nVidia 2015 mobile speculation thread

I think the graphics are pretty good there, I like the lighting - seems quite realistic to me. The environment is a bit boring - rocks! The only videos I've seen of this game have been rock based, aren't they gonna do other environments like forests, etc? Ran well on your system, albeit not 120fps, and considering you have dual 780M, then this a pretty demanding game!

 

Its lighting is actually quite nice. The environment is boring indeed. Rocks and snow is all I saw. I don't know if jungle maps will be a thing.

My real problem isn't that it isn't giving 120fps, but rather that most settings seem to make little difference (at one point I started lowering the same settings I removed in BF4, and on average I gained... 12-14fps? Ambient Occlusion was about 8fps and lighting/effects/post process/etc was what, 6? TAA seems to do nothing too.

There's one setting that seems to kill the game's performance overall and like Ethrem and I think, it's probably tessellation. I haven't compared low to max yet, but I will eventually. When I stop being lazy and load it up more. I don't understand why a game that for all intents and purposes looks worse than BF4 runs at less than half the FPS of BF4 at the same settings. Ironically, if I max BF4 out (with 4x MSAA) I'll hover in the 90s most of the time. This game doesn't have MSAA at all, and I'm most often in the mid 80s.

I know I'm sounding like I'm griping over nothing, but I always say it: if a game has not had any substantial graphical improvements of any kind, it should run like a game that looks and plays like it from 2-3 years prior. For example, I don't care how Crysis 3 runs; it LOOKS like it should rightly kick my PC's ass. On average though, I get the same performance in Crysis 3 at max that I get in this game at max. It does not equate in my brain.

 

Uh, Endor is one of the maps which has already been shown

 

When I tell you that the only thing I know about this game has been what I've chanced to read people saying in random tweets or on reddit...

 

Good news, turns out my friend was on "Balanced mode" the whole time. Upon switching to "High Performance",he is now sitting at 90-100fps on avg at ultra settings. As for me, I finally got round to downloading the game and try it for myself. Got a stable 80-90fps at ultra settings FXAA High and 100% resolution scale. Still 10ps less than my friend though, I guess his CPU does give him an edge over me. @D2 Ultima , I was also experiencing some flickering but not as bad as you did, still playable but super annoying.

 

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/10413083
Here's a benchmark of the R9 m395x. It's specs seem to be identical from the R9 m295x, yet it scores higher.
That said, it doesn't surpass the GTX 970m. So.... yeah. However, the laptop tested used a 180w charger as opposed to the recommended 240w charger. Still, I don't think it would make a considerable difference.
(DIdn't know where to post this, but here seemed like a good idea.)

 

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/6250234
http://www.3dmark.com/sd/3439650
http://www.3dmark.com/cg/3117915
(No Ice Storm, but I don't trust Ice Storm).
Again, close to the GTX 970m, but that's about it.

 

wonder how well it would overclock. reaching a performance level between 970M and 980M or even closer to the latter would already be nice considering how far off AMD has been lately from nvidia...

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

Not gonna happen... Needs a die shrink.

 

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/10314698
Well... it just seems to be software optimization (see here for comparison of before the R9 300 series: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/9465287). The R9 m390x is a rename of the R9 m295x, so the same can be said about the R9 m395x.
But why release the same GPU twice in the same lineup?
All this said, the R9 m295x / R9 m395x in the iMac 27" should be between the GTX 970m and GTX 980m thanks to its higher clock speed and these software optimization. That is, if it doesn't thermal throttle.

 

At least it scores higher than the crappy R9 270 I'm using in my desktop atm lol

 

Wasn't it mentioned that AMD was able to reduce the TDP of the fully unlocked mobile Tonga down to 100W some time ago, or were those just speculations?

 

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Alienware-15-R9-M295X-Notebook-Review.144904.0.html

 

Hm... big issue with that review - it used exceedingly outdated drivers (vs what were most likely modern drivers for Nvidia side).
Drivers can have a relatively large impact on overall performance and efficiency... is there a review with more updated drivers?

Other than that, the 395x seems to be a direct rebrand... with maybe even smaller clocks.

 

The top-end AMD GPU in the 15 and iMac 5K are one and the same except with different clocks. The R9 m395x in the 15 R2 is essentially the R9 m295x / r9 m390x that has been in the 15 R1 since January. It has the clocks as shown on AMD's website, unlike Apple's r9 m295x / r9 m395x with its higher core and memory clock speeds.
There are no reviews of the R9 m390x and the 15 R2, yet. Probably because of little interest. All we have now are those 3DMark benchmarks I linked earlier.

 

A pointless graphics card. Who wants to buy this?

 

Nobody knows, nobody cares

 

People who want to side with the Red side.
People who want to stay on the Red side.
And customers who don't know performance between GPUs?
I mean, these people exist, so...

 

That paints AMD folk in a rather negative light

 

They're all I can think of at the moment. It's not like I agree with getting it since it's priced over the GTX 970m, a GPU that performs better for less.
There may be more types, but that doesn't change if it's a wise purchase or not.

 

I don't believe AMD has ever been less competitive than they are now. I don't blame anyone who's jumping off this sinking ship.

http://anandtech.com/show/9717/amd-corporate-fellow-phil-rogers-leaves-company-joins-nvidia

http://anandtech.com/show/9722/amd-...computing-and-graphics-sales-hurt-bottom-line

http://anandtech.com/show/9723/amd-...g-assembly-into-joint-venture-for-371-million

 

You are forgetting a demographic. There are people that need to balance work and play, and for me, AMD is the only choice since nGreedia decided to neuter their GTX line's pro performance with the 580M and sequential successors. While the 7970M/8970M/R9 M290X get blown away by the 780M/970M/980M in gaming performance, professional performance is a very different story. @Mr. Fox knows this first hand when we were comparing Specviewperf benches with this 780M SLI and 980M SLI setup vs my 7970M setup. The results were absolutely ridiculous in Siemens NX, SolidWorks, and Catia. I like having a balance. Obviously if nVidia pulled its greedy head out its a$$ and reunified quadro and gtx architecture, this would be a different story and there would be absolutely no objective reason to side with AMD over nVidia.

 

@Raidriar Did you not read my other post? I don't think your response was needed if you read my other post. Informative, yes, but not needed.

 

What other post? All I see on this forum is people constantly bashing Radeons as if they are the filth of the world. I just put that piece of information in there to at least bring a counter point to this very one sided argument.

 

"They're all I can think of at the moment.... There may be more types [of people into getting an AMD GPU]."
Brackets inserted to fit context. I know we all make this mistake, but it would be best if we read (or skim) everything up to the the last post.

 

I read that portion, and decided to help you out and give a specific and notable example of where nVidia fails. I don't see how you could think my counter point was "informative, but not needed." It is absolutely needed so that people don't blindly follow nVidia.

 

I'd rather not continue this, but I already knew what you talked about. Well, the barebones of it. It's been talked before in many other threads and places, so I don't see the necessity of it for me. For others, it could be helpful, which is fine.
On another note, I mentioned earlier about the driver optimizations done on the R9 m295x. Did the HD 7970m + variants (renames, rebadges, etc.), R9 m280x + variants, and HD 7870m + variants get performance boosts as well with the recent drivers or was it only for those architectures featured in the R9 300 series and R7 370?

 

ah well, i was just trying to be optimistic there haha

it would only make sense at a steal of a price, say, 100 bucks for the MXM card including heatsink and x bracket haha

 

Yup. We all get continue performance enhancements, fixes, and CF profiles with every Catalyst iteration with the added bonus of not bricking displays in Win10

 

That's good to know.

 

Spoiler: Temperature Readings for the R9 m395x

Temperatures seem fine, so if there's one thing that we can expect from the R9 m295x / m395x, is that it'll provide consistent performance. The GTX 970m was / is all over the place in the AW 15 R1/R2.

 

What machine was that in? I'd like to know more specifics. Though that clockspeed is very slow. MSI's R9 380 is a 1000MHz chip, and 720MHz vs 1000MHz is a pretty large jump.

The 970M is all over the place because:
- Alienware's lines suck now and are known for inconsistent performance
- nVidrosoft's stock vBIOS is aids and one of Prema's vBIOSes fix that lickety split

As far as I can see, that card can't hold a candle to a stock 970M right now, far less one in a suitable system that can handle it like a P6xxxEx or P7xxxM-x from Clevo.

 

@D2 Ultima
15 R2. It's the only laptop to have the R9 m395x.

 

Interesting that it'd handle that card so well then. Either way, a 970M is still unfortunately the stronger buy no matter how one looks at things.

 

Still no report on a R9 M395X MXM card?

 

funny thing: amd released mxm boards sporting the full tonga chip for embedded systems a while ago

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

This Aw15r2 have also a dynamic overclocked i7-6820Hk. Package power at 39.79w in one of the test and 93 degrees on the processor is not a nice result. Shared pipes/heatsink is not a good combination. Cold gpu give hot processor.

 

I would just get an R9 m295x MXM. They're essentially the same GPU but with a different name. Or work up the money for a W7170m or E8950.

Guess my edit wasn't specific, sorry. I meant GPU temperatures.

 

ah well it depends, in the clevo ZM/DM series its actually a nice move to keep the cpu cool using the ice-cold maxwells

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

Ok. Have you figured out the maximum TDP of M395X? Is this a 80-90 or 100w card? If this is a 100W graphics card; Why use Dell still a 180w psu for this laptop? Radeon R9 M295X vs Radeon R9 M395X has about the same TDP. Most likely a downscaled 125 Watt cards to 100w. Then I can not understand why Dell continues with a 180w psu on a Aw15R2 with i7-6820Hk and M395X.
R9 m295x is In fact faster than R9 m395x if this comparison is correct. http://www.hwcompare.com/28958/radeon-r9-m295x-vs-radeon-r9-m395x/

 

It isn't. They're the same thing.

 

There is unfortunately not much going on from Amd. Theoretically speaking, the Radeon R9 M295X should be a small bit faster than the Radeon R9 M395X in general. But who knows. 750mhz vs 723mhz and 5500mhz vs 5000mhz.

 

Once again, they are identical. Same clocks 723/1250 and everything, different name.

M295X:

Spoiler

M395X:

Spoiler

Retina iMac M295X (throttles):

Spoiler

 

I see. Also this variant between (AMD Radeon R9 M390X) http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-R9-M390X.144432.0.html Then is all these 3 variants 100w TDP card in AW15. Why will Dellienware still use a 180w psu after the big mistake from last year with the weak 180w psu? Dell repeats the mistake from last year... Msi learned but not Dell .

 

There is no M390X, that is a GPU-Z error. The AW15 has 100W (?) M295X and M395X. The 5K iMac has 125W (?) M295X.

 

Then techpowerup.com screw up http://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2732/radeon-r9-m390x.html. From what I have read earlier I think Dell also launched AMD Radeon R9 M390X in Aw15. Maybe @Game7a1 remember better than me. But Dell writes a lot of strange things these days. Many typos from Dell .
http://topclassgames.net/gta-v-on-alienware-15-laptop-1080p60-amd-radeon-r9-m390x/
http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-radeon-r9-m390x-mobile-gpu-announced-by-alienware_165582

 

Alienware does not offer the R9 M390X. The Alienware 15 comes with the R9 M395X which is a direct rebadge of the R9 M295X. The only "new" AMD MXM card is the AMD Embedded Radeon E8950, which supposedly has a full Tonga core + 8GB of GDDR5 VRAM that draws up to 95W.

I have not been able to find this card anywhere yet though. TUL has not stated they are fabricating it.

 

No, Alienware did offer the R9 m390x (well, r9 m390) on their website for the 15 R1. For a short time, but it was a rename of the R9 m295x. This is indicated in the Dell AMD driver and Papusan sources.
http://www.dell.com/support/home/us...tails?productCode=alienware-15&driverId=VMRGM
They've also been in the .ini files of the recent AMD drivers (well, except for the R9 m395x if I recall correctly).
All this rename-rebadge stuff is getting hard to follow, but this is the gist of the Mobile Tonga XT. It's the R9 m295x, R9 m390x, R9 m395x, E8950, and W7170m. They all, sans the E8950, pretty much follow the same core and memory clock, 723 Mhz Core / 1250 Mhz Memory (GDDR5). The mobile Tonga GPU in the Alienware 15s should be have a TDP 100w, while the mobile Tongas (R9 m295x / R9 m395x) in the iMac 27" 5K should have a higher TDP (don't know, don't really care since it thermal throttles).
And I don't know why I know all of this, but ehh, whatever. All I know is that it has 1 more GB of VRAM to the GTX 970m 3 GB, and it performs close to it. And that the GPU has 5 names. Talk about identity crisis.

 

Still want the answers to this; Why the hell deliver Dell still an Alienware laptop with a weak 180w psu and a 100W TDP graphics? Gtx980m are now along with a 240W but not the Amd card.

 

Save pennies.. Alienware has gone to ground with Azor leading it.. Cheapstakes...