Gtx 485m?

actually there's no problem maxing all details out with native res and 2aa only will suffice with good 30fps on mine in average. and besides applying too much aa in some games where it doesn't look much of a difference (like BC2) is useless in exchange with fps count.

 

How is that possible? On notebookcheck it shows a rig with 480m's in SLI and a 960 cpu getting 70+ fps with 4 AA on native res maxed out, how do you only get an average of 30? A single 480m gets around 40 under those settings aswell.

 

what? they have 30.1fps in ultra, idk the aa, but 30 in very settings with 2aa is enough for me, i could crank up 4aa but i don't see how necessary it is because in my eyes 2aa is enough.

 

what these guys said.

i can't wait for more info about the compatibility of the new cards tho. one of them will definitely be goin into my NP8850.

 

Ultra? Wait were not talking about bad company 2? If so my bad!

Edit: I just realized you were talking about metro, I saw BC2 in your post and I thought you were talking about that. Again my bad!

 

@ mobius yep i forgot the reply is to GTO, who said he wants to max crysis, by the way in BC2 its 72 fps like you said in 4x aa, but in 32x aa its a whooping 52fps lol running at fraps.

 

Thats more a-like it

 

max res with high settings gets me 35 to 60fps. in very high,its 30.1 but there is no point in making very high on shadows and shaders. no point at all

and crysis will slowdown no matter how powerful your machine is. its not optimized enough.like ninja gaiden 2

 

u can download and use Crysis Ultra High Quality Custom Config
this will improve fps and slove tree leaf flickering when SLI
and i feel the graphic is better then "normal" very high

 

Whats the point of all these crysis comments. Its basicaly a game that you play, you finish, and thats it. To my knowledge it has zer0 replayability.

All other games runs fluently even on my rig.
Its basicaly a lot of fuss for a game that you play max 48 hoursor so.

Give it a rest, after you finish the game, you wont be bothered by that low fps.
Because you wont be playing the game any more.

Besides that, crysis 3 will be better optimized and will have overall lower system requirements.

 

It is plenty replayable, I have probably played it 4 times now and enjoyed it every time.

And 48 hours is alot longer than needed to finish the game haha (think I have done it in like 12)

Crysis 3? Don't exist....there is Crysis, Crysis Warhead, and the upcoming Crysis 2. And the lower requirements will be because the game will look like crap as it will be a lowly console port sadly

 

Same here. I played it originally on my Vostro 1500 with 8600m GT . So I had to go and replay it again on my desktop at a later time with details cranked up a bit (I believe 8800 GT at the time). I have a feeling i'll have to play it both Crysis and Warhead again on my GTX 485m laptop before Crysis 2 is released just to get back in the mood. I tend to do that when I buy games. It's good too, because it usually takes me longer than I think to finish (real time wise), and delays me from buying it on release day so usually get it cheaper.

 

i repalyed cyisis & warhead many times
normal*6 hard*3 delta*2
when u play delta u will feel like its another game

 

48 hours? i replayed crysis 3 times already, that's because i want to do some different approach of missions.

 

Let's not turn this into a Crysis thread.

 

There's something I don't understand about the notebookcheck benchmarks... They have the 470M ranked better than the 480M (12 and 13, respectively)... Is this accurate? shouldn't it be the other way around?

As far as the 485M goes, its ranked comfortably better than both (6, and the best ranked card not SLI enabled).

So, i guess what im asking is: is a 470 better than the 480, but worse than a 485?? Is it only an Nvidia branding issue, or what?

 

The 470M came out a little bit faster than the 480M, while the 485M is the clear winner out of the three.

The 480M is GF100, while the 470M and 485M are GF104, a superior and more efficient core. That's why they have such better performance than the 480M, while using less or equal power.

 

NVIDIAs numbering could use some work-- higher number usually means better performance.

 

480m beats 470m
why???
bcz 470m only got 1.5g gddr5

 

What? Memory has nothing to do with this. For the performance of the 480M core, 2 GB are already an overkill.

 

Hi,

I've tried searching the forum and google but couldnt come across the relevant info...

Does anyone have thorough benchmark data on how a sinlge 485m performs vs. dual 485m in SLI?

Just trying to evaluate the benefits of going with the SLI option.

Cheers,
Matt

 

It will kick . But you'll have to pay an insane price for it... Nvidia's SLI scaling is very good, so you will get a 90% boost in most games (if they support SLi). But keep in mind that HD 6850 Crossfire also scales excellent and since you will get HD 6970M Crossfire at nearly the price of one GTX 485M this will be the most logical way to go.

 

Are you sure you posted the correct link ? The question was how does a single gtx 485m compare to 485m SLI, the link you posted talks about 460m SLI, so...

 

I think GTX485m is based on a desktop 460 or something along those lines so its still relevant (the hardcore enthusiasts will correct me if im wrong).

My my, sli/crossfire support in games and drivers have come a long way since i last looked (back in 2006/7). As far as i remember SLI was only worthwhile if you were running giant resolutions or using multi monitors. In the normal resolutions SLI actually appeared to hamper performance back then.

Radeon option looks tempting, unfortunately no UK re-seller appears to be stocking the 6970M. May have to wait a few weeks.

 

Pretty sure, yes. The question was about SLi-scaling and the article talks about desktop GTX 460 SLi. The GTX 485M is based on the GTX 560 (probably GF114, although it could also be based on GF104), in any case scaling will be the same or even better. Performance should also be on par with the desktop GTX 460 (more shader, lower clock) unless you overclock. So you can use that article for reference. Same with the crossfire article.

Buttom line: SLi / CrossFire is definitely worth it these days and the only way you can bring a laptop to real gaming desktop performance.

 

GTX 485 is based on a desktop GTX 560. Seeing as the desktop 460 only has 336 shaders while the GTX 485m has 384 shaders, which is what the GTX 560 has.

 

As tempting SLI is, you will always get better stability and less issues with a single GPU. The GTX 485M is a single GPU powerful enough for me not to worry about anything.

 

Your absolutely right about single cards being more preferable, but if you could get a HD 6970M CrossFire setup at the same price as a single GTX 485M it does make you worry again.

 

I don't know why you guys are so worried. The GTX 485m is significantly faster than anything out there at the moment. In a year or so there will most likely be a single card nearly as fast as GTX 485m SLI. Just the way it works. I can't imagine it not playing any game in the next two years pretty much maxed.

 

It will be strong enough to play all games (except for Crysis, Metro 2033 like titles) at max for at least this year, so much should be clear. It's just about price/performance... but yeah, you could always upgrade in a year. Those 28nm cards should really be two times as fast as current cards and the GTX 485M will probably have a good resale value.

Very nice choice btw, the i7-2630QM should last longer than the GTX 485M, I don't understand how people choose the GTX 470M just so they can buy a 2720QM or 2820QM...

 

But isn't the similarity determined more by the chip used rather than the number of cores/shaders enabled?

According to Wikipedia's Comparison of Nvidia graphics processing units, the GTX 485M uses the same GF104 chip that is used in the GTX 460 desktop GPU whereas the GTX 560 uses the newer GF114 chip.

However, whilst checking the above info, I was disappointed to discover that there are OpenGL problems with Nvidia's GeForce 400 series.

This is significant to me because I am intending to buy one of the new Sandy Bridge Clevos to use for graphic design and video editing, and also with a view to exploring 3D content creation. Has anyone had any experience of this?

 

The link I posted was about GTX 460 SLi. I don't know if there is any official information about the actual chip that was used for the GTX 485M. Not using the GF114 would be odd, because it would have allowed for higher clock rates at the same TDP, would shed some light in the naming scheme though.

I hope those rumors about OpenGL performance are not true... but I find it hard to believe, as a ton of developers use Nvidia cards.

 

If it was GF114 they would have called it a GTX 500m part for sure. It just the most capable GF104 we have seen to date (and it is a monster!)

 

Doesn't it have to be GF114? The GF114 GTX 560, which launches tomorrow, is the only other chip in existence, which has 384 shaders.

I don't see Nvidia creating a unique mobile chip, which has no desktop analog. Were there ever reports of an unlocked GF104?

fake edit: the 9700M GTS was a unique chip , yes

 

Also they could just be artificially limiting the GF104 in the 400 series so it would not destroy the GTX 470 and GTX 480

 

But don't developers tend towards the Quadro range rather than GeForce cards?

 

Not game developers. Quadro is for "professional" use, like medical facilities, CAD, etc.

Yes, the GF104 has all the 384 shaders, they artificially limited the GTX 460, because they used the GTX 460 to counter AMD's 5000 series mid-range, and 336 shaders were enough to do so. They knew they needed 384 shader to counter AMD 6000 series mid-range cards, so that's why they held it back.

For Nvidia it should not require much to unlock the full potential of a GF104 chip, so they didnt need to design a new chip. Even better, now they can reuse all GF104 chips as once the GTX 560 is out, nobody wants to buy the GTX 460 anymore. The GTX 485M is strong enough to counter the HD 6970M and it seems Nvidia will have the 28nm cards ready earlier than AMD, so they don't need a GF114 based GTX 580M to counter AMD's 7000 series, they could still release it to earn extra money.

 

The GF114 is ALOT more efficient though and has some logic changes in the silicon. And the GTX 560 will not be nearly as cheap as the GTX 460 from what I have heard (around $280-$300)

 

TOM's HW has some pretty s***ty benchmarks IMO. They like to average scores in their reviews instead of seprate ones for every setting.

Introduction - AMD 6970/6950 CFX and NVIDIA 580/570 SLI Review | [H]ard|OCP

 

Keep in mind that a notebook part usually runs at lower clocks making it easier to unlock all parts of the chip.

 

Tomshardware states that that 560 is functionally identical to the GF104 in he 460 so it seems it really dosn't matter much as long as 485m has enabled one of GF104’s Streaming Multiprocessors that was diabled just like the 560 ti. So i would say this should clear up alot of the questions on this thread.

"GeForce GTX 560 Ti centers on GF114, the re-spun version of GF104. Before you get too excited, though, remember that GF104 already incorporated the texture filtering improvements that didn’t make it into GF100. That is to say 64-bit FP16 texel throughput doubled from two/clock to four/clock, per texture unit. GF104 has this capability, GF110 has it, but GF100 did not. What’s more, Nvidia decided not to carry over the Z-cull improvements from GF110, instead choosing to leave the raster engine unchanged.

The net effect is that GF114 is functionally identical to GF104. In fact, Nvidia even cites the same 1.95 billion transistor count. And we’re still looking at TSMC’s 40 nm process here....

Of course, the main difference is that, while Nvidia turned off one of GF104’s Streaming Multiprocessors to create GeForce GTX 460, GeForce GTX 560 Ti sports an unshorn GF114 "

Nvidia GeForce GTX 560 Ti Review: GF114 Rises, GF100 Rides Off : The GeForce GTX 560 Ti Review

 

One of the reasons the next upgrade for my 460m sli, will be 7970m crossfire, (in 28nm, hopefully with 4gb ddr5 frame buffer each) jumping from a 13600 vantage p gpu score to a 28000-30000 @ stock frequency, and at the minimum 30000 points esspecialy if the 7970 is gonna be a 28nm 100W part.

Not thats an upgrade worth doin, right ?

 

That will not happen in the next generation of notebook graphics. Sorry to burst that bubble.....

 

28nm 100W might happen. Not the other stuff.

 

28nm and 100W will surely happen, ya I was referring to the performance numbers. As he just described a system that is more powerful than 2 desktop 5870s in CF with an i7 Extreme 965 (my desktop)

 

I firmly believe that a price drop is better than anything for end users.

 

Price drops never happen sadly, they just give you more performance at the same price points

Rarely does the older stuff actually get much cheaper. Especially with laptops.

 

nVidia may drop the price of the 485m if the 6970 proves it is performance competitive to 485m for a few hundred $ less. Although I have a feeling nVidia will pop out a 500 series chip shortly after 6970 that will outperform it by a reasonable margin.

 

Nvidia has no ace up its sleeve. The would have to throw a GF110 onto an MXM board to do better than the wide open GF104. A GF114 might offer some boost in efficiency making more headroom but it is architecturally identical to the GTX 485m already - just different transistors being used.

 

Performance of Wimbledon/Kepler could potentially get pretty close to that high. 28nm will bring a full-node shrink from 40nm which should mean double the transistors/shaders. Adjust for VLIW5 -> VLIW4 and we start talking about the 1536 SPU of a desktop HD6970....then figure for driver improvements, arch tweaks, and HKMG.

Top end 28nm mobile GPU could definitely approach GTX 580 to HD5970M performance levels...or even higher if AMD can give their top end cards a hybrid graphics boost with Trinity APU.