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

Keep dreaming, buddy.

The big die will never be on mobile again. GTX 480M was a disaster that Nvidia won't be inclined to repeat. Their business strategy has changed since then. New GPU architectures are mobile-focused, built from the bottom-up rather than top-down. Hence why Kepler led with GK104 and Maxwell led with GM107 and now GM204.

 

damn semantics

Fine it's not an actual "fact", but if history is any indication, and especially after the 480M disaster, we are unlikely to ever see a cut down big die on laptops again. For the past 3 iterations the top mobile card always used either the full mid-range chip (580M, 780M) or a slightly cut version (680M). And in each case heavily downclocked in order to fit within the TDP envelope.

 

HSN is in love with VRAM. Someone marry these two!

You don't need that much VRAM to play a game, especially at that native resolution. Paying more for one PC over another because of some extra VRAM that you'll never fully utilize is bit ridiculous.

 

Is Oct 5 at State, and still no word on the announcement of GTX970/80M.

 

Keep telling yourself that.

announcement is between 7-11, Confirmed shipping dates at least at OCT14 is confirmed by multiple websites

 

It will be better off for me to decide which laptop I should buy. ps. I'm not a big fan of those giant laptop

 

I'm not telling myself anything. It is what I've learned from owning the games you referenced in your weak, pathetic "argument" for needing 8GB's of VRAM.

Games like Watch Dogs (and games from now on) may "require" more than 3GB of VRAM and benefit from it, but both 3GB and 6GB produce identical framerates and stutter in exactly the same way. It's not the VRAM that decides how the game performs. Using the absolute worst optimized game to hit the market since GTA IV as a basis for walls of text against 3GB of VRAM is laughable. But hey, who doesn't like a good laugh every now and then? :thumbsup:

P.S. All in reference to 1080p.

 

I'm wondering if Asus gonna release higher Vram version in the future, highly unlikely considering previous models, if they dont i might just go for the GT72. It's ridiculous that Asus cant foresee this

 

Not to mention that severely cutting down the big die would be stupid and totally inefficient as it would have the power and heat characteristics of a high-end ASIC with the performance of a mid-range one. Again, 480M is the perfect example of this.

CoD: Ghosts, Titanfall, Watch Dogs, Wolfenstein: The New Order, Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor, The Evil Within, and upcoming PC multiplats say hi. :hi2:

 

There isn't any technical reason a 980m couldn't have 6GB vRAM right?

There is nothing really wrong with the 4GB even, its just likely to have to run some near future games on high not ultra settings. 6GB would really probably be fine for the next few years though. 8GB is even more future proof, but likely a little bit overkill right now.

I'm much more worried on the 3GB 970m though, lots of games are already wanting 3-4GB, and its only going to get worse.

 

There is due to the memory bus/controllers configuration. 980M would have 4GB/8GB. 970M, assuming it's 192-bit, would have 3GB/6GB.

 

Those are some pretty awful games.

 

Reaching for straws?

 

Nah, football is on. Bit preoccupied.

 

Ignore that troll, he even thinks dual core ULV CPU at alienware 13 thread wont bottleneck games lol

 

As i have said before
3GB = Low, remember we are talking 970/980 here you have the raw power to max out games so you need the vram that fits with that power/settings/resolution, if you play 1600x900 and high+medium settings then yeah... 3GB not low
4GB = Standard and really "needed" to avoid stutter etc "ignore the troll that says vram has no effect, his knowledge is zero yet he argue, there is vram stutter, engine stutter, various reasons but vram stutter is known
6GB = ultra settings for various games or adding ton of mods downsampling+high AA for certain games
8GB = future proof not needed currently at all

 

Because an i7 won't.

 

*cough cough*

 

You don't get it...

ULV i7 is weaker than desktop i3, breh.

 

lol told ya he is a troll XD

 

Well there is a difference between being a bit dull and being a troll.

 

I posted links for shadow of morder showing the gaming using more than 5GB a fact
Developer for evil within saying 4GB minimum is required to play the game on max/high resolution a fact
watch dogs passing 3gb etc even other games other people listed yet he says nope games dont need 3gb vram and dual core ULV CPU is enough and wont bottleneck games gotta be troll or someone with really brain issue

 

I'm OK if you need 3-4GB for Ultra textures, because that's a premium feature. But requiring 3GB for high details is a bit much (looking at you Mordor). But despite the 3GB "requirement" the game plays remarkably well at high settings and only uses less than 2GB at 1080p. So not sure of their requirement.

And requiring 6GB+ for Ultra is overly ridiculous because top end desktop cards don't even carry that much. I still don't understand how they made the decision for those kinds of requirements.

 

An i7 will not bottleneck an 860M. Saying that does not make me a "bit dull." It's a simple fact.

You can't have a conversation with someone without insulting them. Says a lot about your character. You're going places, bro.

 

Dev: Welp now we gotta port this to PC. This is PC only, who cares, but eh still gotta get it done. Now let me just see what kinda graphics cards they have...

*Googles "pc graphics card with most memory"* and this result comes up. Dev doesn't bother reading the wall of text and just skims through the pictures.

Dev: The GTX Titan eh, lemme see... HOLY FARTING BATMAN IT'S GOT 6144 MB OF GDDR5, 6144MB. We're done here folks, the PC crowd has a 6GB card so just uncompress those textures and call it a day.

 

I agree, it is ridiculous, lol. They raise the requirements and skimp out on optimization. Cheaper, I guess.

 

Ever wondered if the game just has a lot of different textures together thus the game has to cache alooooooot of textures which takes tons of VRAM, yes 5.6 is a lot but if you look at the detail of characters and landscape from far away(I think landscape is to blame for the VRAM issue) it becomes quite believable

 

3-4GB for ultra textures is not a simple free-pass. It has to look or need the part. It's an old, horse-beaten arguement, but I still stand by it. Sleeping Dogs and Watch Dogs look visually similar OUT OF THE BOX (no modding), yet 4x SSAA (default in-game "extreme" aa option for sleeping dogs, + fairly good FXAA) running at 1080p base resolution in sleeping dogs, with better glass & world reflections (that is to say... they actually REFLECT something not pre-baked) and FAR more lights and lighting effects all around, both runs better AND uses over 1GB less vRAM than Watch Dogs on Ultra using simple SMAA or MSAA (nowhere near the vRAM bump that SSAA is supposed to have, right?). Sometimes there's no excuse.

If a game wants to use 3GB+ vRAM for max graphics? That's fine. Just let it actually be worth it. Give me ultra long detail at distances, gimme well-drawn AND sharp textures, as sharp textures that are badly drawn still look sub-par (looking at you Titanfall), give me super detailed hair and fur physics on the characters (that takes up lotsa vRAM too, you know. Also seeing your legs when you look down in a FPS? That's extra memory) and overall just make your game be worth that memory footprint AND system drain. Otherwise it's all just dev gimmicks and bragging rights to say how much power their game needs to run and how it looks good (which it probably will... though comparable or sub-par to certain other games that may have come out recently or previously, that nobody in the circle of devs talking is going to compare it to), or simply it's just lazy optimization in some way. And it's incredibly odd for SoM to have that too, because apparently their game runs amazingly otherwise... I don't get why it would have such bad textures but still run great otherwise.

 

Well said. My thoughts exactly. :thumbsup:

 

Anyone know when the first german online shops will release notebooks with the nvidia 900M Series?
If yes which ones are the first?

 

for star craft maxed out 200 vs 200 death mobs it will

 

That's why I'm hoping they offer better CPU's.

And how many people are going to be "hardcore gaming" on a 13" laptop, lol? Someone who buys a 13" laptop to do so deserves bottleneck.

 

isnt it crazy that GTX 880M is beating R9 M290X by 30% and yet Nvidia plan to release a new graphic card this month that will put it about 100% faster than what AMD can offer?

 

Everday I consider just buying a 970 because of how much money it will save me. My mobo fried just about everything but I have a case, ram, hdds. I could spend around ~$800 or less and get a desktop much faster than a $2K+ laptop. But I do not know if I will have space for it on a navy ship when I ship! I saw a slightly overclocked 970 getting 980 stock fps. A $300 card better than an old $600 780ti card drives me mad. I have $1800.00 saved up from my job. I could be playing now. Is there some kind of small form factor chassis I can make this happen with? I am gonna look into this. That 970 is just too good and a laptop too expensive although I can still do laptop.

Nice: http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=hXl7tKCC8FY

 

This is the small form factor I have saved in my PCPartPicker account in case I don't go ahead with my laptop purchase, just in case you're wanting ideas.

PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant

CPU: Intel Core i5-4690K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor (£171.54 @ Aria PC)
CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-L9i 57.5 CFM CPU Cooler (£34.64 @ CCL Computers)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-Z97N-WIFI Mini ITX LGA1150 Motherboard (£93.56 @ Scan.co.uk)
Memory: Crucial 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 Memory (£108.68 @ More Computers)
Storage: Samsung 840 EVO 250GB 2.5" Solid State Drive (£91.50 @ CCL Computers)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 3TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive (£71.94 @ Aria PC)
Video Card: Zotac GeForce GTX 970 4GB Video Card (£259.87 @ Scan.co.uk)
Other: Case: Silverstone SG05 Lite Mini-ITX (no PSU) (£31.80)
Other: PSU: Be Quiet 400w SFX (£52.08)
Total: £915.61

I'm most likely going to choose a laptop, solely because I don't really have much space for a case, separate screen, seperate keyboard/mouse, and wires running all over the place. A laptop is looking more practical.

I'm interested in the MSI GT72 and the ASUS G751. Ideally I would like something a little thinner because I travel frequently. For this reason I'm also considering the Gigabyte P35Wv3 / XMG C504 barebones, the Aorus X7v3, Lenovo Y50-70, but will rule anything out immediately if it throttles/has heat issues/or excessive noise issues.

Interestingly there's been some discussion that there will be two versions of the ASUS G751 depending on whether you choose 980m or 970m, with the 970m chassis being slightly thinner, lighter, and as such more portable. It remains to be seen though, since we have many leaks on GT72 and G751 but not so much the other models (other than 3DMark scores). Another laptop I'm interested in is the G771 refresh and also I've seen somewhere people talking about a 17 inch version of the P35Wv3, probably named P37W I guess? A lot of unknowns at the moment.

 

I think it was due date by now, not crazy at all. Both are old GPUs and 7970m never competed with 780m or 880m. Considering 7970m, 870m and "high end" mobile GPUs tested get well over playable fps and those increase nicely by dropping to high settings.... i'd say 7970m is still a very nice GPU that lasted enough time and now needs a new high end replacement haha.

On another perspective, you could say, isn't it crazy that nvidia released a GPU 2 years later that is only about 30%+ faster than AMD's card?

 

Yeah, it is. I'd love to see some serious competition on the hardware and driver front from Team Red to get Team Green to release a complete mobile GM200/204 instead of these cut-down mobile flagships, but the former seem to enjoy getting beat. :/

 

The lack of competition from AMD was probably the reason why they disabled 1/4 of the cores on the GM204. A full GM204 have like the same TDP as GTX 670 which we got our GTX 680M out of. But of course, that was back in the days when AMD actually had something to compete with (7970M)

Oh how they have fallen

 

HTWingNut would like to have a word with you.

 

Building a desktop with i5 and 970 that are put into ITX is ridiculous ... rather buy full ATX which will be way more power efficient and stable with components like 970 and i5 ... in my opinion ITX are here just for Pentium or i3 CPUs not for quad core gaming i5/i7

 

Some mini itx motherboards cost 300$ its not always cheap and low stuff
my SG05 and node 304 has 780 and Titan running fine with no overheating and overclocking (for the node 304 only, sg05 is mostly backup desktop for me)

This is an overclocked I7 quad and titan + 4 3.5 HD+1SSD


Just need the right stuff for these kind of builds, for example a blower GPU is a must for best performance.

Old massive towers are old tech unless you will 3 SLI and use 8 hard drives you have simply an oversized case that is empty for no reason. people wanted big cases back then to also add wireless cards/bluettoth/extra usbs/etc which are basic and comes with the motherboards now

 

Its got to be a nightmare trying to fit all the parts in there. I have a mid (Phantom 410) and I got irritated more than once trying to get everything in place, especially installing my H100i.

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

 

It will cost me $854.00 for a small chassis, gtx 970, 650w psu, mobo, amd cpu. I already have monitor, ram, hdds. Pretty nice case: LIAN LI PC-Q19A Silver Aluminum Mini-ITX Tower Computer CaseATX (Optional) Power Supply - Newegg.com
Really considering it. But it would suck to get it and then be unable to bring it to Navy. Gonna try out amd cpu since they are offering a really cheap 8 core cpu.

Nvm case too small. Gotta keep looking.

 

The 970 has such an awesome price point.

 

I'm all ears. I don't think he's a hardcore gamer, just a gamer.

 

OMG! Its perfect. There is like a 10-20fps difference stock for stock on benchmarks I have seen. I have not seen all so please no one who got a 980 yell at me but it looks like minimal performance difference. I think I might just build one now to play with and get a laptop after boot camp if I cannot take it with me. Totally might do it.

 

Its actually an easy build, since the hard drive brackets are removable so you plug them/screw then put the bracket back so you have all the space you really want, the power supply is modular with very short/slim cables so no cable management is needed at all, mini itx builds as i mentioned before require special build/pieces/etc if you bring a power supply with normal cables (very long and thick) it wont even fit or if the case actually require you to plug the hard drives inside the case unlike node 304 you do everything outside the case and just attached to the case later when all wires are plugged

never had issues with my node 304, flawless case
used these cables
Amazon.com: SilverStone PP05 Short Cable for PSU Set: Computers & Accessories

 

Meh too much finesse for my liking. Say what you will about those empty spaces in full towers, but you can't beat a case that can accommodate 9x 140mm fans and 4x 120mm fans. It's basically a wind box lol

(and before you ask no it's actually amazingly quiet with all fans at 60%, makes less noise than my Clevo ROFL! those Phanteks and Noctua fans really are quite something)

 

As it should be. With so many case fans you can run them at very low RPM's most of the time.