OCZ 3870 Standard MXMIII?

I'm wondering if the 3870s in the whitebook are standard MXMIII type cards? Most vendors list the upgrade to crossfire at around $250. I suspect that is their cost for the second card. The suppliers must be able to get them from OCZ/ATi or they wouldn't be able to offer upgrades down the road. So it becomes a matter of their willingness to resell the cards outside of a laptop.

All that to say that I would be interested in purchasing one (even a 20% markup is $300) if the card is truly MXMIII and not some variation on the standard.

I have a HP 8730w I got for a good price. The chassis supports any number of high end Nvidia/Ati cards so i doubt it would have any trouble with the 3870.

Thanks in advance for any information!

Quaz

 

Well.... it looks like mxm and in the OCZ website they say that is mxm. But many vendors say that a notebook has mxm and we known how many times that is not true...
The 3870 cards worked in a alienware 9750 even in crossfire (credits to ichime) so I really think it's a mxm standard. But I can't tell you for sure.

 

good info, thanks for the reply. It's certainly encouraging to know they work in another type of laptop.

 

Keep in mind that each ODM makes their own cards. So a Clevo MXMIII might be different than an Arima/Flextronics MXMIII even though its supposed to be the same standard.

 

They should fit cross system as mxm defines the connections, dimensions and mounting holes. The main reasons why cross compatibility is limited is because of heatsink design and the vbioses are sometimes locked.

 

I got a copy of the new w26 BIOS, and it doesn't mention the VBIOS in the release. Actually, it has the vbios blanked out. Cut/paste below.. but, it seems the BIOS installed has nothing to do with the vbios. The slots fit the Nvidia cards, I wish I had a set of 9k series to try out. Anyhow, here's the snippet:

W840DI BIOS Release Note ....

============================================================================
Hardware Configuration and Specifications
BIOS CORE Version ............ SecureCode
CPUs Supported ............... Intel
Chipset ...................... Intel
Bridge ....................... Intel
I/O Controllers .............. Intel
Flash ........................ Unknow
On-board Video ............... no
Discrete AMD VGA BIOS Version.
On-board Audio ............... Unknown
KBC .......................... H8
KBC BIOS Version.............. Unknown
****************************************************************************
============================================================================
10/24/2008 by Mattoby.Tsai --- Phoenix Technologies Ltd. FORMAL RELEASE
============================================================================
Major version : "W840" Minor version : ".026"
VGA BIOS Version : ------ Phlash Utility Version : ----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
KBC Version : ------ Checksum : ---- ----
Checksum(Winflash) : ---- ----
============================================================================

1). Description : Update BIOS version to W840.026
Defect No. :
REQUIRES : OEM.TWN\ARIMA\W840\REV1\bcp.asm
OEM.TWN\ARIMA\W840\REV1\dmioem.asm

 

thanks for all of the replies. I'm trying to figure out if the 3870 is at least physically MXMIII. Mxm-upgrade lists a special type of Arima card which is non-standard MXMIII.

http://www.mxm-upgrade.com/types.html

As far as I understand flextronics took over what was previously a Arima chassis... Hopefully flextronics has returned to a standard design!

I found one picture (ironically...being installed in another machine - Alienware M9750) but it's not very good for measurements. Does anyone have a link to an image of the 3870?

Also, could someone explain the last few lines of the release notes listed above?

---------
1). Description : Update BIOS version to W840.026
Defect No. :
REQUIRES : OEM.TWN\ARIMA\W840\REV1\bcp.asm
OEM.TWN\ARIMA\W840\REV1\dmioem.asm
---------

Does this indicate that the chassis/motherboard has to be Arima?

Thanks!

 

The 3870 is physically an MXM-III card, as pictured here:

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/1160/NVidiaAti.jpg

 

A 3870 taken from the Armina works in the Alienware 9750 and the M860tu, so it's obviously standard MXM-III.

 

Thanks for the answers and the link. Question solved.

 

The ATI 3870 does not work in the Clevo M860TU... its been pulled from support by Clevo since it seems unstable in the MXM Type IV slot.

 

Clevo uses a proprietary. yes it looks like mxm. but it's not. it's the clevo format. so it makes sense that the ati 3870 doesn't work in a clevo notebook. it really seams mxm. but it can be the arima mxm proprietary factor.
one thing we known ,it's not the clevo format. can be standard mxm or arima mxm.

 

Actually, current Clevo gaming notebooks are using a standard Nvidia MXM Type IV, which Clevo was first to implement.

Nvidia has reluctantly acknowledged the MXM Type IV as being officially theirs... but not publicly official since they have not officially launched that format.

Ice-Tea (of MXM-Upgrade.com) got the statement from Nvidia... it should be on his site and in this forum somewhere.

 

The MXM IV slot shouldn't have anything to do with its stability. As a matter of fact, the Whitebook's Master GPU slot is an MXM-IV slot even though the card that occupies that slot is MXM-III. Same with the Alienware M15x and M17x when equipped with the 8600M and the 8700M, though not Arima designed.

Also, Mark from KillerNotebooks stated that he was able to get the ATi 3870 to work in the Clevo M860TU. I'm waiting for him to reply to my PM regarding if the 3870 card was from the Nagamaki/Whitebook, but that seems likely seeing as it's the only notebook that is being sold with the cards. If this is the case, then the Arima cards may actually be standard MXM-III cards.

The "Arima Special" card listed on that MXM-upgrade.com site seems to be designated as such due to the physical design; this would then be different from the MXM-III cards from Arima (the Geforce 7900GS, 7950 GTX, 8700M GT and the Radeon 3870).

 

OMG that's great news.
when the ocz appeared there were an option for a 1x9800M GT (correct me if I'm wrong) but it doesn't support in sli.
Is the Master GPU slot is MXM-IV is the other slot MXM-III and the 9800M GT a MXM-IV card?

 

The lack of support for SLI in OCZ has to do with the chipset, nothing else. A given chipset must support SLI in order for it to work. It may also be that an nVidia can't occupy the second slot, but that's just an added reason you can't do it, not the primary.

 

You guys obviously haven't seen the slots and the crossfire communications module.. The system WILL FIT THE NVIDIA cards..but as Falken stated, it is the chipset. One moment.. I'll snap some quick photos. Actually..this may take about 30 minutes, as I'll need to apply new AS5 to the GPUs. But, pics will be posted shortly.

 

hold tight.

the "Master of MXM" ... Ice-Tea (head of MXM-Upgrade.com)... is getting a lead on those Arima videocard modules.

we are thinking that those modules are just swapped between the Arima systems only... not for or from other system modules.

 

Here's some snapshots..this is the Master Card for the crossfire setup..and this is the slot that it fills. Notice, there is an extra unfilled connector space..maybe this is MXM IV? I dont know the differences, and havent researched. But, Id assume so.




Here's the slave card, and it's slot. Notice, no extra slot on the connector board. If this is MXM III, then that would explain why the NVIDIA cards are not compatible.



Obviously, both are different slots.. although, both cards are the EXACT same aside from the BIOS flashed to each. One BIOS is set as slave, and one as master.. I've pulled them with gpu-z when considering to flash. So..if anyone has pix of the nvidia cards, maybe a comparison can be made for compatability.

Oh, and here's the pic that is supposed to be the communications module for the GPUs.

 

that "filler" you are talking about does not mean its MXM-IV... not at all.

MXM-III specifications shows that it can also have an HE connector... which does not mean its Type IV at all.

 

I'm really curious to see if the Mobile 4850/4870 will work in the Whitebooks/M17, I'm really really hoping so

 

Well, the press release for the OCZ whitebook did mention the possiblity of a single 8800M GTX and 9800M GTX, which both use MXM type IV...

Also, while you are testing those Arima cards, can you test to see if it will work on the Clevos (namely the D901C, M570/M571TU and the M860/M865TU)?

 

Does anyone have pics of the 9800m GTX connectors? Or, connected to the MOBO? Just to see if the OCZ slots are compatible with those cards?

 

here's a link to an MXM-IV/HE card vs the 3870 from the whitebook courtesy of Killer Notebooks:

http://www.killernotebooks.com/nagamaki/images/ati_vs_nvidia.png

and here are closer pictures of the connectors, courtesy of Xotic PC:

http://www.xoticpc.com/8800m-installation-guide-sager-notebook-np579x-8800m-a-41.html

 

Thanks for your diligent research. The short of it is, the NVIDIA cards will not be compatible, UNLESS they lack the extra connecting component towards the outer edge of the card.. Forgive my crappy explanation. But, basically..these cards are MXMIII, not MXMIV. And the MOBO has room for ONE MXMIV card, and one MXMIII card..correct? That's what I am seeing.

 

yep, that's what i got out of it..one gtx or dual ati's

 

john?! Where you been man?!

 

im trying to chill on this side of the notebook world...people are kinda of violent over here. *LOL*

 

no kiddin man..been some heads rollin' - And, can u snap a pic of your GTXs when you get a moment?

 

I remember reading that originally the D840i supported: (1) 9800GTX, (1) HD3870, or (2) HD3870's in CrossFire. A lot of people were mad because they wanted a SLi 9800GTX system that wasn't a hefty D900C.

I believe that MXM-HE modules need an extra connector, and the Master slot looks like it could accommodate a 9800GTX. This is all speculation, of course.

 

if that thing took sli gtx...it would be over with. i'd have one.
with all it's added features plus....cpu over clocking! the main down fall for the 4 year old d901c....

 

Not so fast with the d901c...

So apparently Mark got a 3870 from the W840 to work in a Clevo M860TU. So, if these 3870s can also work with the Clevo notebooks, then there might be hope for D901c owners upgrading to the 4870 x2, and yes I mean both cards based on what I experienced testing both ATi cards on the Alienware M9750.

 

why would i want to do that? put a pair of 4870s in here? if i could over clock the cpu, it would basically be over with. the ocz had bios over clocking. with out bios over clocking pretty much speaks for itself. they seem to fair better than the 8800m gtx's, but yet have to out perform the 9800m gt's or 9800m gtx's. even with the games you posted in the other thread. they still don't out do the 9800m gt series..which is why the card was put out for. right?

it would be nice if they do what they are suppose to do when they do come out (4870's)....but then...nvidia may come out with mobile gt200m's... that's all speculation.

 

Because it might perform better? (we don't know yet for sure, but if it performs significantly better and can be upgraded, why not?)

Not talking about the 3870 in the 9262, I'm just saying if the 3870s WERE to work, then it might be possible for the 4870 upgrade to work in the Sager as well. But in reference to that thread, the 8800M GTX SLi is simply a rebadged 9800M GT, so that would also compare similarly to how the 8800M GTX SLi does. 9800M GTX is a different story.

Hopefully they don't use that MXM 3.0 standard for the GT200 mobile and reset the whole MXM movement

 

http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/nvidia-desktop--mobile-gpus-renaming/6238.html
I think this will be mxm3.0

 

ummm, mxm 3.0 was never even a consideration in my book.
and the sager np9262 is backward compatible on both slots and not just one.

your reading way to deep into what im saying...

 

Probably because the 48xx series in desktop form was very successful, compared to the 38xx.

A: No, it's a fact. See the following:

Nvidia did a bad job providing specs for its mobile variants, so the best I can come up with is the chart from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nvidia_Graphics_Processing_Units#GeForce_8M_series

and Notebookcheck.net:

8800M GTX specs

9800M GT specs

They also have 3dmark06 scores for the respective cards. Just scroll down on those links and click "more details" for more info if interested.

As far as gaming goes, they perform very similarly:

Dell M1730 with X9000 + 8800M GTX SLi in Crysis

Alienware M17x with X9000 + 9800M GT SLi in Crysis

Also, in the M1730 review and the NBR M17x review, they also have CoD4 comparisions. I'm a bit skeptical about that because one of the reviews specifies the map/arena/whatever on where the benchmark took place in that game.

Well, we are talking about FUTURE cards, right? AFAIK, I haven't heard anything about the GT200M, and from what is being mentioned at mxm-upgrade.com, neither of the current systems that utilize MXM would be compatible with MXM 3.0 cards (note, MXM 3.0 is NOT the same as MXM-III). This is why I'm concerned as to what NVidia/ODMs do with the mobile GT200s.

 

ummm, and all this is because?

i had 9800m gt's and pretty much beat out the ati's at everything but 3dmark06@1280x1024. and every game i tried. so you posting links and such really isn't doing anything for me and what i found out. they can read what ever..which is fine, but they didn't beat any 9800m gt's. look up all them test hooper and i ran.


you have to understand ichime...we are running real world test here and we should have enough people around to help verify the findings of others around the net. it's real easy to surf the net and post what other people say, but it's something entirely different when its your own benchmarks providing proof..... im not here to argue others opinions but to help those find the answers to why their systems aren't performing like the so called. "top of the line" systems.

 

...

All that was to show that the 9800M GT is a rebadged 8800M GTX. If your 9800M GT SLi beat out the ATi cards in the games you played, great. If the P4G review show the ATi cards beating the 8800M GTX SLi in 3 out of the 4 games they tested, great. But that doesn't change the fact that the 9800M GT = 8800M GTX.

 

...and I'm sure that there are many here on NBR who would agree with me/help verify that the 9800M GT is a rebadged 8800M GTX...

Those posts/links from those other people are actually useful in verifying what I'm trying to say. I don't see what exactly is wrong with that.

 

your not hearing me..i already said it didn't matter about it being re bandagged. for the sake of this discussion.... it is RE BRANDED. ok? are we now on the same page? now back to what i was saying. me and my REBRAND which read 9800m gt was not beat by any ati's 3870's. was all i was saying... nothing fancy or any rocket science stuff.

edit: oh yeah...a person with dual 8800m gtx's is online now. and downloading..so i guess we either get confirmation to your findings or they get dissed....
and when E gets online he will also run these test.

 

ok, which games did you test (when you had the 9800M GT)?