GTX 480M 2GB GDDR5 DX11 PhysX 100W GPU?

Now that's something to speculate about, if you have nothing better to do.
If that x7200 will get a 300W PSU - i7-980X+ 5870CF is possible theoretically. But most of their specs make no sense.
You can't have a 920XM+5870 on a 120W PSU. Also 480M SLI will be 150-200W so it's impossible to pair them to a 980X even with a 300W.
Also, do those come without batteries?
They should

 

Not only that but they list a desktop 920 that can be paired with 480 SLI? How is that possible? Can't be right...

 

My guess is that, given the name x7200, it's closer to the x8100 and it's actually a mobile CPU. We'll see though.

 

One thing is for certain - there's gonna be some fun this summer, lol.

 

I'm going to make a new thread for discussion of the two notebooks.

 

I understand that.

You might remember I was harping how ATI should have produced a 75W TDP GPU back when the Mob. 5000 series first launched....and I still think they should have done so back then. To do so now though wouldn't make much difference.

If ATI had put out a higher top end GPU back then it would have really started rolling out in notebooks about now (or even sooner than now) and people would barely look sideways at the GTX 480M. Nvidia might have even had their hand forced to release the GTX 480M sooner (say back when it was still being called the GTX 380M ), as the stop gap card that the GTX 285M was.

 

Thanks fot the reply john.....

This is clearly nonsense as apparently your boss was posting details over the weekend?

 

Why not, I run the 920xm and a 5870m on my w870 and it runs on the 120 watt adapter

 

Care to provide a screenie of HWMonitor (showing the max wattage for CPU and GPU) while running Crysis with no flickering and throttling?

 

I don't have crysis. I beat that game years ago.

 

Any demanding game would be fine.
Even though I see a 120W PSU for W870CU on Clevo' website, I find a hard time believing that there's enough juice to let both the 55W+ CPU and 60W GPU work smooth
under max load without any downclocking issues. There's also a screen and all the mobo components that require some power...


Ahhh, silly me. Never mind, simple physics, lol. Wattage isn't everything, hehe... Me being silly noob...

 

Not really, u have a valid point in part. 920XM and 5870/285 have no probs in the chassis with power. Crysis won't push the power consumption anywhere near as much as Furmark/Prime95 etc will but even then it is stable. Also just cause the PSU is rated at 120W doesn't mean that they can't supply more. Some good desktop PSUs that are rated at say 850W will handle 900W no probs.

 

The 8690/8760 do have problems when a 920xm + 280M/285Mm are pushed with furmark + P95. Soviet and others resorted to 160W PSU's to compensate. That is a very extreme and unrealistic scenario of course but it still does show the 120W supply has it's limits. I don't see a 980 processor + SLI 480M ever working on a 300W supply.

 

No one thought the SLI 9800M GTX and Q9650 would work on the D901C as well. But we will see how they deal with it. Actually X7200 was already leaked during Cebit, just that the specs are not known yet back then.

 

No, it will require a 350-400W PSU just like that rumoured 400W Alienware. But not the PSU is the problem but the ability to evacuate 350W worth of heat from a small case.

At the price that this thing will sell for, you might just as well buy yourself a small shuttle case and actually build yourself a small portable desktop. Or this: http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/18746/1/ .

 

Haha..that thing looks like a 1980s VCR.

 

For me if a 350-400w PSU is just double the size of the M17x PSU (which I think is not that huge) I'll take it. What's the big deal? You already have a 12lb+ notebook so this to me is within reason for the brute power and gaming ability. It's much better than moving around a desktop, right? But of course to each his own.

 

A small form factor desktop has a PSU of around 300-400W and weights around 6-7kg including all the components (excluding the monitor). If a laptop with a PSU is reaching 6-6.5 kg, then the line between desktop and notebook is starting to become blurred. Taking into consideration the incredible price you are paying for such a notebook, you might try to consider the market for small desktops then. If you struggle a little you can get similar portability to that of a massive notebook but with a lower price and higher performance. Now I am not saying they are perfect substitutes, but from my point of view the actually usability of such a massive notebook is rather limited. I can understand the usability of a D900F, D900C, X8100 all in there niche markets. But the whole point of a notebook is mobility and if mobility is becoming increasingly more limited then the market for such machines will also become smaller.

The M17x PSU was about 0.45kg.

 

I think it's such a niche market to begin with. G73 seems to be mainstream though. I definitely think people who desire performance in a laptop will sacrifice the "mobility" aspect. I don't have a problem taking my w870 around any way, just need an outlet, and those aren't hard to find where I go.

 

I think the bigger point he was trying to make is if the current trend keeps up the line between laptop and desktop will become completely blurred. I can't help but look down upon Nvidia for being so desperate to compete it has to force these companies to make their laptops even bigger with huge PSU's. We're not talking so much about the W870CU or the G73h which are reasonably portable but these new behomeths like the X8100, the M17x, the x7200 and probably an even bigger M17x soon to accomodate the new cards.

I do think at some point both companies are going to take a step back and realize what theyre doing, as consumer demand for insanely huge laptops like these coming out will be rejected by the community over time.

 

I also don't like the fact that laptops are getting bigger and bigger. But we all want top notch performance and unfortunately technology will never be at the point where you can shrink a desktop part into a notebook without major loss in performance.

IMO the biggest a notebook should get is the size of the M17x, it's already pushing 12 lbs and that's more than enough. Any additional weight tacked on and it does defeat the point of having a notebook.

I'm still hoping external video solutions will be the way forward to alleviate these problems. With a thin 17" notebook and a bulky external video solution, we can choose when and where we want to hook it up for high performance.

 

For the mainstream market, it's still the single GPU notebooks that will be the most practical and best sell, the dual GPU notebooks fit in a niche market. I'm sure the sales and profit generated from the single GPU notebooks are much higher than their dual GPU monsters, actually, I don't think Clevo is even making these x7200/x8100/D900Fs to expect them to generate much profit, as sales of these machines are most likely only 5-10% of their more mainstream single GPU counterparts like 8690/8760. The reason they are making these monster machines is mostly to use them as a flagship, and generate publicity/reknown on how they have the most powerful notebook in the world in their lineup. Just like why Intel is making all those extreme edition chips, evga making those 3-4 way SLI/CF motherboards etc even though they knew not many people are going to buy them.

 

This. But but I think there comes a point where enough is enough. A single 5870 is enough for every game out right now and more to come. People are waiting on dual 5870's and then soon dual 480's. By 2013, we are going to need to pump liquid nitrogen through the internals to keep the machines cool while gaming.

 

By 2013, single GPU solutions will be at a level which obsoletes the need for SLI notebooks. Heck, the successor to the Mobility 5870 will be pushing that boundary, for me.

SLI machines will always be huge though, whether it's powered by ATI or Nvidia. The x7200 is simply a return to form.

The x8100, on the other hand, is an abomination, and is probably at the end of its life. I'm sure Clevo realizes that 18.4 is not the market it wants to be messing with. I'll be shocked if there is a refresh.

 

I'd like to see an SLI machine powered by ATI

 

I wouldn't want that, because ATi would probably get sued and go out of business, or at least be unable to put more money in research in development, and only into manufacturing.

I lol'd.

 

Sorta...I mean the point was AFAIK no SLI machines have been as big in dimension as the M17x/x7200 in the 17' category. It's funny how the similar the x7200 is in dimension the M17x, it even looks alot like it now. For years AW has copied or rebranded Clevo now for one laptop its become the other way around.

Please do correct me if I'm wrong though, I've only followed Clevo/AW/XPS for about 3 years now, there may have been larger 17' SLI machines then the 17x.

 

Well, the old Clevo D901C was 15.9" x 11.9" x 2.4".

According to Style-Note, the x7200 is (roughly) 16.5" x 11.26" x 2.4"

So there's some give and take probably because of the D900 being 16:10 to the x7200's 16:9.

edit: the AW is 16.0 x 12.7 x 2.1, and I'd be surprised of the old Area-51 wasn't just as big.

 

When I bought my first laptop from ECS in 2004, there were 20,1" (or was it 21"? the 4:3 equivalent of the 16:9 18,4" - do the math) laptops available ;-) Think Clevo had some too. But yeah, 18,4" is quite big. On the other hand you have a nice big screen. In any case, a laptop should still be portable - I mean carrying it around shouldnt be as difficult as carrying around a small desktop PC.
However, most people who buy a gaming laptop don't really carry it around everyday, so if it's 15,6", 17" or 18,4" is not of the utmost importance as battery life is ridiculous in all these models. Anyway, the 20"+ laptops were canceled evantually because they were just too big, so I think the same could happen to the X8100. If there is a 17" SLI option that looks nice too (the design overhaul of the D901 was overdue) why go for a 18,4" laptop?

 

Some of us still use those 20.1" screen laptops lol, and are upset of the prospect of having to go lower... even the X8100 is a downgrade and the M17x is tiny in comparison.

 

Recently there have been some leaks regarding the upcoming 460 GTX and 465 GTX cards. Important to note that the 460 GTX is a GF104 core while the 465 is still a GF100 core.

According to some unconfirmed sources, the 460 GTX is going to be similar to the 5770 in terms of performance. However, what I would like to point out is that the 5770 id 110W while the 460 GTX is going to be 150W.

Also launch date for the entire GF104 series is going to be 5th of June. I would expect the 480M to be officially announced around the same date.

 

I think official information will be given out on May 25. At least I was told that mySN can give me all information from May 25 onwards. I'll definitely write them on May 24.

 

So no specs known on the 480GTX?
I've yet to find any info on them.

 

Just rumors, some claim 256 shaders and 256 bit memory bus. Others say this information might be incorrect. but the 460 GTX is supposed to be more energy efficient which would make it more suited for the basis of a mobile card. The card will also be produced only by Nvidias board partners, this would apply to Clevo as well. So there are strong indications that the GTX 480M will be based on the 460 GTX.

 

One report, dated yesterday, has the GTX 465 (GF100, 325 cores, 256-bit) coming in June, with the GTX 460 not making an appearance until Sept/Oct. If accurate, that may rule out both of these GPUs as candidates for the 480M speculation.

I still think it's going to be coming from the mid-low end of the GTS 400 branch.

 

Then there's a chance that it won't beat the MR5870

 

Even if it's the GTS 430; 192 CUDA cores, on a 192-bit memory interface, with GDDR5, it'll be faster.

I can't find a way for it to be slower, and there's no 128-bit Fermi chips in sight.

Unless Nvidia uses GDDR3, which would be a complete joke.

 

Does 430GTS beat the desktop 5770?

Here they assume:

GTS 430 will carry 192 shader cores, 48 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and a 192-bit memory bus, should match the HD 5770, and will run between €130 and €150.

MR5870 proved to be very close to the desktop 5770, so dunno...

 

Well if it's using GDDR3 and a 192bit bus, it will probably be close to the MR5870, probably slightly less powerful but maybe slightly more powerful. MR5870 is a apparently a nice over clocker as well, so it can probably be over clocked to be right on par with the desktop 5770.

 

Yep, also if it's based on the GTS430 it might perform even slightly worse than the desktop counterpart.
And yes, with GDDR5 it might be slightly faster. Still, I'm not too convinced yet to buy a 100W card to slightly outperform the 60W one.
Plus, having a wonderful experience with GTX280M, I'd prefer ATI any time of the day.

 

Well, the HD 5770 is roughly half an HD 5870, with half the shaders/TMUs/ROPs and half the memory bandwidth.

Whether it will be limited by the shaders or the memory bandwidth, a GDDR3 GTS 430 would definitely be significantly weaker than the desktop HD 5770, and weaker than the MR5870 as well - it would have around a third of the memory bandwidth of the GTX 470, and ~40% of the shaders, and the GTX 470 is already weaker than the HD 5870.

With GDDR5, it would probably be slightly better than the MR5870, but not by much.

 

Guys, use your logic.

Why would Nvidia come up with a 100W monster for the notebook market when it knows that with such a TDP very few laptops will be able to carry this card? How many people would actually buy such a laptop?

If they could have made a card which would beat the M5870 at the same TDP they would have it, there is no doubt. Logic tells me, as well as evidence that I have shown in previous posts, that current Fermi architecture simply cannot beat the M5870 at the same TDP. They had to go to 100W to beat the M5870.

And this tells us two things, firstly that the 480M is going to be faster than the M5870 and secondly that the 480M is not going to be a very big increase in performance compared to the M5870.

 

Theirs a "supposed" leaked clevo roadmap kicking around that places the x7200 at a 25/06 release and the 480m at 10000 3d vantage marks. Its obviously going to be faster as their would be no point releasing it otherwise with the 100w tdp.

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.domimicro.fr/blog/post/Une-Fermi-mobile-chez-Clevo-%25C3%25A0-la-findu-mois-d-avril&ei=frntS8G4Eoaj_AawyPyACQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CDkQ7gEwCTgK&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dclevo%2Bx7200%26start%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

 

10k in 3DMark Vantage is quite nice, but I'm guessing that's not the GPU score. Nvidia's PhysX does wonders for the CPU score, generally, which brings up the overall score a lot.
If the Vantage GPU score is ~9k, that's ~12.5% better than the MR5870 which I'm willing to believe.

 

i'm getting 9200 gpu score in vantage with a 5870, so it darn well better be over 12-13k for anyone to care.

 

That's an overclocked 5870 though, right?
From what I've seen of Fermi, the GTX 480M will probably overclock nicely, though it'll set your laptop on fire while doing it.

 

yeah, overclocked. I assume the 480gtx will overclock even better still giving it a lead. Again, theres plenty of people here who think it will be a 50% faster (drugs)

 

The real issue with the 480M is its price. I mean, look closely at this configurator:



+€433.10, over the Mobility 5870?

We can only hope that this is inaccurate. Otherwise, Nvidia has gone back to the 9800M GTX days. A desktop GTX 480 runs $500.

 

True but its not a million miles off a desktop 5870 which is £320 over here the GTX is £400 so not a whole difference.

Just wondering if to get rid of that much heat we might see a sealed watercooling solution? something like a corsair H50 just on a smaller scale.

 

It's DDR3 as well, if we believe those specs. Still, if it's on a 256-bit bus as has been suggested before that would be okay.