the new models came out... I wonder (if this is true) when the 8800 will come out for other lappys... like the clevos...

 

This isn't really different than the day before... some random dealer will be the first to have it, then others will follow... but seriously how about an estimated time frame?


I really wish we could find some solid hardware info on the part.

At least we would have an idea how much better than the 8700 it would and we might also be able to glean if it would be supported in an existing MXM format.

Odds are its simply an 8700 with an offcially higher clock and a complete 256-bit memory bus.

 

More shaders too, I think it´s a real 8800m though as they said gimped. But I wonder by how much. This definitely has to beat 7950 by a lot just like the desktop variant does.

 

Definitely gimped considering it's to run on MXM IV slot current requirements.

With Laptops becoming the mainstream in a few years, I hope PC game makers will smarten up and start programming games to run @max for mid tier mobile GPUs. Enough of this requiring >$3,500US systems to run at max sliders.

 

yea no kidding, im actually pissed off that they have not given any info on their upcoming products if there are any. how hard would it be to even give us a little bit of info on anything, i feel so out of the loop on all of this, even more so with ATI then Nvidia

 

I heard dual 8700s in SLI

 

Ha... 8800.... nVidia's another attempt at beating the 7950.

 

It will and it should... if it doesn't, those guys at Nvidia should jump off their building.

 

? The 7950 is nvidia's own card why would they be upset it the 8700 didnt beat the 7950. I'm fairly certain they could make an 8 series card that could blow away the 7950, its a matter of of doing it more efficiently.

 

He meant the 8800.
Wait a minute, now i recall it, isn't Nvidia making the 8700M Ultra? I have a bad feeling tat this 8800 is actually that Ultra.

 

nVidia's release new cards every week...

 

This 8800m has to be a killer card if it should last for a while. I would laugh my ass off if the card only performed a little better than a 7950go.

I already have a DX10 gaming desktop computer but I want a DX10 gaming laptop too that can pull off some effects.

 

I thought there were only 3 MXM types

Hah, game developers make their games as pretty and resource intensive as possible. It's easier to develop for the uber computer lot, i'm sure Nvidia/AMD/Intel/OEMs are paying them off, and they get free press for making a beast of a computer program.

 

No there's 4, when is that monster supposed to be out anyway?

 

they better develop one for the mxm2 slot

 

Beat the 7950? It'll more likely be on par with it in DX9. Depends, though. Will they be putting out a GS/GTS, GT/GTX? What specs? It's all speculation for now.

One thing is certain, I can't wait for G92 mobile.

 

Read Chaz's most recent News Bits. There is expected to be different versions of the 8800m(GTX,GTS,etc.).

 

Heh... 8800GTX. Let's say 8800 (regular, whatever suffix that may have) does outperform the 7950GTX, how long do you think it can last before another GeForce card beats it? Or better, a Radeon card beats it?

Off-topic: Imagine when I need to buy a new computer in 2 or 3 years... nVidia would be making GeForce 14800MGTX...

 

like I said before:

hmm.... the Fudzilla site (as well as other sites) might have jumped the gun (from Dell marketing).

If they are talking about the new NB8E G80 chip... thats going to be the 8700M GTX rumored to be out in Winter.... people have thought that Nvidia would have named that 8800M.... but drivers for the 8700M GT has shown that it was using the NB8E name already.

Marketing is marketing... most of them know jack about the technology and justs go on rumors.... (misleading indeed).

We'll just see.... it would be nice to see a 256-bit mem interface, DX10 card.

 

That XPS is supposed to be up by 12am tonight.

 

That's what you said 2 days ago, -.-

 

lol I doubt it will

 

you might be thinking of wednesday... but who knows.

 

Well everyone was banking on the August 27th date, then it seems that a Dell representative told someone on Burkle that it will be up before or on Wednesday Midnight. So we'll see soon enough eh, they might just be waiting for the 8800s.

 

Not to forget the uber priced ULTRAs

 

Nah, Ultra won't come out till the GTX/GT GTS etc are out, The Ultra is the moniker for the Oc'ed version of one card e.g. the 5950Ultra, 6800 Ultra (not 7xxx ultra) an 8800 ultra

 

spoke to a dell rep today gave a release date of sept 15th

 

As long as it runs fine on mid range systems with medium settings, why not give the people who shelled out $3,500 USD for their laptop the option to kick the settings up a notch?

 

Because it's stupid, economically speaking. When someone purchases a game for $50-$60 they should be able to play it in its entirety. And since the majority of computers, laptops specifically, have a certain spec level, PC games should be programmed to meet the specs of the demographic of the majority. They'd sell more games that way. Laptops, which account for ~40% of PC's sold generally cannot be upgraded. One must buy a new laptop. Whereas with consoles, should you want better graphics and sound, it'll only cost you ~$500 for the next gen console.

Plus laptops are predicted to overtake desktops in sales by 2009. Laptops are perfect entertainment platforms. There's a lot of money to be made in PC games that cater to the general laptop specification. Whereas, the >$3,500 crowd, high spec configurations, are a minority.

And they wonder why every year articles decry the death of PC gaming...

 

So you're saying that if I make a game, I should explicitly disable things like x16 Anti-Aliasing, detailed shadows, longer draw distances, etc... so the mid-range users can pretend they're getting the best possible experience?

 

I've been playing PC games since they first came out. One of the things I've noticed is the lack of efficient programming these days. Many to blame for this. And it's partly the reason why consoles are far more popular than PC games even though most households who own consoles also own PCs. That's not to say that there aren't some very efficiently programmed PC games out there today. There are a few. But to add features to a game that radically or cosmetically alter the playing experience and thereby enriching it for the sake of a minority makes little sense. Have two versions of the game then. One for the average configs, like the kind you see Dell, HP, etc. sell for a certain price. And one for high end configs, like the kind boutiques sell, but for an additional price.

I wouldn't mind paying a higher price for the game which runs with additional features for my high spec machine. I own a high spec machine so I can get the most out of games. But I realize that not everyone can afford the type of machine I'm willing to piss my money on considering it becomes obsolete every two years or so. And many times, I and my friends own the same games but when they see it played on mine, there's a "holy sh*t" grin. We both paid the same price for the game. Only difference is I spent >$1500 more for my lappy than they did.

 

I was heavily debating picking up a new notebook with an 8700M 512MB in the next couple of weeks, but not with the 8800 available "soon", although I probably won't buy another Dell. I can find better systems for less money without the massive delivery times.

This 8800 thread is quickly becoming a standardization debate.

2.0... in response to your ideas of standardization, while I agree it would be easier for developers to code and optimize for two specific versions (or sets of settings), you would then have to ask the question of who determines what an average end user's configuration should be and what an advanced user's configuration should be. Further, how does that person or entity keep up with the constant release of new hardware and software technologies? To set standards means that any progress made in the way of hardware or software between the release of one set of standards to the next is lost until that next standard is released. If that were the case with PCs, you might as well just get a console as it's essentially the same thing with the exception that the standards could be set more often than once every 5 years as you see with consoles. Even if you were to set standards, as soon as a new standard is set, your system is now "officially" outdated and you're going to have to spend more money just as you do now meaning the end result is the same.

With PCs, it's always been "pay to play" at the highest settings of the newest games. The advantage to PC gaming has usually been that, in most cases, games tend to have higher resolution or effects available. Your end user's hardware configuration is a moving target with all of the possible setups they could have. I, personally, can't think of a better solution than the "Recommended Hardware" suggestions each publisher puts out. The only way to avoid such a situation is to have standardized configurations available similar to Macs or go with one configuration every 5 years similar to consoles. I believe if you remove the ability to play at higher settings on a PC than a console, as you suggest, you leave little reason to play games on a PC other than a person's personal preference to use a keyboard/mouse rather than a controller.

As it stands, developers now attempt (and I stress attempt as they, too, are trying their best to hit a moving target) to code for their highest quality settings to be playable by the best bleeding edge hardware widely available at the time of release of the game, which is usually years before the hardware is actually widely available. Then, as even more powerful hardware is released post release of the game, prices of the old "best" hardware comes down to where the "average" user can afford it. In the mean time, average users are stuck with medium settings for current brand new games until they pay to upgrade. That's just how it is. Could some of them do a better job with more time or talent? Sure, but that's true in just about any industry.

Bottom line, I just don't see a feasible alternative beyond the current alternative of consoles. Honestly, if I could get every game available for PC on my Xbox 360 or PS3 and use a keyboard/mouse... I probably wouldn't buy another gaming PC and I've been buying/building gaming PCs since the x86.

 

It's not as tricky as you make it sound. Developers know what the average system is. Those metrics are available from many sources. Generally it amounts to "installed base." And it makes sense to be concerned with the installed base.

Just for argument sake, let's just say that the installed base is P4 2ghz, 1GB ram, 80GB HD, Geforce go 6200, 1200x768.

Why would one program a game that only runs on a geforce 8800 GTX in SLI, xseries centrino pro, 2GB dual channel ram, Sata HD, etc with all sliders maxed out yet released to the public with min config of the average installed base of computers? Geeky thing to do? Yes. Economically smart? No.

It is why many go for consoles over PC's. They get more bang for their buck. Console ~$500. PC ~$3500+ in order to play the game as it should be played. And it's why the PC gaming industry is in jeopardy of dying.

And that moving target you speak of doesn't move so quickly. People don't spend ~$1500 to ~$2000 on a notebook every 2 years. Stats suggest around every 4 to 5 years they do. Gamers, yeah, we're an odd lot who tend to upgrade incrementally or totally every year or two.

I'd hate to see the PC gaming industry die. Especially if they don't smarten up and adjust to the new notebook paradigm as the desktop paradigm wanes to a close.

 

I completely agree it costs more to get the same results on a PC, but that gap will shrink as the 360 ages and notebook hardware progresses... until the Xbox 720 comes out and it'll start all over again. This also doesn't take into account the other purposes the $1500-2000 notebook serves.

Bottom line, I'm glad they at least offer the higher quality settings even if my slightly above average system can't run them. That at least gives me the option of spending more to play at quality levels superior to the consoles... and with a mouse/keyboard.

 

They will do what people will buy.

For the guys with a maxed out system, they will definatly get sales, and they will also get sales from people with less preformance systems. Everyone worries if they can play the game, and people often don't care about turning settings down. I however do. I really really want to be MAXED out, ie even if I'm getting only 20 fps (fortunatly no game has brought my system to its knees thus far).

I'd say the current gaming model is fine, as long as devs make sure that the lower end people can still play, which they can.

Trust me, we are lucky that so many devs operate in free countrys with mostly (more or less, unfortunatly not enough) capitialistic ideals. This means that they will do what gives them money. What gives them money is making us buy their games, and we will only do that if we are happy, so the majority wins.

 

I hear ya Abyss. Maxed out, IMO, is the only way to go.

But capitalism and the profit motive dictates that devs should attempt to sell to the majority in order to maximize revenues and thus profits. High end gamers are a niche. And I don't know how long that niche will last if they, the devs, keep running in lock step with Nvidia's finest.

Another peeve... What happened to flight sims? Air combat ones in particular?


Oh that's right. Low sales partly due to then steep requirements. (Not to mention the learning curve.)

Oh well. Here's to waiting for the Montevina chipset and Nvidia G92 mobile.