GeForce GT 130M vs 9650M GT what is the difference!?

According to notebookcheck these 2 graphics cards are exactly the same why are nvidia releasing identical graphics cards with different names. If its true its ludricous! Any ideas anyone?

 

it's not the first time they've done this. 9800M-GT = 8800M-GTX.

 

The entire GTX1xx series are rebrands for both desktops and notebooks. I believe I heard that the GTX230m is also a 9800mGTX While the GTX260m is either 55nm or 40nm and will be released Q1-Q2 this year and will be based off the desktop GTX260 (for once). Although I have high doubts that they can release a mobile card with a 512bit ring bus that fits the power spec of MXM 3.0, so it might have GDDR5 instead.

 

Fair enough. I hope ATI smash nvidia from now on. Really what is the point of releasing a "new card" that shares same 55nm, 23W and exact clockspeeds etc. It just provides false hope for those who don't know.

 

Well I'm looking more forward to annual tradeoffs. nVidia blows away ATI/AMD one year, then the next ATI/AMD blow away nVidia and so on. That's what drives the companies to either create new tech, or die to the competition.

 

Yeah ATI and Nvidia have a power struggle which ends up being a good thing for us consumers as we get more competitive prices and new technology. Now if AMD could be a better match for Intel in the CPU department....lol

For the record, Nvidia has a history with re-branding GPUs. Why they do it is unknown to anyone but them, but it makes a good marketing thing for people who aren't very aware. When Nvidia re-branded the 8800M GTX as the 9800M GT, Alienware "changed" their GPU options(with a higher price of course ) on their notebooks and people actually brought the notebooks back to have an "upgrade".

 

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=24654
http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?shownews=23870&catid=2
http://news.softpedia.com/news/New-...he-Ante-for-Mainstream-Notebooks-101541.shtml

According to this and a few other sites, the GT 130M will be slightly better than the 9650M GT in terms of performance (higher clock, about 17% faster than 9600M GT) but still on 65nm process (instead of the 55nm). Nothing really new here, just improved optimizations and clock speed. We'll have to see about power consumption and core clock speed.

 

The new Geforce GT130M is supposedly "17% faster than its predecessor" which is the 9650M GT.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1231412564434.html

 

17% isn't that significant considering it's still a 128bit bus interface GPU. When compared to the 50-75+% increase from the HD4850 to the HD3870 from ATI, that's not really that impressive.

 

No, according to the link, it's the 9600M GT.

That's because the architecture hasn't changed, just clock speeds.

 

Means 9650M GT = GT130M ???

 

I was under the impression the GT 130M was supposed to be a 'successor' (rebrand/rename) of 9600m GT and of course 17% faster.

I also admit that 17% increase is nothing to sneeze at.
30% to 50% would have been much better.
But at the same time, we cannot expect of Nvidia to do that because all they are doing with 'new' cards are shrinking already existing ones and overclocking them.
Which of course is a complete ripoff if you ask me.

Granted, the 'new cards' get increased performance on a new manuf. process which produces less heat, but the performance gain is minimal (especially if Nvidia wants to keep the power usage low).

Hopefully ATI will put a decent competition which will force Nvidia to not just lower their prices but also actually develop a completely new product and not just a smaller manuf. process/overclocked card.

 

Well yeah that's the thing, they've only apparently raised the clockspeeds if anything, the actual GPU is the same so I wouldn't concern myself that much with differences. Have they changed the nm architecture even?

 

As I said before, no. There are no other changes until the refresh. In fact the 9650M GT (55nm) has a lower manufacturing process than the GT 130M (65nm).

 

9800m gt and 8800m gtx are same but one feature is identical...that is 9800m gt has inbuilt physx technology where 8800m needs a separate one.

 

I wud go with 8800m gtx coz its less expensive but carry the same features of 9800m gt

 

I'm skeptical of this statement.

 

i think that's what happened with the desktop parts. even more of an improvement if you look at hd3650 and hd4650/4670.

 

Oh I thought she was talking about the notebook chips.

 

Well true, it's left to be seen by a consumer, but those are the benchmarks out so far. The HD4850 is said to equal if not surpass the current high end Nvidia setups since the only thing ATI had so far was the HD38** series.

The mobile HD4850 surprisingly isn't that much of a cut down from its desktop counterpart. It has the same amount of Stream processors and they haven't cut down the shaders and core clocks that much either. Add to that they are on a smaller process manufacture means they should also be quite efficient in comparison with their previous counterparts.

 

I would only consider an upgrade of a dedicated gpu if it's about 50% (or more) faster compared to the previous (similar) generation of cards (and of course if the newer cards are compatible in terms of slots, so they can be swapped in the first place).

Anything below 40% increase is in my opinion not really worth it.

But also, what Nvidia is doing is simply making money off the old technology in a smaller form (for which they will of course charge much more money in the process).
A lot of people fall for it because they don't understand these types of things, but at the same time, it is their own fault for not informing themselves. If they need a gpu with decent power in a laptop, then they should try searching up information on what will provide decent performance (for their needs) and be cost effective.

Of course, with Nvidia's naming scheme, it's making even us on NBR sometimes confused on which card is which.

 

8600M GT=9500M GS
8700M GT=9650M GT

Etc...it's common business with nvidia

 

The notebook chips are based off the desktop chips...

8700M GT = 9650M GS actually. Also, 9300M G = 8400M GS and 8800M GTX = 9800M GT. At least they are changing the clock speeds lol.

 

I think they've finally reach the of the 4 digit number series and have to come up with a new number scheme. Remember back in the days of GF 3 Ti500... it evolved into the GF 4 Ti4600 (although it was actually an upgrade). Now they got to the 9800... it would be weird calling it the 10800!

 

The 9650GT and GT130 are the same 55nm, card with the exact same clocks, speeds, shaders and power consumption.

The difference is or will be, the GT130 will be available in notebooks with a GT105 in addition to the GT130. (i.e dual Nvidia videocards) or extended battery life.

The GT130 will use less power than the 9650GT, only because it will switch to the GT105 when not needing the GT130's power. Hope that makes sense, but yeah Nvidia should of just left it as it was.

 

According to the release, the GT 130 is a step back since it is based on the 9600M GT (65nm) and not the 9650M GT (55nm).

http://www.guru3d.com/news/nvidia-40nm-mobile-gpu-lineup

 

As long as they don't pull an ATi and just add an X in front..

 

It doesn't seem to say that anywhere on the link you provided?

 

These revision cycles are getting ridiculous. Sure a clock speed increase and lower process are nice, but the architecture should actually improve or actually be more powerful without clockspeed increases.

 

It's odd though that the ATI Radeon HD4670 is has a 128-bit bus interface and it blows the Geforce 9600GSO to bits, which has a 192-bit bus and it's very competitive performance-wise (cost-wise too) with the 9600GT/8800GS which has a 256-bit bus. Being 128-bit makes it energy efficient too.

I also have to agree with mobius1aic. The naming scheme is becoming ridiculous as they're just reintroducing older products with a few minor updates.

 

ati should kick nvidia's a$$ so that they will be force to make new and powerful cards

 

GT 130M's codename is NB9P-GS, which is the same as 9600M GT's codename. This is a 65nm part based off the G96 core. There are no 55nm parts in the first revision of the 1xx series.

 

that's weird. on notebook check, the gt 130m is stated having been made in 55nm...
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-130M.13789.0.html

as to the card being a previous incarnation engraved with less heat and power consumption, some people are aware of it and are fine with it. it looks like it's the only option left for a c90s for example...everyone knows how bad the cooling is in that thing.