First GTX 965M benchmarks revealed

onboard only i think..

 

how have the gtx 970m prices been affected by the GTX 965m in your respective countries? Here in Taiwan, Cjscope (Clevo reseller) increased the price the price for the GTX 970m from 45 000 NTD (basicconfiguration, roughly 1 125 euro) to 47 000 NTD (1 195 euro), while the GTX 965m is priced at 44 500 NTD (basic configuration, roughly 1 112 euro).

I was honestly hoping to see a price drop in the 970M. I was waiting for the 965m's release just for that, i guess the industry decided i didn't earn that priviledge.

 

The 970M seems like it was being squeezed down from where they wanted to position it, the price gap between it and the 980M was very large considering they are not worlds apart.

 

i guess it plausible that the 970m was being in a place holder position in awaiting the release of the 965m. Cause a month or so ago, there would have been no reason to look at the 860m models, as the price difference with the 970m was very reasonable while the performance difference was astronomical.

If i buy a new laptop this upcoming (Chinese) new year, it will likely still stick with the 970m. Going from the available game benchmarks for the 965m, it doesn't look all that future proof for higher profile games (e.g. The Witcher 3 etc)

 

It's worth the extra cash, the 965M is for those with tighter budgets and/or form factor, still some nice value but obviously as a 96x series chip it gets cut down.

 

IMHO, there is no reason for the 960m to exist. They should just eliminate the 960m and rebadge the 965m as 960m and just make the 950m equal to the 860m.

But whatever, just more confusion for the masses.

 

Yes there is one, to squezee people, why giving a decent card a a decent price? XD

 

In Europe, you can see notebooks with 965m priced the same as ones with the 970m.

 

I'm guessing it's because 965m laptops currently are "brand new." Wait a bit and the price will drop.

 

yeah. but it's not like the NBs with the 970M are "old". and their prices haven't changed since their introduction, either. they went slightly UP (in case of Schenkers P505 (Clevo P650) by 50€, but not down. now they upped the prices once again. where you got a P650 with 970M, you now get the same barebone, but only with 965M. and, really, 50€ upgrade, or even 100€ (less than 10%) for 30% more gaming performance? this makes the 965M look way worse than it should.

 

it does really. It makes me wonder what benefits the 965m still has over the 970m. A few days ago, the price of the 970M dropped with 14 euros in Taiwan, signaling a stabilization in prices for both models. Currently, the difference is only 58 euros for, what the poster above me already mentioned, an increase of roughly 30% over the 965m.

 

Where's the cheapest place to buy a 970M atm?

 

NVIDIA GTX 970M 6GB Upgrade Kit for Alienware 17 and M17x R4 | eBay

 

Thank you wow the 970M has come down a bit in price, might go for that. So about 50 US difference in price between the 965M and the 970M is it?

 

It's actually $600 from hidevolution website so it's cheaper to get it from there...

 

Isn't the 965M technically replacing the 765M? There was no 865M, and the 860M will be replaced with the 960M.

It's a huge improvement over the 765M, lol.

 

Not in my opinion, al laptops that had 765m moved to the 860m and now 965m (MSI Ge series, low tier Clevos and semi-gaming Asus)

 

The 860M did not replace the 765M, in regards to NVIDIA's releases. Manufacturers just started selling the 860M in place of the 765M.

The 960M will replace the 860M, officially.

 

Naming is just that, naming, what is important is the spot on price, although 965m is a little pricy right now, i think it is just because is new, it will get down to the same price as 860m in time

 

The naming scheme corresponds with the specs of the cards, too. It's not just some label. There's a purpose behind it.

740M, 840M, 940M.
750M, 850M, 950M.
760M, 860M, 960M.
765M, 965M.
670M, 770M, 870M, 970M.
680M, 780M, 880M (da noob), 980M.

Might have forgoten some, but they are grouped together for a reason. It's not just some random name, lol.

 

They also called 680 gtx high end and it was not the high end chip, so naming conventions...

 

765M is just an overclocked 760M, they belong in the same category.

 

just a curiosity but the real problem with the 965m to me seems to be the vram, 2GB just doesnt cut it for the processor
if you check it the performance, as long as you dont use AA the 965m beats the 870m EVERY SINGLE TIME with less power consumption
965m is in a weird place with a weird problem: it has double gpu power (shaders, bla bla bla) than the 860m but not double vram
in the review of notebookcheck you will see that the 860m KEPLER will sometimes beat the 965m just because it has more vram, ridiculous
a 965m with 4gb vram, now THAT would be interesting, specially after OCing a bit

 

Like with all Nvidia recent GPUs there are two VRAM variants for GTX 965M: one with 2 GB and another one with 4 GB (exactly the same as it was with GTX 860M).

Similar like GTX 970M having both 3 GB and 6 GB VRAM versions or GTX 980M having 4 GB and 8 GB VRAM versions.

4GB VRAM GTX 965M should come somewhere. It's just that many notebook manufacturers unfortunately keep choosing smaller VRAM versions to keep end prices down (e.g. it's about $100 difference between 3 and 6 GB for GTX 970M).

 

oh i know the 4gb it's coming (sometime this year) but thats not exactly the issue
the issue is that THIS TIME the vram is NOT enough for the gpu, the 860m was perfectly fine with 2gb because it couldnt really use properly more due to its gpu, but the 965m NEEDS 4gb to effectively use all that gpu power
they are literally crippling the 965m when offering it with only 2gb, at least with 4gb the price would make a bit more sense
right now you are overpaying for a crippled card

 

I don't see why 965M would need 4GB VRAM with its severely crippled SM count and 128-bit bus, both slashed 50% across the board compared to full GM204 which might actually need the 4GB.

 

let me give you an example, go to NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M - NotebookCheck.net Tech and go down to watch dogs and open the compare tags of high settings and ultra settings
from being a 6% better than the 870m in high it goes to being a 44% worse than the 870m in ultra
the only reason for something like this to happen would be memory, heck, in ultra it's a 6% worse than the 860m!!
that's why im saying this card is crippled with only 2gb of vram
this card should be ALWAYS on par with the 870m, otherwise whats the point?

 

By that logic, why does it perform so much worse than desktop 680 and 660 Ti? Those are 2GB cards as well. Heck, I bet the 860M they tested was 2GB too, as that is by far the most common version. And you notice how 860M SLI even has negative scaling? Yeah, Watch Dogs is an unoptimized piece of Ubisoft trash. I wouldn't draw any conclusions from it.

Immature drivers for 965M could also be to blame.

However, you're right, there's not much point to the 965M perf/price wise.

 

i checked it's the gtx 860m with 4gb of vram
and about optimization: i would agree if it were ALWAYS worse, but it only happens when you use ultra in some games, ultra enabling x4 SMAA, which is a vram hoarder
about desktops: no idea, too many factors in play, comparing desktop gpu with laptop gpu 3 generations apart and different architectures it could be anything, but my bet would be memory bus, both those cards have huge memory bus

edit: sli doesnt double the ram, if they did the sli with 2gb vram gtx 860m then it should perform awfully, also the 860m is known to be not so good with sli

 

No, dude. The 860M they tested was the 2GB Maxwell version. If you look here, NotebookCheck says the 860M test system was the Schenker W504. Then when you go on Schenker's site, the tech specs for the W504 clearly state that it's a 2GB 860M.

And on the topic of 860M SLI, only the Kepler 860M can be SLI'ed, and that's 4GB (per GPU), which further debunks your theory.

 

for the charts they use to compare gpu performance you need to go to the gpu review, go down to the game in question and click on the fps counter to know what system they use to compare so here

about my theory it's just that, a theory, but every game that the 965m performs worse only in ultra (this is important) than the 870m it just happens to be a game that uses a ton of vram, my main point is that it only happens in ultra settings, otherwise the 965m is really close to the 870m, give or take a 5%

 

Just get the 4GB 965M then if you're so worried.

 

lol im not worried

edit: in here go to graphics and read also check the gaming performance part i just remembered it, sorry

 

I don't like the way Nvidia cripples and rebrands the midrange gpus. The 965m is crippled and the 960m a cheap rebrand. Can't they produce a sober lineup?

 

Don`t count on it

 

they are experts in making frustrating lineups

 

I just picked up an Alienware 15 with the i5 4210H processor and 965M 2gig. This should be good enough to play SWTOR/WOW on high graphics with good fps? I did this as a budget build since these are the only 2 games I really play.

 

yes, those 2 you should be able to play perfectly fine in high settings

 

Thanks. I was doing as much research as I could on this combo, but with the 965M being brand new it was difficult to find anything. SWTOR and WOW are the only games I really play. Besides that I'll do music on FL Studio. Everything I found said the i5 4210H was equal to the 4710HQ and was told the 965M was on par with the 780M. Besides, I figured that if I needed a better GPU in the future, I could always do the graphics amp at some point. Also, I read that quad cores are not always necessary for gaming. I had just spent about $1600 on a macbook 13" a year ago so I didn't want to drop another $1600 on a gaming laptop when I'm not hardcore.

 

i dont know about futre games but those 2 games should run perfectly fine with that hardware