GTX 980M / 970M Maxwell (Un)official news

It's kind of silly. Last iteration that offered more than necessary but now not enough.

 

Agree, it's totally asinine. Now how much of the new cards' BOM is gonna be spent on stupid amounts of GDDR5 instead of actually faster GPU's just because of some lazy game devs. Gonna raise their prices too.

 

eurocom update:

Eurocom Future Models

 

I just don't understand how the top laptop GPU's get 6 or 8gb but the two newly released desktop cards with the same GM204 chip only get 3 and 4gb opptions. Especially since when it comes to raw horsepower the desktops still have far more capability that laptop overall....yet with the latest rounds of vRAM usage it seems like laptops will be the only ones able to take advantage of these insane vRAM gobbling ultra settings in some of the new games. It just doesn't make since.

I know some have said that desktop cards will be getting the 6 & 8gb options later but if it's so crippling by not having that much why didn't they start with it. I would be quite upset if I spent $650+ on a new GTX 980 and put it in a top shelf spec'd desktop and then couldn't even play some of these games at max settings running at 1080.

 

It's because the laptop GPU's cost 2-3x as much as their desktop counterparts.

 

Relative to the cost of the card the ram is a smaller percentage compared to desktop cards and bigger numbers sell more.

 

Nvidia doesn't care it means more money for them, latest nvidia card 980 still soldout on amazon+newegg so it's working out for them
they released titan 1000$ and a short time after it released a card that cost half the price and perform the same (780) and a short time after released 780 ti which did beat 780 in everything for the same price as 780, also released 3gb 780 only then released 780 6gb

Previously 4GB ran everything on ultra 4K resolution + AA, now we are passing 5GB used on 1080p only happening because of the next gen consoles arrived

 

Well you would still think the desktop people would at least have the option right out of the gate whether to get cards with double the vRAM. The GTX 980 desktop part has more muscle than the GTX 980m yet the desktop cards won't be able to use the ultra settings on some of these games. Again, I would be pretty bummed if my new 4gb GTX 980 desktop card couldn't even play games at the same max settings as a markably slower and weaker laptop GTX 970 with 6gb.

 

Yeah, I hear ya. It stinks whichever way you slice it.

 

Wouldn't the bigger numbers selling more apply to the desktop variety also?

 

I agree with you, but at the same time I'm boneheaded in that I refuse to cave in to unreasonable demands bordering on extortion, and thus I would never buy any current gen game that requires more than $1000 worth of current gen GPU power to run >60 frames on ultra at 1080p.

 

*Tinfoil hat on*

This way they can sell more PS4 and Xbone.

 

N=1, I feel you on that. Heck, when I got this laptop with an 860m and 2gb of vRAM nearly everyone agreed that for 1080 that would be plenty. Also, at same time when the GTX 880m came out most were completely dumbfounded...including me, when it came with a ridiculously over the top 8gb of vRAM. Now less than 9 months later 4gb seems to be the bare minimum to play these stupid poorly optimized games and 6 or 8gb seems to be what is needed to play them at max settings. Like Octi said....no matter how you look at it, it really sucks.

 

The devs would have to seriously delusional to think that any self-respecting PC gamer would go and buy an inferior piece of hardware to run the game at inferior settings because they couldn't run it on ultra on their PC. I'd sooner buy an overpriced Titan II than I would a PS4 or XBone. (yes I know you put the tinfoil hat on, but sadly I do believe there is a grain of truth to it)

Then again I'm special I guess...

 

You might, but would Joe Average spend $1000 on a GPU alone, never mind the rest of the PC, just to be able to run the same texture quality setting as a $400 console?

 

There's a price to pay for sticking to your principles

Also I meant it more in a "if my hand was forced I'd rather shell out more for better hardware than spend less money on something that is functionally inferior" kind of way, because then I might as well just dial down the settings and run the game on my existing hardware and not waste the money at all.

Plus like I said I wouldn't even be buying said game in the first place, so it's unlikely to be a problem (for now anyway).

 

So the G751 has been found.
What 15 inch notebook can you recommand?
I am not sure if i should buy a 17 inch one, since the weight is incredibly high in the difference between 15" and 17".
Also i cant seem to find a good looking carrying case
I want to pay max 1600€ and it should have atleast an 870M/970M

 

It could turn ugly though if every single good game worth playing becomes like this.

 

Then I'd have to decide whether my wallet or my happiness is more important to me

 

No, because desktop parts typically sell more to an informed crowd. Laptops sell more to the unaware. Hence, bigger numbers always means better. Right?

 

What Notebook Should I Buy? - A Laptop Buyers Guide

 

I think its the right topic here, since i am looking for one with an 970M or even better an 980M Notebook.
Anyone know what German Onlineshops will sell the new upcoming notebooks?
I would fly to paris to get one if it wouldnt appear before November in germany

 

Beyond whether you should ask in this thread, no one could answer you anyway, the form for the which notebook should I buy forum is there for a reason.

For instance if you are doing photography and gaming, you will want a high color space/accuracy display. If you are doing lots of text documents you want good contrast but color space isn't as important. If you are constantly on the go carrying it with you portability might factor over power/heat.

And beyond all that nothing has truly been released yet so all anyone can do is say this one looks interesting. Just wait a week or so till release.


On your other question, so far I have seen leaks from Poland, France, Australia, an Asian site (forgot to note country), and I think one from Russia. It seems, not too surprisingly, that everyone is waiting for nVidia to launch them but they should be available near worldwide.

 

Ok.
Thanks for your fast answer

 

AORUS X7 with GTX 970M SLI finally benchmarked.
It will indeed be called X7v3

Almost 20 000 GPU point in 3Dmark11. Very impressive
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/8780026

GTX 770M SLI scores like 8500 lol

 

Uhh did you post the wrong link? That's for a single 980M and the GPU score was like 13610 lol

EDIT: Cloud fixed the link

 

I see 970m x2

 

No. Clevo spec for spec is cheaper than everything. Difference between same spec for spec alienware is ~$900.00. I did my research. Some msi models offer 4 way raid 0 but you can do the same with clevo. Or just get one samsung ssd and run it in rapid mode for 5gb reads. Cheaper sli or single gpu with 4 raid 0 which is more expensive. Buy whatever you want and say msi is somehow better but ovjectively spec for spec clevo is alwsys better. Right now at xotic pc: $2380 for np9377 with 880m sli. 8gbs ram but anymore is for people who like to spend money. Most steam users do not even have 8gbs of ram according to steam survey.

EDIT: spec for spec gtx 880m sli on no9377 and alienware 18 the price difference is $900 spec for spec. Other models are lower difference. Please do not hate on clevo. Dont buy an msi because you dont like clevo. Buy it because you like it. I am buying clevo because it is cheaper for same parts. Its same with cars. My coworkers talk about how same engine in two different cars cost different. Just because if luxury brand name although exactly same engine.

 

Sneaky Cloud, before it linked to a GT72 with 4710HQ and 980M

 

If the temps are good enough then that will be a great thin laptop. Theoretical 20% increase with 970m over 880m if true + good temps on aurous = nuts. Still set on np9377 sli but aurous will be great and might consider if price good but idk.

 

It looks like the benchmark is incomplete, it doesn't describe what kind of CPU? Still using the 4860hq or a newer model? The VRAM in v2 is 860MSLI with 8gvram, and there is only 3gb and 6gb version of the 970m is available, so is gonna be like 970msli w 6G VRAM or make a different total size of VRAM?

 

Looks like some busy testing of the AORUS X7 today. I counted about 60 3dmark11 benchmarks for that config today. This was the highest score.

Code:

ID	Bench Date	GPU		Score	Core/Memory	Driver	CPU		Mobo
[url=http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/8783792]8783792[/url]	10/02/2014	GTX 970M (2x)	19855	924/1,253	9.18.13.4400	i7	GIGABYTE X7V3

 

not true you bought their misleading spec info. The Aorus x7 v2 has 2x860m Kepler with 4GB vRAM each. Often sites list a SLI system by adding the 2 cards ram together and say 8gb even though in actual usage it only functions as 4gb. The 970m will have either 3gb (25% less) or 6gb (50% more), if they choose 3gb then the laptop is pretty much trash.

 

I know that meaning. But still, it is sucks that there is only 3gb w VRAM. I thought at least they will maintain that 4gb for a single card, may be higher.

 

How do you find this code? I don't even where to look for it, can u tell me?

 

Since these new gpus aren't searchable yet I use a script to scrape the 3dmark site and search for 9XXM in the results. I use mathematica since it has a simple function to parallelize the process but it still takes about 1/2 hr to search through 5k results. After I grab all the benchmark IDs I just use another function/script to rip out the important stuff.

When you're impatient you do what you can to get as much info as possible

 

Do we know if the GS70 has been spotted yet with the 970?

 

Ah I see it does show the 3gb vRAM under specifications, ick OK then Aorus x7 v3 is almost certainly crap, how stupid. I could understand having a single 970m with 3gb vRAM, but its going to bottleneck an SLI way too often.

 

I can't believe I'm saying this but would the 6gb of VRAM on a 970m be a bottleneck in sli? I mean, the shadow of mordor results showed nearly 6gb in 1080p, and if the laptop had a higher resolution screen, wouldn't go higher?

 

well that's enough to say about shtty optimization

 

could you record a how-to video?

 

a $70 external speaker set can slaughter MSI's top dyna audio in the GT series, audio really isn't part of the equation here

 

So how does the 3dmark11 scores correlate to gaming performance. I know there is no exact conversion, but my desktop with a 480gtx, i7 860, and16gb ram on a 500 samsung ssd did a 3dmark11 of P5517, gpu 5307, physics 6633, combined 5780.

I've been waiting and wanting the 970m as that is more realistically in my price range, but just wondering if a 3d mark score that is doubled would suggest double the FPS. I keep thinking I might just get a great deal on a 780m or 870m, But it's so hard to pay for dated tech!!

And even though I had to resign up on here... I'm not a newbie.. I had a SLI M1710 back in the day with 8800's

 

And an external monitor, keyboard, mouse.... graphics card, even a whole desktop computer!

All resellers have their pros and cons. Sound definitely is part of the equation, just as screen is, keyboard, and internal components. We all value specs differently. You can find different value in different brands depending on what you want.

 

There is no particular indication on benchscores and real gaming performance. The new GPUs should be announced soon and i am sure a wealth of info and gaming tests will come out, so you can compare your current performance and see what you can get with 970m/980m

You can already look for numbers of your GTX480 vs 780m, with the knowledge that 980m will perform better in general.

 

There's no real how-to...it's just a few lines of Mathematica code. If you have that software I can send you the notebook/code.

 

Most of your points are good except for the RAM comment.

Not everyone uses their laptops in the same way. Mine is primarily for work and gaming is secondary. It is not uncommon for me to exceed 16 GB RAM usage, which is why I opted for 32GB.

 

I second this. I often use 7GB of RAM just with chrome open watching livestreams and in Teamspeak. When I start a game or start streaming I can easily hit 9GB+ usage. 8GB is NOT ENOUGH FOR ME. And I'm a gamer.

 

You two are REALLY misunderstanding vRAM. 2GB does not bottleneck SLI. Hell, 1GB won't bottleneck SLI. Neither will 6GB or 8GB. vRAM is used almost entirely by the program (game) that you're using, and if the program requires more, it does not matter if you're using SLI or not. It will simply require more. Single GPU can use 8GB vRAM like nothing. MultiGPU can run better with two 2GB vRAM cards than one single 8GB vRAM card. If you need to know more, click on the vRAM information link in my sig. vRAM has so little to do with the power of a card it might as well be negligible.

 

You are right, I was unclear.

My point was there is nearly no point in getting a 970m/980m SLI to play games over a year old. A single 980m or even 970m should be able to handle them just fine. Games made in the last year or so and all signs point towards future games starting to need that extra GPU to push 60+ FPS, so really you only should be bothering to get an SLI in the first place if you intend to use it to play games coming out in upcoming years in ultra settings.

Since it appears many of these upcoming games will be using between 3-6GB vRAM instead of 1-3gb vRAM, getting over 4GB is mainly to deal with future games on ultra settings.

It may still be worth getting the 970m 6GB, or 980m 8GB in single GPU laptops, to prevent possible vRAM bottlenecks in poorly optimized games. This will depend mostly on the type of games you plan to be using it for. However there is little point in buying a more expensive SLI system with the drawbacks SLI entails just to play those games, you buy an SLI system to be able to use ultra settings specifically on those games where vRAM bottlenecking might be an issue.

Hope I explained what I meant better that time.