GTS 350m vs GTX 285m argument...

So I've got a guy trying to convince me that the GTS 360m is far more powerful than the GTX 285m as it's on longer modelled on the 9800 and is built on newer architecture as it's a part of the new 300 series.

I'm pretty sure that he's wrong: http://www.giantbomb.com/just-cause-2/61-20742/physx/35-396118/#6 (4th post down)

Then again, I'm not the most technically competent guy here so may be feeding him misinformation -anyone care to clear this up for us?

 

I'm pretty sure Nvidia said 285 is the high end boutique and 360M is mid-range.

And pretty sure your game benches you've posted blows away what the 360M can do.

360M cannot play Crysis on Gamer settings at 1080 on the Asus G51. GenTech had to scale that down to 1280*720. I think that's proof enough for you sir that you are correct.

 

ITT: Nerd rage over mobile GPU's.

 

The 285m is about 40% faster.

 

BTW, I believe the GTX260M is still better than the GTS360M also. GTS kinda gives it away. Considering some of those forum posters seem to be hardcore Nvidia fans, would have thought they knew how Nvidia names their cards.

 

yes even GTX260M is much faster, GTS360M is closer to GT240M in terms of performance.

 

That's what I thought - it's really hard to find benches for the GTS 360m though (or at least in depth ones that use the same games I did).

Thanks for helping to clear that up!

 

Nvidia love people like that guy, he is what keeps them up at night coming up with lesser mobile GPU's with misleading names that suggest Nasa level power.

I saw a post on a GTA forum with some one saying that a laptop with the GTS 360M was the current best on the market.

 

If you compare the clock rates, specs and streams / shaders of the GTS360M Vs the GTX 285M you can get an idea of its performance but I guess due to it being GDDR5 with an extra DX mode they are (wrongly) convinced that it is better.

 

how is the 360m compared to the ati 5730 and the 160m?

 

^if you get any of those cards you will have to change your avatar. Overall 160m GT is faster than 360M GTS. I don't know about 5730.

 

the 160m is a bit slower than the 260m, the 5730 is the slowest of the set.

in my opinion, the 160m < 260m < 360m, but it is really close, especially between the 260m and 360m. the 260m may be faster in some cases.

*** I am comparing the GTS versions of these cards... the 260 GTX is faster, of course.

 

That was basically his argument - newer architecture and GDDR5 and DX10.1

 

GTX260M is faster anytime but even with GDDR3 memory , GTS360M is faster than GT240M anytime... and so far i haven't seen one laptop with GTS360M not have GDDR5 memory

Considering that all have DDR3 ,

ATI 5730 > GTS160M
ATI 5730< GTS360M...

 

W-T-F is GTS 350M...maybe a low volt low clock card...
effective cooling> high voltage >high clocks = SPEED

GDDR5 does have somewhat slower memory latency. I not sure what mem. chip they use now, but during the first time cards with GDDR5 were out, we benchmarked the GDDR3 mem. and results were GDDR3 are still the fastest. DX 10.1 is old. Lets focus more on DX11

 

Yes. http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=6023663&postcount=370

 

GTX260M > GTS360M

What the hell is wrong with Nvidia's naming scheme? The old one made much more sense where the second number would always be the most important. Now the whole GTX/GTS thing completely negates the first and second number.

 

Yeah but still, ATi sort of similar.

HD4870 better than HD5770 I believe for DX10 performance.

 

note he said second number, and the second number IS what is important. 5 870>4870 and 5770>4770

 

Sort of similar? There aren´t HD 5870 GTX/GTS stuff, just only numbers.

 

Do u mean mobility or desktop? If mobility , 4870 will pwen 5770 unless it comes with GDDR5... in desktop , same case...

 

Um, the 160M is 256-bit, and there is no GDDR3 360M. Both are significantly faster than the weak 5730. It's not even close.