GTX 780M speculation

Allright, 3DCenter just showed us how the upcoming 700-series is going to be and from that I think I know what mobile GPUs we might see the upcoming spring of 2013.
Source 3DCenter

First of all, here is the GK110.



This chip is out of the question for any mobile GPU, since its too big (550mm2) compare that to the huge 580M which was 332mm2. Not to mention all the transistors packed in it. GK104 which our 680M is, have 50% of that transistorcount. I think silicon will improve and Nvidia will absolutely see architecture improvements to get the heat down, but I dont see them cutting the heat down by 50%.




Second, here is GK114.



I`m 100% shure that this will be our next GTX 780M. Why? First off all, look at the die size, 290mm2, like said earlier, 580M was 332mm2. 680M is 294mm, so the size is perfect, its smaller than the hot Fermi (580M) and its the same size as our 680M. Now look at the core count, it have 1536 cores. Thats a fully fledged GTX 680 (desktop). And I`m positive that our 780M will be a fully fledged GK114. Why? Because this GK114 is taking over for GK106 which have 960 cores. You know what GPU that is right? Yep thats the GTX 675MX. Transistor count is 3.54 billion, the exact same as GK104, which our GTX 680M is. But due to the reason that the Kepler architecture will improve, heat will improve, I`m 100% certain that they will manage to bring the heat down to GTX 680M, without going the route of disabling cores.

It have 256bit, and it will be 10-15% performance over GTX 680. Worst case scenario is that they have to downclock the cores a little bit to get in to the tight thermal envelope which our notebooks have, but they don`t have to downclock it by more than 10-15% which means worst case is that we get a GTX 680 in our notebooks next year.

Also remember GTX 580M? It had the code name GF114. The above is called GK114. Just a coincidence?

Again these specs might be wrong, but I trust 3Dcenter a little more than the other rumor sites because 3DCenter had a lot of insight about Kepler which turned out to be correct before Kepler was released.

Anyone who agree or disagree? Thoughts?

 

Theory sounds pretty cool. I'd be happier if they just stuffed the 690 in our laptops though

 

i was thinking of getting a m18x, now that i see this i may wait

 

If you're going to wait, might as well wait for Maxwell because gk104->gk114 is going to be only like 15%-20%.

 

GK110 is the successor of GK104 though. Rumored same price too. Well most likely +$100 over GK104.
GK114 is the successor of GK106 (GTX 660) since its half the price of GK104. Performance jump around +50%. Slightly more expensive than GK106 though.


If we get a 780M that is just as powerful as GTX 680 which I think we might get, we are looking at 35-40% over 680M or something(?). If these rumors are true

 

That would be too good to be true.

I would assume something at max 40%! If I am not wrong they will release it around the Haswell release with Intel... try to guess why

 

Anyone know if Haswell will be compatible with the NP9150 motherboard? I'm guessing no because of smaller die sizes, but it would be awesome if I could upgrade in the future and get ddr4 ram and all that good stuff.

 

They don't expect a GK116? Seems like shortsighted analysis.

Anyway, the 780M will be GK114 like the 680M was GK104, so no surprise there. And there's little reason to believe we won't see another heavily underclocked card.

 

Yes! That would be THE great question for our 9150's to answer. If it IS possible, then we can all upgrade to a faster, more powerful card if it's compatible across the board (Motherboard, that is...).
I could get my problematic AMD 7970m POS card out, and swap the 780m in when Spring or Summer arrives.
The only question that I have is, how and when are we going to know if it is compatible with the 9150?
_________________________________________________________________________________

 

The NP8150 supports the 28nm 680M/7970M, despite initially shipping with 40nm cards.

There may be issues, but the shrink is nearly irrelevant.

 

die size is the size of the chip, not the card

 

I know, but I didn't know if it would affect compatibility or not. It would be awesome if Haswell worked with present day laptops though.

I guess we'll have to wait until it's released. For now, the i7 does a good job. It's not the bottleneck in any games that I know of. You can upgrade your gpu now if you think it's such a POS. We've already had this discussion in another thread, but you know the hotfix is coming and it fixes utilization. If you want the small performance bump that you won't be able to notice without running fraps our afterburner, then I encourage you to buy a 680m. Until then, maybe you could stop bashing the 7970 in every post you make. It's a good gpu.

 

haswell won't be compatible because it uses a completely different chipset and socket yeah i think we have to wait till 700 series come out to see if its compatible or not

 

Bummer, that might mean I'll buy a new laptop sooner than expected I'd still like to get as much life out of this machine as possible; one of the reasons I bought it was the upgradeability. The 700 series should be MXM, correct?

 

Would be happy enough if they put 1536 cuda cores on a single mobile GPU.

 

nothing wrong with the performance of the i7 ivy bridge, dont always have to have the best CPUs, at least not for me

 

It's certainly enough for today's games, I just don't want a bottleneck with next gen games. I'm hoping we'll start seeing some new games that can really take advantage of our hardware once this ancient console cycle is over.

 

It's a fair analysis and seems about right. 15-20% annual improvements without a die shrink and/or tech change is about par for the course. I'm happy with my 680m and have 15-20% FPS overclock potential, so I can easily skip the 700 series if this all holds out. Looking like I may actually make it two years with this laptop.

 

That would require the next gen games to be twice as power hungry as Crysis, which I doubt

 

You don't think they'll advance enough to require more cpu power? I guess that's good for my laptop. kinda depressing too though lol. I'm really burnt out on console ports. I want demanding more demanding titles, like Crysis was back in 2007.

 

they might require more CPU power, but i think the ivy bridge i7s should still suffice

 

Considering the first gen i7 line up can still keep up with today's games, I think Ivy bridge will be relevant for at least a couple more years.

 

Read the article. GK116 is mentioned there too, but it have 960 cores and 192bit. We already have that. GTX 670MX.

90% shure that the 9150 aka 150EM will support the GTX 780M without any problems. The new GPU will have more cores, 1536 cores (780M) instead of 1344 cores (680M) and I also think they will be clocked a bit higher. What might stop you is BIOS support of the new 780M but I highly doubt Clevo will force you to buy a new notebook just to upgrade your GPU. After all, Clevo is known for their customization.
Switching GPUs with Clevo is easy piecy

So yeah, if you are unhappy with your 7970M, you would be better off waiting for the 780M if you ask me. In the meantime save up the money for it

3610QM don`t bottleneck the 680M, but if you overclock it, you will need a faster CPU than that like we have seen with the 680M benches. And since we get a faster GPU with 780M, who knows, 3610QM might actually bottleneck it, even at stock speeds. Just a theory of course.

But then again, there are 3840QM and 3940XM with Ivy Bridge too that might suffice. One of the positive aspects of switching from Ivy to Haswell is that you get better performance per clock, meaning if you get 20% better IPC with Haswell, a 3.2GHz Haswell will perform like a 3.8GHz Ivy Bridge. Meaning less heat for those who want that

 

LOL. I don't bash my GPU every post I make, so you're way off base there. What I post is a reflection of the anger that I/we all have at the AMD screw-ups, the lack of a timely public response, and their lack of quick response time to correcting the issues to our costly laptop investments. It is their screw-ups that is costing them dearly financially, and it is probably more than likely a reason for their latest round of the large number of layoffs this week, and the poor 2012 earnings reports.
They laid off engineers and those that were possibly likely working on some kind of a solution to the Enduro mess, so that can't be good news, if true. Maybe that is why there is a longer delay on this hotfix solution, and it may be delayed even further out now.

If you don't like what I post, then instead of getting your panties in a bunch, don't respond to them.

As far as any hotfix is concerned, we have yet to see one with regard to the Enduro nonsense, so any predictions as to how effective it is going to be is premature at this point. The initial "successful" tests that were done were only at low to medium resolution, and not much substantially was corrected at 1080p, so I am not totally impressed with the hotfix, and won't be until higher resolutions fixes are added.

The point of this thread was intriguing to me, and that is why I posted here. If I could get rid of the 7970m and upgrade the to 680m or to the newest Nvidia offering next Spring that is compatible with my 9150 motherboard, I would in a heartbeat, which is something the resident AMD fanboys like you just you don't want to hear, but that is the way it is with those of us who are disappointed in what he all bought months ago with our hard-earned cash.

__________________________________________________________________________________

 

Back when Crysis released, people went beserk to get the best possible shizzle for their machines to run it! I remember it so good haha

But back on topic.. I would rather want to see getting much more out of the engines now rather than developing new ones all the time! Just look at CS:GO, Source Engine remastered!

 

As far as CPUs go, only dual core owners should be afraid of the next-gen consoles. They will definitely be seen as bottlenecks.

Quad cores will finally get constant workouts, but GPU power will still be key.

 

Hopefully they include Hyper-Q in the 700 series, that way even with weak CPU the GPU usage can still pretty much go to 99%.

 

Resident AMD fanboy? lmao sorry man, but you come off as such a (edited lol) in so many of your posts. I've always owned nvidia up until this laptop, and I originally ordered the laptop with a 675m. I changed it when I came to the conclusion that it makes more sense to get a faster, more modern gpu than the old fermi, especially since the hotfix is around that corner. So I'm an amd fanboy now?

I really hate to be off topic here, so I'll try and make a succinct reply to your belligerent wall of text. AMD is suffering because of they aren't competitive in the cpu market. It has absolutely nothing to do with their "screw ups" in the graphics department. They're restructuring and laying of 15% off their staff by the end of the year in order to save money. As far as we know, no one has been laid off yet, certainly no one that would be developing the hotfix. The issues with underutilization and Enduro aren't the cause of amd's financial problems. They're still competitive in graphics development and they retain a healthy share of the gpu market.

People raging about the time it has taken to fix enduro have obviously forgotten it took nvidia a year to fix optimus.

The bulk of the underutilization problems are seen at lower settings; when one tries to lower settings to yeild better framerates, utilization plummets and framerates don't increase. The hotfix worked, and fixed these problems. As far as the results of higher resolutions, I'm not sure what your unrealistic expectations of this card are. It consistently performs as well as the 680m in most games, aside from two or three games where the 680m pulls off 100+ fps and the 7970m does around 60fps. Because of those results, you're comparing this card to the much slower, two year old fermi 675/580. That's ridiculous. I've said it before, but I've personally run benchmarks on this card, even on Crysis Warhead and BF3 maps suffering from underutilization like Caspian Border, and it always averages 40+ frames per second. The 675m can't do that on ultra settings with aa. You're constantly bashing the 7970m because it's beaten by a card that came out months after it and costs nearly twice as much. Of course the newer, more expensive card will perform better. The fact is though, it's only marginally better, and even in the rare cases is beats the 7970 by a large margin, you wouldn't even be able to tell the difference.

Seriously, buy yourself a new card and quit complaining. It's getting old.

 

By the way is Haswell going to support the current socket? If not then I might just go for a new laptop with Broadwell + GTX 880M 2 years later .

 

no haswell is not compatible with ivy/sandy bridge sockets

 

broadwell, 14nm. whoa.

you might have the right idea ahahah

 

i am quite curious on how they are gonna make 14nm transistors

 

any news on 780m yet? theres a chance for 8990m this time around, be a good competition.

 

Same as now with the tri-gate just smaller.

 

I find it fascinating that the smaller transistors get the more efficient they become, and are generally more reliable. Tis weird.

 

Less reliable and technically accurate (not vastly important in a digital design, but they are worse for analogue), but able to operate at higher speeds at lower voltages.

 

Ah i didn't know they were less accurate, i assumed they were more due to the increase in performance that comes from it.

Nice to know

 

In digital design it just needs to be across the threshold of 0 or 1, to make an analogue circuit the transistor has to be FAR larger to produce any kind of meaningful result.

Part of that is dynamic range, the gap between off and on (where analogue works) is smaller as the voltage drops.

 

Thats why i love this forum. I learn something new everyday

 

I doubt any company will come out with a game like Crysis did, with graphics so asininely advanced and demanding that even some of the most high end desktops of the day struggled and it took 2 years for most normal systems to be able to run it decently. Remember tech forums back then being spammed with 'But will it run crysis lol" posts?

 

Crysis was just horribly optimized.

Imagine Falcon 4 when it was released at a time of single core CPU's and it was optimized for two threads? Enthusiasts were running DUAL CPU (not dual core - didn't exist yet) systems to run the game. Graphics were phenomenal for the time too.

But heck, I finished Crysis and Warhead on an 8600m GT at low settings. So it wasn't too horribly demanding.

 

its been awhile since last post but here

GTX 780M they call it qual sample, specs are below on ebay page
Qual Sample M18x M17x NVIDIA GeForce GTX780M Laptop Video Card 780M 4GB w Driver | eBay

TIME TO DISCUSS THIS CARD

 

threaddigger!!

 

TIME? There's FOUR 780M threads on the first page of the Gaming section. We don't need this one.

 

i don't really mind im just bored