Nvidia vs AMD - GTX 970M vs R9 M295X

There have been a lot of if`s and but`s around this forum ever since AMD released their fastest GPU yet, the M295X.

With the rumor about M295X being rebranded as R9 M385/385X, this comparison is more interesting than ever. Both machines are equally equipped except GPU, so this fight should be fair.

Alienware 15 - 4710HQ + R9 M295X
vs
Clevo P670SE - 4720HQ + GTX 970M

Summary:
(The far right is GTX 970M over R9 M295X and the one next to it is how much slower M295X is)

Game list translated

Spoiler

1. Watch Dog
2. Thief
3. Company of Heroes 2
4. Alien Isolation
5. Sniper Elite 3
6. Crysis 2&3
7. Tomb Raider
8. Far Cry 4
9. Call Of Duty
10. Rome Total War
11. Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor
12. Assassin Creed Revolution

Full review:
http://nb.zol.com.cn/514/5146877.html
Translated source

Make sure you visit their site and give them traffic for this review.

 

It'll be a more fair comparison if

• By goodness, give that AMD AW15 a 240w/330w PSU, and compare AW15's only
• Clevos-only comparison, since they don't really have a PSU issue.
• Hasee has an AMD variation?

I'm more interested in QHD, 3K, QHD+, and/or UHD/4K comparisons. All these comparisons have been done at 1080p, and it's obvious which would win since we have a lot of data on that.
All this said, you have the GPUs in the laptops backwards.

 

What a random ass poll

 

lol thanks.
Why on earth would you be interested in 3K/4K tests? M295X wouldnt even be playable in a lot of the games. Even 970M would struggle in many of them


They did power measurement too in a game. 150W so still some juice from the 180W PSU.

 

I would think you would know by know why I said that, but I must reiterate it then.
We know AMD's GPUs do much better in comparison to Nvidia GPUs in high resolutions. It would be nice see how much better the 970m is to the m295x or, very unlikely, vice versa. The only benchmark this review did above 1080p was Fire Strike EX (1440p), and the gap there wasn't as large as regular Fire Strike. Also, the reviewer could just lower the graphics quality while having a high resolution. Then again, the same can be said about 3dMark11 P and EX.
Also... I'm not buying the wattage measurement for one reason. CPU throttling. The GPU doesn't get throttled when the AW15 reaches a high wattage point; the CPU does, and some of those games were CPU intensive. A stock clocked i7-4710HQ is not going to fare well against a turboed i7-4720HQ.
(I'm not saying this to defend the AW15. I'm saying this because I want pure data.)

 

You are saying that to defend M295X Game7a1. Its pretty clear from your posts that you think AMD got a standing chance. If you are not buying that wattage measurement, give us a picture of a measurement that says otherwise then.
You may notice that the M295X is clocked at 723MHz, something Dell most likely put as a limit that fit their machines. Dell had an issue with the Hybrid system if the draw goes over 180W due to some microcode in BIOS where the system wouldnt use battery resulting in throttling. That have been patched a long time ago. The system will use the battery if you go over 180W. Worked for MSI with 880M too. So the AW15 tested here most likely works exactly like it should since its patched.

AMD doesnt do better in games in high resolution vs Nvidia. Some Geforce cards do worse against some products from AMD. But don`t generalize like that. GTX 980 with much lower bandwidth lost maybe 2-5% against R9 290X going from 1080p to 4K. Bandwidth difference between GTX 970 and M295X is much smaller. The difference in 4K would be neglible since 970M like 980 is Maxwell (with memory optimizations).

 

The R9 M295X is a nice try, but in all honesty, it's a little too late to make much of a dent in the market. I'd probably get one if I was considering a new GPU and planning on overclocking it... but all that extra heat dump is just crazy to think about... @_@

The 970M is just a better choice in the end in my opinion. The M295X would have to be priced LESS than the 970M to be a viable choice for gamers...

 

Can I not be interested in data? I already know that the m295x stands between the 880m and 970m. That's just a fact. As the person above me said, it was a bit late for it to join the power fray.
There's also the fact that I've been following more closely the power problem the AW15/17 R2 since things are not what they are to be. The new BIOS doesn't fix the performance problem 100% (not after the fact that there's a BIOS error with the Graphics Amplifier overclock settings tampering with turbo boost).
I actually don't have to provide a picture of the power consumption. I can just post a review instead.
http://www.notebookcheck.com/Test-Alienware-17-R2-Notebook.139360.0.html
Yes, the CPU is different, but 165.8 watts for a 47w CPU + 100w GPU + whatever else is in the laptop is questionable to say the least (also keep in mind that the 17 R2 and 15 use the same motherboard, so they share the same faults). Granted, if that number is only from the wall and does not include the battery itself, which might be hard to calculate from just a wall-adapter, then I retract my evidence.
If there was ever a reason for me to get an AMD laptop, it would be for data, not for helping them out (although they need all the help they can get). And I don't have a money tree to waste, so I can't perform tests on my own. That, and I pick my laptops based on my needs, not on which GPU brand is more suitable.

 

Anytime I read a "<insert company name/product> is doomed." comment, I'm instantly reminded of Randy Quaid's character from Major League... and just how awesome that movie is.

I have given Jobo his vodka, he will fix AMD.

 

The translated list is all jumbled up, so I knocked this one out for everyone's benefit:

 

So M295x is really a direct competitor to the 960m/965m it seems, not 970m.

 

Poll edited to remove potentially inflammatory choices.

The M295X was doomed from the start, I honestly don't see how people can justify purchasing it over Maxwell since in this case, Maxwell is the best all around value, which is unusual for nVidia cards.

 

I honestly don't see how ppl can justify purchasing it over M290X

 

Pretty much. A 965M with 1024 cores would be a better fit against M295X than the 1280 970M.

Pretty crazy TDP difference though. 65-70W and 125W lol

 

Here I was thinking I might read something new!

M295X is as yet untested IMHO A15 does not count. Someone with an old school machine like my own needs to test it to see the true potential!

The BGA machines of today cannot give it the power or cooling it requires.

That said 970m is far better because it is cheap and much cooler meaning far more OCable

 

AMD will be $200 cheaper than 970m, now decide.

 

You know something we don`t? Price for 300 series will be cheaper?
Today M295X and 970M cost exactly the same

 

Well...
m295x is about $80 to $200 more than the GTX 970m in laptops. They used to be the same for a short time.
However, if we're talking about MXM modules, then the m295x is actually cheaper for some odd reason.
R9 m295x MXM (£359.00 ~~ $554.74)
GTX 970m MXM ($615)
So about $60 cheaper and 2 GB of less VRAM.

 

Damn mods have way too much power on this forum

 

King of Interns, do 970M/980M work in your old-school AW15? How are the CPU thermals now, with 680M?

 

lol No

GTX 970M MXM $450
R9 M295X MXM $550

Thats $100 LESS for 30% more performance

 

Oh I forgot, Alienware.com charge $1649 for 4710HQ + 970M and $1899 for 4710HQ + M295X


http://www.dell.com/us/p/alienware-15/pd#overrides=dkcwf02:3~16G2D

 

I knew there was something wrong with just searching for GTX 970m on google.

 

Yeah, Nvidia got AMD in a tight lock this time. AMD atleast had the price in their advantage with M290X vs GTX 880M, but now Nvidia also have them beat in price/performance ratio.

Its pretty messed up how AMD have fallen from the mobile race

Yeah, we can`t have any fun around here ever since Ethrem became the Sheriff in Town (lol just kidding Ethrem)
In Norway we call it politically correctness when politicians are too afraid to speak their minds to not hurt or offend any parts.

 

970M surely. I'm still having a regret that I didn't wait its launch even though I did know it was coming and bought 870M.

 

The answer will vary based on budgetary restraints, personal preferences and fanboi brand worship... in some cases, ignorance may also be a factor. You can look at performance results or financials... put the two together and you've got a big picture perspective. Assuming there is a $200 savings, and assuming you use it for two years, the M295X will save you roughly $8.33 per month, or 27 cents per day over that two year period. The question now becomes, does saving 27 cents per day justify choosing the M295X? If the answer is yes, save that 27 pennies and be happy with what you got. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that choice if it makes a guy happy. You can buy a small SSD with that $200, or some better memory, or you can just leave it in the bank and let it earn a few extra pennies in interest during that same two year period. Saving 27 pennies a day over 30 years and earning interest on it works out to be a lot of money. Over a period of two years it is chump change. Just don't expect it to behave like a 970M, because it won't.

 

Hey its called keeping the peace

Unless you guys like watching threads go to oblivion...

 

Well let's just say that every now and then, a little drama helps keep people engaged with the community.

 

Not by pitting users against each other. Besides, there's the off topic forum with much more lax rules

 

Or outside of Sheriff Ethrem's jurisdiction, but then Chief TANWare got your ass

 

NBR = Police state confirmed!

 

Then DOOM for AMD.

8.33 per month is right, 27c per day is kind of exaggerated unless you game( and if it is a AAA title) everyday. Hey, you don't even get worthwhile AAA title every month.

And, Same logic apply to 980m, 980mSLI, build a desktop etc. A 1K desktop is only 27c *5 = $1.35 by your definition .

Price does matter in the decision process, guess we can agree on that.

 

Well, you mentioned price, guessed at $200 and I responded. And, I thought your comments were relevant because price does matter to some people. 27 cents per day x 730 days (2 years) is $197.10, so it's only off by $2.90 from the $200 savings you mentioned.

 

Yeah they all work fine. 680m at 940/1100mhz gets up to about 85c stable after 3-4 hours GTA 5 on stok cooling only. But that temp only at times usually when I check it is late 70sC