*Official* nVidia GTX 10xx Series notebook discussion thread

A 1080ti has gotta draw way more power than a 1080 (250w vs 180w), so not many laptops will be able to handle that puppy, but I am sure the top vendors will give it a shot.

Now the real question is, will there be a 1080ti SLI laptop??

 

There never was a 980ti laptop, and the new 1080ti should have a similar power envelope, so I guess there wont be any laptop with it.

 

Clevo should begin to design a powerbox intended for 3x330w or claim a 450W psu from Delta . Everything is possible. But the laptop size should be at least 18 inches or larger for such a task (in the same way as 6820 being too pathetic for such a speedy setup ) 7700K + 1080Ti Sli

 

Mere quadcore? If they find a way to put 1080Ti into a laptop, might as well bring x99 platform to go with it.

 

99.9999% of games don't use more than 4 cores, more cores don't help gaming performance.

You can leave the X99 at home for now

 

Well, I thought they only care about the benches so reason I suggested.

 

Nah, we're in the *real world* here.

 

Not necessarily true moving forward. http://www.pcworld.com/article/3039...es-you-really-need-for-directx-12-gaming.html 8 is overkill but most things in dx12 scaled up to 6

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

That's nice, but as it said at the end DX11 games are fine with a 6600k, even hyperthreaded cores aren't needed.

And, since I won't use Windows 10 or DX12 for a *long* time, more than 4 cores is completely unnecessary for gaming.

It might be nice to have the additional real cores for other work though, but in a laptop, not at all needed.

 

Who talk about gaming? Numbers bro. NUMBERS!!

 

Timely video, ran into this one saying that for DX12 on lower graphics settings DX12 causes a CPU bottleneck with powerful GPU's, not seen on DX11, and going to 6 cores didn't help - it's a straight-line performance on 4 cores issue. Again, this didn't happen on DX11, likely a DX12 problem to work out.

 

To be fair though. Deus ex seems to be an unoptimized mess from everything I've heard. Could also be early issues with dx12 though like you said. I'm guessing by next year as it becomes widely adopted we will begin to see real gains. Vulkan is the same idea too.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

Yeah no. X99 would be a detriment. Too much power draw, too much heat, does not clock as high. More than 4 cores doesn't help all that much with most games. Can it benefit? Yes. But in this case it's a choice between a guaranteed ~4.5GHz pulling a bit over 100W, and a mostly-guaranteed 4.2GHz (Haswell-E) or 4GHz (Broadwell-E) pulling 200W+, and being much hotter.

There's no benefit.

Skylake-E? Sure. Let's go with that. It'll likely clock higher, draw less power and run cooler than HW-E and BW-E. But that's all. Not by a whole lot, but it should. But then without larger power bricks (450W single brick minimum) we'll be limited to single-GPU. And with Pascal, it's likely not going to dump the heat well enough.

 

I was half joking when i said that lol. If they find a way to put 250w GPU on Sli, what is another 200w? We might as well looking at monster laptop with 3 330w bricks. Enough to give me nice warm winter ahead.
Fairy tales aside, is there even 450w passively cooled power brick for laptop:?

 

The Clevo 1080s by default are 190W, not 250W, though.

But no, there's a huge difference between a 65W-150W on average CPU draw + 2 x 190W GPUs and a 250W-400W CPU draw under sustained load + 2 x 190W GPUs.

 

I was talking about theoretical 1080ti 250w GPU, and I wasn't serious lol.

 

Much the same news here from COMEX in Singapore. But can someone tell me what chassis that aftershock s-15 is based on? http://www.chip.com.my/2016/09/14/pascal-powered-laptops-on-show-at-comex-2016/

 

Pretty sure clevo p650.

Edit: specifically the p650rs

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

Gtx 1050 to have 768 cores only? Even if it was superclocked wouldnt it be on par with a 970m?

 

Yeeeeah, that's kind of the point. Anything below a 1060 will be badly gimped.

 

A 1050 will likely produce less heat, and run on less power than a 970m though due to the processing improvements(finfet, etc). The only reason to get a laptop with a 1050 is if you don't want to pay for the 1060 or want something thinner. Consider that the 1060 is much faster than the 1070 and runs about the same temps with equal cooling to a 970m(at least according to notebook check) at ~72C with factory paste job. If you reduce the performance back to 970 levels it should do pretty well thermally speaking.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

Big deal. For those with notebooks that already have adequate cooling, the 1050 is a waste of time. Furthermore, Pascal runs hot. I'd expect even a GTX 1050 to run hotter than a GTX 860M/960M.

 

Compared to what? Neither my GTX 1060 in my laptop or 1080 in my desktop run "hot".

 

It is a big deal for those that want something cool in a thin chassis like an XPS. Personally I'd just go for something like a clevo p650rp6 with a 1060. That can cool it fine and is still sub 1 inch in thickness. But it's not exactly an Ultrabook. Sure you can stuff a 1060 into a thin chassis like the Razer but look how well that turned out. I've also yet to see how the 1060 and 1070 run abnormally hotter than Maxwell. Notebook check has a review on multiple variants of the p650. One with a 970m and another with the 1060. They showed both GPUs get to around 72c under high load. Same cooling in each. I would expect the 1060 to run atleast 2c hotter on average though. Not that that is a big difference.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

The 1050 is gimped, full stop. It is expected to roughly halve performance from the 1060 (based on core count) which would put it squarely in GTX 970M territory. For all the leaps of the high end, this is quite crappy for the mid-range GPUs - about a 50% improvement over the 960M. And you can ask @D2 Ultima about Pascal overheating

 

Hey, I got a question. If I'm trying to feed dual 1080's which would be more preferable? 6920hq or 6820hk?

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

 

neither. imo

 

I'm not sure I get your point. Was the 950 not gimped as well? If you are buying a "50" card you know it's going to be gimped. And you are getting the 970m performance for less power, heat and likely cost. If you don't want that get a 1060 or higher lol. I don't really understand the argument. And I did talk with d2 about the Pascal heating weeks ago. He even agreed with me that it runs within about 2-3c of Maxwell at least on mobile. Also isn't the 1060 like 50% as fast as the 1070?



Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

In my experience, Pascal is hotter than Maxwell, but not tremendously. Temps for the 1060 in my GS43VR stay mostly in the 70s C.

 

@Xileforce - my point isn't that the 1050 would not be better, of course it would be. However, what sort of improvements are we getting? First, if the 1060 ran 'cool', the P640RE would've had it. It doesn't, Clevo wants to put the 1050 in it instead.

Next, GTX 970M to 1060 -> approximately 2x improvement in performance.

Likewise for the GTX 980M and 980.

On the other hand, we have this ridiculously gimped card (come on, 128 bit memory interface??? Even the 970M had something wider) that's not even better than a previous 970M.

Yeah yeah same performance at lower power usage etc., but for someone who was looking for decent performance in a small form factor, and willing to pay, this is a massive disappointment. I have seen the P650RP6-G running The Witcher 3, maxing out all settings (save Hairworks) with a consistent 60 FPS. The 970M v2 - no, sorry, 1050 won't be able to do that. There's a massive hole between the 1050 and 1060, which ought not to be there.

 

Thats cough cough nvidia for you

Sent from my ZTE A2017U

 

It doesn't matter much. The 6920hq clocks a tad higher at stock, whereas the 6820hk is somewhat overclockable. Iirc the latter should be ocable till 4,2Ghz.

Maybe @D2 Ultima can chime in?

 

6920hq is better if you don't like overclocking, otherwise the 6820hk can pretty easily outperform it. I'm pretty sure 3.8Ghz is the 1 core speed, all four would be more likely to be 3.5-3.6Ghzish (Though idk 100% if that's right). The 6820hk should be able to hit around 4Ghz on all 4 when overclocked.

 

Ok. I got offered the 920 below the 820 price due to it not being available readily.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

 

Then by all means: get it! It really doesn't make a difference!

 

With free shipping too, right

IDK man, without any reports from owners yet, I'd wait. I want to see real users running benchmarks and seeing real numbers.

The Futuremark Fire Strike scores for the GT83VR 1080 SLI don't make any sense, and are less than our new friend with his GT73VR 1070 SLI gets.

It could be Futuremark problem, but it could also be a GT83VR problem - it's too early to tell.

If you want to be a guinea pig and run those benchmarks and tune it up for best performance, that would be cool, but make sure you have a solid grasp of the return period and if there is a restocking fee first

 

6920HQ is 3.4GHz 4-core load.
6820HK is 3.2GHz 4-core load.

HK in the hands of someone competent, in a laptop that does not intentionally gimp it by limiting the max allowable TDP, can do over 4GHz without issue to the limit of the cooling system.

1050 is a 950 overclocked, like 1060 is a 970M overclocked.

That's it, plain and simple. Find benchmarks for a 1400MHz 950 and you'll find the 1050's performance. I estimate, considering the 970M, 1060, and 980, that the 1050 will be a bit better than a 970M, if it works properly and holds its boost. However in laptops that's up to the ODMs/OEMs.

 

So even lower than I thought lol.

Also I thought the 1060 handily beats the 980m. That would be quite the 970m OC unless you mean IPC wise.

 

Yup.

I said 980, not 980M.

 

I think we are confused. Was that a typo or did you mean something else? I just meant I didn't think a 1060 like was an OCed 970m.

 

970M = 1280 cores, 192-bit memory bus, 3GB/6GB vRAM configurations, 924MHz + boost
1060 = 1280 cores, 192-bit memory bus, 6GB vRAM configuration, 1506MHz + boost (1404MHz + boost notebook). 3GB vRAM configuration has less core count, so I don't count it here.

Pascal has no architectural benefits to IPC over Maxwell. There's some new tech, it probably does CUDA better, it tessellates better, runs VR better, has better async compute support in certain areas, etc. But clock for clock, core for core, they're supposed to be within 1-2% of each other (Pascal is supposed to be the slightly slower per-clock performance).

So a 1060, is literally, a 970M overclocked and die shrunk. If you found someone who could clock a 970M to over 1500MHz and keep it as a daily driver, they would see zero benefit in most gaming/non-VR scenarios from getting a 1060 unless they could keep it around 1600MHz 24/7 or so.

What I was comparing was 1060 vs 980 in actual performance. It's 1/2 the cores but about +25% clockspeed, yet gets somewhat similar performance. Using that as a judgement, the 1050 which is over half the cores as a 1060, but should boost to similar speeds, should be somewhat more than "half as fast". Therefore it should pallpark being a bit stronger than a 970M if it functions correctly in a notebook.

 

Yeah, no that's all good. I thought you were implying the 1060 performed like a 970m OCed. You just meant the die though. Like lol no normal 970m could OC anywhere 1060 clockspeeds. I get it though, just misinterpreted your wording.

 

I've seen 970Ms do 1500MHz+ on the core, which is why I made that specific statement =D.

But yes, in general, 970Ms won't do those clockspeeds. Especially newer ones.

 

Holy crap, a 50% OC? Cpus can do that but I haven't seen many stories about laptop gpus doing that.

 

See, @D2 Ultima, you made my point for me.

The GTX 950 has a core clock of 1024 MHz, the 1050 (according to leaks) will have a core clock of 1316 MHz. Both GPUs have the same core/TMU/ROP count. You also mentioned that Pascal had a worse IPC than Maxwell - that would make the 1050 perform roughly as well as a slightly overclocked GTX 960. Then what happens to the 970?

Is that where the 3 GB GTX 1060 fits in?

 

I mean, it's not too hard... the problem really is cooling, but if you've got an overprovisioned cooling system like a P650RE3 or a P7xxZM/P7xxDM does, it's not hard, since the cards run cool.

Also, Kepler can do it too. Base clock of 780M is 721MHz + boost, yes? How's about these apples?


I mean, I'd overheat pretty quick on that due to my location and the cooling system in this thing, but here it is, working.

 

They are mighty indeed. Though on the other hand you have cards like what I had: not benching-stable past 950 MHz no matter the voltage -_- OC sure feels like sour grapes for some of us

 

Ha. My slave card is like yours. That thing does not like being stable. My primary will happily sit at 1058/6000 at 93c without a crash for over an hour in games though. I once tried it.

 

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Euroco...-Sky-X7E2-X9E2-gaming-notebooks.175094.0.html

 

1600mhz is a joke for a 1060. My GT62 had my 1060 running over 2000mhz in Doom with spikes to near 2100mhz. It curb stomped even the most atypical overclocked 970m.