GT 555m

So which laptops currently/will have this card? Because most of the laptops that have come out recently have the 540m :/ Both are non-upgradeable, so it would be nice to have the best out of the Optimus-enabled line.

Also, is it that hard to have a 15.6 laptop with FHD screen and 555m? The three are never seen together :/

 

Nope.. Haven't seen a laptop with that yet. Only seen the Dell XPS 17 with it.

 

Looks to be pretty fast: NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M - Notebookcheck.net Tech

 

looks exactly like the gt 445m

and the lenovo Y series is supposed to pack one of those in the 15'' model, although the res is not going to be 1080p

you could ask in the sager lounge if the NP1560 is going to get a update

 

Yea, I don't know how often Sager updates their laptops (going to extrapolate from how long it took for them to go from NP5135 to NP5160), but really theres such a performance difference between 540m and 555m it's not even funny (at least notebookreview makes it seem that way).
And if anyone has been snooping around the forums lately, there are quite a few people who are looking for the same 3 things (FHD, 15.6, 555m). Laptop manufacturers/resellers who have a clue would find quite good demand even in this very specific setup.

Or at least gimme a 460m with Optimus.

 

As soon as I see a GTX 460M or GT 555M with Optimus in a FHD 15.6 incher, I'm buying it on the spot, even if it's HP.

 

While the high end part is similar, it blows away the GDRR3 model GT 445M. It has a 192-bit interface as opposed to the 128-bit in the 445M. Not sure why they changed the 445M so much...

 

Yea...445m is all but extinct now that Dell has updated to 555m (which is also rare for some unexplored reason). I gave up on ever finding 555m, going ahead with NP 5160 . 540m (with Optimus) is still quite an improvement over 9600m GT

 

Doesn't look any faster than my GT 540M unless it has DDR5 memory. Got an extra 50 or so pipelines though which will make a big difference and a slightly higher memory bandwidth.

 

Oh, it's definitely faster than the GT 540m by 40% in some cases (especially at higher settings for games); just look up notebookcheck. However, it is miles behind the GTX 460m and even falls short of the 9800 GTX

 

the m14x has it but with a 1600x900 screen

 

Why do say even if it is HP .?

Are Hp laptops bad ?

 

From a hardware perspective, the dv6t offers a great combination of performance and value. They have a Sandy Bridge CPU, and the optional Radeon 6770M GPU is about the best you can get without moving into gaming territory.

From a software and support perspective, IMO, it's a completely different story. AMD recently implemented automatic graphic switching in its drivers - it's supposed to operate in a similar manner to NVIDIA Optimus. Some folks in the HP Pavilion forum are having a heck of a time getting it to work properly. HP is also slow about keeping its other software up to date, which is something you can say about pretty much all the big OEMs (Dell, Lenovo, etc).

Personally, HP's technical and customer support also leaves a ton to be desired. After several bad outings with them in trying to get a dv6, I was fortunate enough to be able to cancel the order. HP promised a refund in 5-7 business days, which never happened. I ended up issuing a chargeback on my credit card. From that point on, I swore off large OEM companies for computers. They have the resources to buy in bulk and pass the savings on to the customer, but that's not worth it to me if the service is going to be bad.

Versus the dv6 I planned on getting, the system in my signature cost a lot more. The sales and support I've received, however, has been worth every penny.

 

The 555m performs the same at 720p as the 460m does at 1080p. HOWEVER, at 1080p, the 555m will fail to provide you with playable framerates.

 

Yeah that's because there are half the number of pixels lol.

 

other than the m14x, what else has the ddr3 555m?

 

the xps 17

 

Some sager models, Acer 5951g and 8951g.

 

I dont think that any sager use the DDR3 model, however Im in doubt regarding the acers

 

I am unaware of any model in existence using GDDR5?

 

most models are using the GDDR5, although its the 96 core variant

 

The 560 is 25% stronger than the 460.

460 is 10% stronger than the 555.

555 can play at 1080p just fine, but you'll have to adjust your settings of course.

- Proven user comparison data

See this vid for your 1080p concerns:
YouTube - ‪Alienware M14x Gameplay at 720p 900p 1080p‬‏

 

What is up with all these threads about 555M ffs?!

And 460M 10% faster than 555M? Don`t think so. It is a lot faster since 560M is 2x as powerful as 555M

 

I'm going to have to disagree. Where are you getting your data from?

I got my stats from reliable user tests from StevenOwen @ the Tech Inferno website.

 

From Nvidia themselves...

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M

 

Im just going to say:

wololololololololololo


gt 555m pawns anything wolololololo

144 core and DDR3 is equal to 192 core and GDDR5 wolololololo

even if they are using the same arch wolololo

if I can overclock I rule the world wololololo

it doesnt matter that the gtx 460m and the 5870m can also overclock wololololo

 

I personally believe controlled user statistics over a company's statement.

 

Can I interest you in some land in Florida?

 

May not be common but should not be impossible. Habe you checked MSI notebooks? Last year they had a 15.6 inch model w/FHD and a competent card.

A bit off-topic: It'd be nice that when comparing GPUs performance mention if the comparison of one is OCed or not.

 

There are two version of the 445M, one 128-bit and one 192 bit (which I do have installed in my XPS).

I think my 192-bit 445M and the 555M are almost identical in performance, the difference probably its because the 555M is overclocked..

 

It a nice graphics card and it will be able to run every game in FHD just dont think you run everything maxed out. Even a GTX590 has in Metro 2033 problems. Actually no notebook can run Metro maxed out in FHD with a framerate over 30 FPS.

 

No, a lot of people are using a 128bit model with DDR3 and 144 shaders. Please show me one with GDDR5 as I have not seen one released yet.

I know clevo and acer both use 128bit DDR3 models.

That MSI model makes a lot of sense and is a balanced combination if correct.

144 shaders, 16 rops, 1GB 128bit GDDR5 or 144 shaders, 24 rops. 1.5GB 192bit DDR3

With possibly a 2GB version of the the GDDR5 version, those are the only cards that should have been sold.

All other chips are a waste of time and space.

 

I had a good laugh with that. I fondly remember those guys. Probably one of the best things about that game.

About the 555M GT... is there some kind of cult or conspiracy around it? There have been numerous threads about it and most of them have not had a happy ending.

Personally, I think it's a nice and capable card. Would have liked to see a 144 shader, 192-bit, GDDR5 version but it is what it is. Having said that, I mostly believe it to be an incredible GPU... for the mid-range. The 560M GTX is, in my opinion, a category above it. It will have an easier time handling higher resolutions and settings.

Hope this helps .

 

from what I see, only the 96 core and GDDR5 have been released dell holds the 144 core version, and there isnt a 144 core GDDR5 version, that would rival too much the gtx 460m

 

Lol, acer, clevo and others are using a 144 shader, 128bit DDR3 version, how many times do I have to say that?

http://forum.notebookreview.com/att...vidia-gt-555m-clevo-w150hr_-model-gt-555m.png

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h204/killer-ra/random nonimportant stuff/GPU/GT_555M_128.jpg

http://img0.pconline.com.cn/pconline/1106/16/2443273_gpu2.jpg

It looks like MSI might have snagged a 144 shader and 128bit GDDR5 GPU.

 

No offence but do you really think Nvidia would lie about two of their OWN GPUs that both have recently been published? I mean, I could understand your logic if Nvidia said that their 560M was 2x better than some AMD card, but not their own.

And I rather believe numbers and data that Mr.MM have quoted numerous times in these 555M threads, than something a random user are saying because we all know that people are ususally VERY subjective to whatever they have purchased.

You even said this in a recent thread:

Now let us compare that to the charts Nvidia have in their site about GTX 560M shall we. Here you go: Nvidia GTX 560M Relative GPU performance of GT 540M is around 4600 in 3DMark Vantage. GTX 560M is 10 000 in 3DMark Vantage. Take that 20% (I am being generous) increase to GT555M performance and you get:
x = 555M
y = 540M (4600)

y = 0.8 * x
4600 = 0.8 * x
x = 4600/0.8
555M = 5750

So in Vantage GT555M scores 5750 and 560M scores 10 000. With 15% it is 5400 ish. Now you do the math. Guess that 2x performance of 560M compared to GT555M isn`t that far off is it?

 

if that is so its good news indeed

 

Hey guys, I'd say we better wait for some benchmarks of the 560m, otherwise it's going to be "speculation" and - bam, you know what happens, lol.

I want to see the 560m stock getting 10k vantage before I really believe it.

Anyway, you're comparing apple to oranges imo. The 555m isn't a GPU that's supposed to run in systems with a 1080p screen. More like up to 900p.

The 560m will mostly be found in systems with a 1080p screen, e.g. the G74. What would be more interesting imo is how a 560m running on 1080p compares to a 555m running at 900p or 720p. Remember that the systems in which you find a 555m don't have a FHD screen.

That the 560m is generally a better GPU than the 555m (performance wise) is out of the question. But the 555m is a very neat and powerful card for smaller systems and totally enough powerful to run games at the stated resolutions. In addition to this it's much easier to run games on battery with a 555m than with a 560m.
(Which is another reason why you find this card in mobile systems, whereas the 560m is in DTRs)

 

560M would only need to be 30% faster than my oced 6770M to get that score in GPU score.

I get 8000 in total so it would only be 23% if you are talking overall score.

One thing to remember is that when something like my card is downclocked all the way to 300/300 its actually not a horrific performer.

 

Here you go.



MSI GT683R-242US With GeForce GTX 560M Review - HotHardware

 

Would be interesting to see the GPU scores.

Something is wrong with that 5870 score btw.

 

Ahh.... I found it. 560m vantage. Nowhere near 10k GPU score.

Spoiler

Link to the thread: http://forum.notebookreview.com/asu...-video-gtx-560m-hands-kind-2.html#post7547690


Seems Nvidia was talking about 10k total, which is absolutely stupid... the SB CPUs are giving such a big boost. 8300k GPU isn't that impressive. It's really just an OCed 460m. The 470m is still better than the 560m.


Edit: Btw, Cloudfire... the graph you posted isn't very informative... these aren't GPU scores, these are total scores, and are depending on the CPU.

 

Lol I get 7329 in my GPU score when OCed:

Result

 

Yeah I don`t know. Perhaps it was the total score of 10k Nvidia was quoting. But anyways it doesn`t matter really because A) it is an synthetic test and doesn`t reflect how it will perform in real world use B) it is much better than 555M which is why we are having this discussion really C) At gaming the 555M falls behind even more which could be why Nvidia is saying 2x the performance. Not 2x the score in useless benchmarks

Why are you dragging in the 470M btw? 480M, 485M, 6970M, 580M are all better too lol.

 

Like I said in this post, I think it's stupid to compare these two cards in such a way (555m and 560m). I don't need to write the whole post again.

I only posted the 560m benchmark because 10k was simply speculations, no facts at all. Of course it's a synthetic test, but this doesn't mean it's useless. Better performance in synthetic tests also results in better performance in games.

The reason I mentioned the 470m was because of all these speculating with numbers, which was way off reality. According to some of the numbers in this thread, the 560m several of the GPUs you just mentioned, which is simply wrong (as you obviously know).

Back to topic, everything I wanted to say about this can be found in this post.