GTX 280M Benchmarks from notebookcheck

Notebookcheck.de claims they have tested the GTX 280M , here are their results:

Notebook:
* Clevo M980NU 18.4“ Barebone (Pre-Production Sample)
* Nvidia GeForce GTX 280M mit 1024 GDDR 3 (585/1463/950) im MXM 3.0 Slot (Pre-Production Sample)
* Intel Core 2 Duo X9100 3.1 GHz CPU
* 2048 MB DDR3
* 320 GB 5400 U/min HDD
* Vista 64 Bit




Cod 4, 1280x1024, 4xaa, all on or high -75
Far Cry 2 640 low 97,5
Far Cry 2 XGA high 62,1
Far Cry 2 SXGA very high 40,4
Call of Juarez high XGA 4xAA 33,4
Crysis Warhead 800x600, low 76
Crysis Warhead XGA, very high 21
Crysis Warhead SXGA, very high 17
Crysis Warhead 1080p, very high 12
WIC 800, very low 176
WIC XGA, high 46
WIC XGA, med 77
WIC SXGA very hig 26
Supreme Commander XGA, high, 2xAA 45,4
HL2 Lost Coast XGA high 143,7
Crysis XGA GPU low 105,7
Crysis XGA GPU med 66,5
Crysis XGA GPU high 44,7
Crysis SXGA GPU very high 20,4
Doom3 low 161
Doom3 ultra 160
Doom3 ultra 1280x1024 16xAA 36
Burn Out Paradise 1920x1200 high 60
Fear 2 Demo SXGA high 94
ET Quake Wars 1080p ultra 57

Edit: Somehow pressed TAB then Space and its posted without the Benchmark results, Sry!

 

And.....you forgot to post the results of the benchmarks.

EDIT : Alright! The 3DMark06 seems awfully low in my opinion .. didn't the ATI 4870X2 break the 20k barrier?

 

Right now my 9800M GTX with the OC on it, get's pretty close to what the 280M gets in benchmarks and also in games. For me it is all up to how much you can OC the 280M. If it can ran stable at 700/1750/950 that would be pretty cool.

 

The mem clock should hit 1050 easily.

 

If someone drew a benchmark chart that looked like Kevin Jack's forum avatar I'd give it just as much credibility as Notebookcheck's benchmark charts.

 

Am I the only one disappointed from NVIDIA? We still haven't got a REAL upgrade after the 8800M GTX. Oh well, at least ATI is doing something.

 

Its all about price/performance for me in this current generation of mobile GPUs.

 

But if these performance benchmarks hold true then the GTX 280M isn't going to be the holy grail of mobile graphics.

 

Notebookcheck is known for unreliable stuff. I'll wait to see real member postings on it. I doubt nVidia will win this round considering we haven't compared it to the benchmarks for the GDDR5 version of the 4870. Based on the desktop versions, it should easily destroy the G92b (GTX 280M isn't anything new, just a die shrink).

 

Every ATI bot? You're either a die-hard nVidia fanboy or have some mentality issues.

Notebookcheck is a known BS site. It's good for some things, like maybe their reviews, but 3DMarks, GPU listing etc need some serious attention.

 

i would't say it's a bs site, they list the correct specs for graphics cards, but their gfx hierarchy definitely needs an overhaul.
they list a gtx 280m> 9800m gt(8800m gtx) sli.
and a hd2600 is weaker than a 7600 gt.

non sense.

 

"Don't spam" says someone who doubleposts, flames and accuses others being ATI bots.

You need to learn some manners.

 

The way this is heading this thread is not gonna stay open for long. For my part I'll wait until the gddr5 version of the hd4870 is out before making any judgement.

 

I'm totally with you on that one... the GTX 280M is not very impressive at all... the HD 4870 GDDR5 should mop the floor with it.

 

Can't really believe notebookcheck but these initial results aren't that great.

Crysis Warhead SXGA, very high 17
Far Cry 2 SXGA very high 40,4
Cod 4, 1280x1024, 4xaa, all on or high -75

Those numbers aren't all that much better than current 9800M GTX scores. Anyone with a 9800M GTX want to post their results in those games?

 

A single DDR5 4870 can smoke that something is wrong here or maybe nvidia wasn't ready for ATI's all out assualt........

 

I think the problem with Notebookcheck's results are that they post 3DMark results without taking into account the skewing that the CPU score has on them.

 

Yeah like everyone has an X9100... I bet the GDDR3 4850 performs better, if only mildly.

 

ehhhh i doubt that.

 

Yeah thoes sound pretty low...could it be bran new drivers arn't up to the GTX 280M?

 

Well, if one were to calculate a % drop in performance over its desktop derivatives, comparing the GTX 280M and the Mobility HD 4850 would be very close to comparing a 9800 GTX+ to the desktop 4850; For the 9800M GTX, 585mhz/738mhz = .79 (meaning the core is reduced to roughly 80% of the 9800 GTX+'s core speed), and for Memory, 950mhz/1100mhz = .86 or 86% of the 9800 GTX+'s memory speed. For the Mobility 4850, the numbers are 500mhz/625 = .8 or 80% of the desktop version's core speed and 850mhz/993mhz = .86/86% of the desktop version's memory frequency. Also for the GTX 280M, 1463mhz/1836mhz = 80% of shader clock speed.

However, the GTX 280M has the advantage on paper because of more memory, which is important at high resolutions with games that use a lot of textures.

 

No, actually this makes complete sense, and would confirm what has been said for months now if this is true. The GTX280m is NOT based off the desktop version, not even close, it's actually a mobile version of the 55nm 9800GTX+. So technically this should perform only slightly better than everyone's 65nm 8800mGTX/9800m GTX notebooks.

 

The 9800M is already based on the desktop version (G92), this version will be the closest to the actual thing, but not quite there. It's still slower than the desktop 9800 gtx, but 55nm.

 

I have the 9800m GTX with the X9100 in my Clevo and it performs better than those GTX 280m benchmarks, I call fakes.

 

He's right. The GTX280m is a desktop 9800GTX+, it has 128 ALUs ( the 9800gtx+ has 128 ALUs) 8800m GTX has 96 ALUs, and the 9800m GTX has 112 ALUs.Desktop 9800GTX+ and Gt280m are both 55nm. So really the performance is not going to be the kind of jump the 8800mGTX had over the 7900series-mGTX. Why? because 1: The ALUs were double from the 7900 series to the 8800 series, vs. like 10% more on the gt280m to the 9800m GTX. 2: No one cared about the 9800GTX in the first place, because it was a filler card that was replaced by GTX200 in an insane amount of time which was due to the HD4870. But the GT200 was 2x as fast as the G92b architecture literally weeks later which ticked all the people off who bought the 9800GTX cards. ATI, you deserve a break after the HD2900 bug, Nvidia you own more contracts for now, but won't if you continue on this road.

11,700ish seems about right for what the stats on the gt280m is, the 4850 scores around mid 10k with a 2.8ghz proc. The 5400ish Vantage score is what to look at, you all need to start forgetting about 3dmark06 it's obsolete now. I know vantage isn't as ,mainstream yet, but it will replace 3dmark06 just as 3dmark06 replaced 3dmark05 too, and it's more accurate for graphics comparisons.

 

Well it is the X2...

 

The Mobility HD 4870 (GDDR3 version) is a downclocked desktop HD 4850.

The GTX 280m is a downclocked desktop 9800 GTX+

With these cards most games can be maxed out with a few exceptions…*cough* Crysis. Thus, in this situation I would take the Nvidia card over the ATI specifically for Crysis.

BTW, when someone gets the GTX 280m, can you tell me if it’s possible to OC it to 9800 GTX+ clocks without killing the GPU?

 

I'm disappointed.
Those benchmark confirm the 280 is not a great step forward. Considering I get 9300 in Vantage I do not understand why notebookcheck says a single 280 is better than a sli 8800. bah

 

"With these cards most games can be maxed out with a few exceptions…*cough* Crysis."

id put Clear Sky on that list as well

 

It will reach 9800 GTX speeds easily, but GTX+ is way too high.

Drivers aren't even out for this card yet guys. Ignore these benchmarks until we have them in our hands.

 

that's somewhat true. Nvidia has not released "official" drivers for this card, however Windows has an update for the Nvidia drivers that "recognizes" the GTX 280m, I'm not sure if it actually truly optimizes/supports it though...

dang, I was hoping to have a deaktop 9800 GTX+ in a laptop! that would be insane!

I guess I will OC the GTX 280m somewhere between the 9800 GTX and GTX+

It's not a great step forward, all the GTX 280m is is an upgrade of its predecesors. However one shouldn't judge a card by it's 3dMark scores, real games (like Crysis...darn you Crysis!) ahould we what truly matters. If everything was judged by synthetic benchmarks...ATI would have won the GPU game a long time ago.

 

I think OCing to the 9800 GTX clocks is already a bit hopeful..

 

I agree, when I got my laptop and saw its gpu would only get 6100 3d marks according to notebookcheck I was choked. Then I benchmarked it and got much more than it said.

 

I see alot of people in this thread talking about the HD 4870 GDDR5.....when does it come out?

 

for laptops of course.

 

apparently some rep of Alienware said they would be getting the Mobility HD 4870 GDDR5 first. Not sure when though.

 

4870 GDDR5 would be epic. Tbh, I started to like ATI more.

Their mobile GPUs are much closer to the desktop counterparts than the Nvidias.

 

^ the fact that they dont recycle old products and blatantly name them after new generations is certainly a battle ATI has won

 

I think this picture is an excellent summary of these.

 

FWIW, the G92 is still a capable GPU core. A 9800M GTX is still holding its own against a MR 4850. Unfortunately for us, this would mean that notebook graphics isn't making a huge leap in terms of performance yet. The only card that gives hope for the future is the MR 4860, which is basically a 128 bit card that will beat out most 256 bit cards in raw performance. However, like the 4870 GDDR5, it isn't out yet to the public.

 

Althernai: haha exactly

"FWIW, the G92 is still a capable GPU core."

i agree completely; its the fact that they blatantly attempt to mislead people that bothers some

 

I see.

Yeah, I do disagree with nVidia's naming scheme. I'd much rather have this new GTX 280M be renamed a 9850M GTX+ or something. They did something similar with an OC'd GeForce Go 7900 GTX (7950 GTX).

But I'm guessing they went with the GTX 200M labels to combat ATi in the high end sector because most people would pick a 48xx over a GeForce 98xx just by name.

 

just realised something, what are they gonna call the REAL mobile gtx 280? gtx 380/360?

 

word on the street is that there isnt going to BE a real high-end 2xx mobile part since it doesnt lend itself well to a mobile application

more likely they will skip right over it and we will only get the 3xx parts which will be 45nm if i remember correctly

 

Hm i guess they may just end up calling those GTX 285/295.......

 

I just trust the benchmarks from one of us rather than those websites. So, I would love to wait and get the benchmarks from the gamers.

 

Mobile GT200 is set for Q4 of this year at 40nm.

These cards are exactly what Nvidia said they would be, according to this chart.

 

any idea if the present Sager 5797 MXM III will support them?

 

Maybe, maybe not, more than likely not. Since I think Clevo does not want to hurt its new laptops sales.

 

why do I suddenly feel like GTX280M will just be a ''oh, ok cool" card?