New Polaris Laptop GPU's with no "m" suffix?

So from what I understand the 460 will most likely be the 480m from previous articles online (previous articles when AMD announced their rebrands on the 400m series), but I was watching Gamers Nexus talking about the new news on RX 470 and 460 and he mentioned that we will see BOTH 460 and 470 complete with no "m" suffix for laptops??



You don't have to look at the full video just from 6:30 ~ 7:35ish

I don't know where he got that from and if we will see the full 470 in laptops that finally will be a very interesting option vs nvidia.

Besides we don't even have a polaris thread and two or more pascal threads . (Of course I understand why though)

 

It's still terribly unfortunate if they are not actually going to be competitive and have a suitable offering on the high end though. Something in low to mid range is OK for value shoppers, but nothing to complete with GeForce 1080 would be very sad and leave those that want more still having no viable option except to go green... again. The 1060 is trouncing the AMD 480 in DX11 measurements. NVIDIA is late to the party with DX12 support, but if they get their act together on that it will not bode well for AMD. But, even the 1060 isn't good enough for those that prefer the big guns and not worried so much about a low profile budget. The stuff I am seeing on the web about cost per frame favoring AMD seems like mumbo-jumbo to justify not bringing a 1080 killer to the battlefield. I hope we will see an AMD 490 on MXM.

 

I honestly don't see high end in laptops from AMD that is competitive for a while, NVidia's bare and stripped architecture is perfect use low power and to push FPS in games. The problem IMO is that they are going to hit a wall with just clock speed (or already are) and need to go wider with bandwidth/VRAM. But if AMD can bring 470 to laptop, that is roughly 980m ? ? ?ish performance and that will at least give most 1080p gamers a decent option instead of just going Nvidia. And having two in crossfire can be potentially be decent performance, as is - not in comparison to what Nvidia will be showing. A crossfire 470 setup seems like a more long term solution for good 1080p and some 1440p gaming for a while (Assuming higher adoption rate of DX12 & Vulcan games). Of course Nvidia will also revise their architecture to be more suited for DX12/Vulcan and I think will stay a good tier above AMD for a while in gaming laptops.

When it comes to 490 . . . I first want to even see them come up with a "BIG" Polaris /whatever chip that does some damage. AMD is just completely absent from the high end currently for desktop, so for them to make a show in laptops will take a while I am afraid.

 

470 is equal to 980M performance? Are you sure about that? I thought I read somewhere that is was somewhere between 780M and 970M performance. Even if it is, 980M is a 2014 notebook enthusiast performance level. It will be 2017 soon and that's just not good enough to suit me.

I really do wish AMD would go high end on MXM. I would love to see them release something at least equal to my 200W GTX 980 notebook GPU. We need some serious competition for NVIDIA. They have become far too lazy and complacent. I really miss the old days when we had a constant debate and heated battles between red and green fanboys over which brand was best, and with a good basis for it because both were great and deserving of admiration.

 

AMD is hitting a lower point first at the moment. I would expect the desktop 470 to be fairly close to the 480 desktop.

 

But for how long? That strategy has been AMD's modus operandi since 7970M became irrelevant at the launch of 680M. Time for them to actually do something respectable.

 

It was not irrelevant, the 680M was really quite expensive, it was more after that with the 780M and onwards. They would need an MXM card with HBM and a lot of shaders to make an impact on the higher end market.

 

Then that's what they need to do... there are plenty of options in the low budget mediocrity class, but only one high end option that always seems to be dominated monopolized by the Jolly Green Giant. I'd really like to see AMD change that nasty paradigm. As long as they remain obsessed with catering to the mediocrity class that will never happen, and they'll never be able to re-earn the kind of respect they used to enjoy in the enthusiast market.

 

Honestly, having had CF 6970Ms in my x7200 before, I can safely say they don't fail on the hardware but on the software level. The drivers absolutely sucked, and I mean SUCKED. Recently nvidia's drivers went down the hill too, but their issues are *nothing* in comparison as what I had to deal with when using AMD drivers. Their cards that time were awesome, just like the successor (7970M) but they all suffered because of software (1 word: Enduro).

 

AMD lost the performance race in mobile and just doesn't seem interested in getting back in. I can't really say I blame them for focusing on the mainstream rather than the high end. They need to take back market share and the average person is not going and buying a P870DM, they're buying around and under the 1K price point.

 

Seems like AMD has had a good amount of interest in the 480, so maybe the "budget" graphics cards is where they focus first. It would make sense, as there are more people buying $1000-1500 laptops than $2000+ models. Maybe it is a first step to get back in the game and come out with a higher end card later, with a future gen of cards.

Either way, in my opinion, its better to be back in the market as they hadn't released really anything in the last year or two.

 

The question is whether the OEMs are going to bother with AMD now that they're customizing their builds to fit nvidia's monstrous cards. My guess is no.

 

I don't think they would completely ignore AMD all together. Maybe there would be a few models that come out. Clevo, MSI, and Alienware (that I can think of off hand) had at least some models with AMD CPU/GPU. It wasn't very many SKUs, but still some. Hopefully that might happen whenever new AMD products come out.

 

Dell will definitely use AMD chips but I'm not so sure about Clevo...

 

Not sure. Alienware did offer the 390x (IIRC) and not many others did.

 

Well Dell = Alienware so yeah lol.

Apple, Dell, and HP. Clevo and MSI seem uninterested in AMD anymore.

 

Well yeah. I don't pay attention much to the actual Dell line up, just the Alienware models. But yeah, i could see some of the larger computer companies (Dell, HP, Acer, Lenovo) probably having a higher chance of running AMD.

 

I think whatever they can buy the cheapest and sell for the most profit will always interest Dell, HP and Lenovo.
I think a larger percentage of their customers tend to be less technically savvy as well.

 

True for the majority perhaps, but I like Lenovo's netbooks for their price/performance ratio. Would never consider levovo for their other products though.

 

@sirana - I think having to use one for work every day has ruined it for me. I absolutely despise the T430 assigned to me and the ThinkPad I had before it. I find it truly miserable to use, so I am jaded.

 

Alright, that's a given I used that netbook mainly for typing during my university classes, and for that purpose it was quite valueable. Having to work on it though is horrendous, as I was forced to have the netbook run TeXmaker for a while when my x7200 had no working GPU. Everytime I compiled, it took the netbook ~30 seconds to process my text, and I'm used to ~1-2sec from my trusty x7200.

 

Sorry for the late response - I assume around 980m performance off the top of my head due to 980m OC is about 970 reference, 970 is close to 480 and 470 seems like ~20-15% from 480? Not the best comparison of course but we will seen soon enough.

2017 or 2014 honestly for 1080p or even basic 1440p 2014 tech works fine, mostly with now we are just bringing what used to be enthusiast level performance to a lower price point, which always has happened too. The biggest thing for gaming experience for me is the use of adaptive sync (G-Sync/FreeSync) (which also lets something like the 980m play on 1440p on decent settings) with IPS screens more common higher res screens, and now HDR monitors that may come. More then ever having a good monitor vs just a good GPU for pumping out FPS has gotten important.

^^^x3 Yes, that would be beastly for Laptops! I would love see something like that!



Honestly what I really want is a >14" 1"thick or less laptop with RX 460 good 1080p ips screen, a strong 4+ core 3.5Ghz+ (i7 most likely) CPU- one that would usually be completely overkill for such a laptop and a Thunderport 3 port - so if I can run a EGPU through the TB3 port with external Adaptive Sync monitor (G-sync/FreeSync I don't care - Depends on GPU). Honestly it seems like something that would be perfect. I prefer to just use a single computer, and 14" would be fine for mobility and the EGPU would be great for gaming. We have all the technology to make this possible, so we will see.

 

I hate having to go back and use a machine without an SSD now I am used to it.

 

People think HBM is the only way around to get extra performance and make a difference with current generation cards...

GDDR5 is the maximum (official) speed the latest MXM revision supports, they would need to put in place a new standard...thus it can take years before we can see a new MXM port. Not counting the fact that now people in the industry want BGA/Soldering everywhere.

high-end Pascal cards will be (according to the very few details we have) stronger than a 980M sli add to that ansel, better VR support, power consumption and thermal optimizations and if that's not enough...

 

HBM gives you the room for a beefy chip that needs more than a 256bit bus while still keeping it compact and all ROPs/memory channels intact (no 480 MXM debacle again).

 

Did not know those details on MXM revisions, good info!

And uses less power too

Of course its not the as all, be all, but it will help!

 

Yes and AMD need all the help they can get.

 

The 7970M only seemed irrelevant because of problems with the card itself, if memory serves. It performed just fine when it worked.

 

Exactly and it was much cheaper than that overpriced 680M... Which has been nerfed as time has gone on while the 7970M has become better!

 

It's more complicated than that. There's no official speed in MXM specs, at least I'm not aware of one. As long as the PCIe is able to feed the core/memory all is good. It wont matter what kind of chip or memory one puts (the first MXM-B had GDDR3, that was a while ago, no one even dreamed about GDDR5). It really is like with desktop GPUs, the PCIe slot is standard and the size of the board complies to some specs (but it really is optional, since there are monster sized GPUs), all the rest is up to the manufacturer. Is the Fury line any different than a random PCIe spec GPU? No. It plugs in the same slot. The tricky part with MXM is that it has component placement specs. It's not that much the chips, rather than the hole spacing. Well, the chips have recommended placement, but not obligatory, as we've seen a few GPUs with varying placements of VRMs and memory (though not that much off than the standard). The hole spacing on other hand is more or less set in stone. All the heat-sinks have the same hole spacing and it is exactly where you expect it to be on every single MXM board (be it A or B). A Fiji chip wont fit in between, even tilted. So the only real limitation (for current HBM) is the hole spacing, that's it.

Now, with that cleared, I see alarming photos of Clevo "MXM" boards with odd shape and non-standard hole spacing and positioning, so we might not even see a standard MXM board in future, let alone with HBM chip. Not good times

As for Clevo and MSi having AMD GPU again, I've posted my scepticism before. I would love to see AMD offerings from them, but I have my doubts about it.

 

The limits of MXM are really dictated by signal integrity and space along with the strength of the memory controller (and the chips used to some extent).

 

soooo:

http://videocardz.com/62790/geforce-gtx-1070-mobile-and-radeon-r9-m480-benchmarks-leaked

as we thought before 480m is the 460 - -> but laptop 460> desktop 460? 16CU's vs 14CU's? That would be interesting.

I wonder if 470 will make it to the laptop. They do seem to compare it to the 970m . . . but the 460 shouldn't be close to the 970m so some of those numbers are kinda confusing.

 

here (please refer to the "Major feature segment" ) :

http://www.mxm-sig.org/file.cfm?doc=36A88883-DFFA-E3E6-16C301BCF5633572

Please note this is the 'official' specs Nothing prevent nvidia, clevo etc. to circumvent those specs and offer custom solutions. Yes boards have custom capacitors, controllers etc. but the standardized memory interface along with other standardized components put certain limits on MXM cards : Now this spec was written PRIOR to GDDR5X, so the real question is : GDDR5X is MXM3.1 compliant ? I don't think it's the case, every leak shows us that Nvidia mobile GPU will 'only' have GDDR5. I highly doubt nvidia would voluntarily not use GDDR5X in gaming laptops.

Since the standard is NOT evolving, I am not surprised to see Asus, Clevo etc, coming up with custom MXM boards. AMD, Nvidia and others are not willing to unite in order to work on a new standard, each want to go their way I think...

 

That's the thing, it's not exactly standardized. The only standardized thing is the dimensions, hole spacing and max main power line draw. Everything else varies GREATLY! The only limitation for having 64/128 bus on MXM-A and 256bit on MXM-B is physical space which has to comply with "Keep-Out Zones" (not that everyone complies with the zones, but the lack of space is still obvious)! Nothing else. You simply can't trace 512bit through MXM-B, or 256bit through MXM-A. There's also no 192bit spec in this "standard", but there are such GPUs. I'll repeat myself, the only consistent things throughout the years were physical size, hole spacing and 10A max on the main power line (10A x 19.5V (most notebooks) = 195W). According to the very spec you linked, the MXM-A should have maximum board power of 35W and MXM-B - 75W. We've seen both greatly exceed these numbers. Why? I already calculated it for you. Of course that is peak power, but manufacturers took advantage of this over-engineering, hence a lot of 100W GPUs and a couple of 125W ones. All of them working fine in older machines as well*. Also the PCIe revision, stated that will support future PCIe 2.0, where newer machines are 3.0. Not to mention the countless upgrade threads which suggest where one has to grind the heat-sink in order to fit newer GPU, since the various VRM components differ in placement. Also not to mention that this "standard" allows the vBIOS to be either in the systemBIOS, or on the board itself. See how many differences there are from this spec and various products? The hole spacing is the only problem. That's really it.

*At least not power constrained, but that also depends on implementation, since again, this is more of a guidance, than a set in stone standard. If it was a proper standard, every MXM-B GPU would work in every MXM-B machine, just like PCIe GPUs on desktops.

I don't think that there would be GDDR5X MXM GPU, not because of the "standard" (GDDR5X requires little to no change in the memory tracing design compared to GDDR5), but simply because MXM ceases to exist. Oh and BTW, MXM Sig is owned by nGREEDIA and they are making sure to sink that ship. The first step was DTM 980.

 

FYI, Nvidia is actually pushing MXM still. The new Drive PX2 actually uses 2 standard form factor MXM cards (demoed with Maxwell cards but intended for Pascal). Seems to suggest they intend on keeping it around and while.

Furthermore, while MXM-SIG is currently "controlled" by Nvidia that doesn't mean that have absolute say over where the MXM standard goes. The whole point of a SIG is that it's a collaborative effort of which AMD and many others are actually a part.

 

And that PX2 demo affects us how? Also, that's a prototype, who says that the end version would be like that. For all I know, it's just a development board, which would go soldered once everything is ironed. In the automotive industry - the less moving and wobbly parts = the better. The only remaining MXMs would be in MobileWorkstations and I take that as a given, since HP and DELL just refreshed their ZBook and Precision lines and they usually keep them for at least couple of generations. The prices of these is rather expensive and out of reach for most even if we talk about just the modules. If nGREEDIA was indeed pushing MXM, it would've released Type C, D, E, X, Щ, Ю or whatever with the DTM 980 release and not ending-up the huge mess it was, which just happens to translate as an even bigger mess what the 10x0 would be. The only consistent MXM features/suggestions (the above three mentioned) are out the window (have you seen the new Clevo boards?). So where is that MXM "standard"?

 

You are making a lot of conclusions off very little data.

 

I'm pretty good at guessing I've said 2 months ago that if there's an MXM-B Pascal, 1070 would be the best one. Look at how things are turning, we might not even get a 1060 MXM-B. I also said that 1080 would be current DTM 980 machines exclusive, so that's another score.

To get back on topic, with this odd shapes and room on the boards, it requires little imagination to slap a full blown RX 480, it wont even need to be binned, so AMD doesn't even have to be involved in the process. That's of course if someone has the willpower. Of course that would be rather ridiculous in all aspects, but hey, it still is an option.

 

They would have to produce the performance to justify the base cost of such a chassis too.

 

Just red a confirmation that indeed, nGREEDIA is ditching MXM and Clevo and MSi went out of their way to make GPU boards instead of going soldered. So again, I don't see why not AMD? Yeah, the performance is not great, the efficiency is lower, but so what? Playing the nGREEDIA game led us where exactly? An inch from totally soldered everything, yeah F**K IT! All this technology and "innovation" just to return back 20 years! Buying these machines is almost the same as buying BGA turdbook. You are at the mercy of the manufacturer. We already saw nGREEDIA's and grIntel's "mercy". If Clevo or MSi don't put at least a single slide in their presentations saying - "Hey, nGREEDIA are morons, they ditched MXM, this would be the shape, size and specs of our GPUs for years to come", I see no reason to buy. The whole upgradeability is down the drain.

 

Unfortunately, you answered why not AMD in the sentence that followed. I don't want to accept compromise on anything... all or nothing. But, I share your contempt for the imbeciles at NVIDIA as well. If I can't have what I want in a notebook, I will buy a cheap piece of junk from Wal-Mart or a $150 Dell Inspiron for web surfing and email on the go, or just use my phablet for that and go back to desktops. I'm not going to bless a mess with my wallet.

Why do all of the decision-makers and so called industry leaders have to be as stupid as a rock? That's what I'd like to know.

 

I understand this well enough. The thing is that R9-M295X wasn't good enough and was nowhere to be seen, other than AW. Now the gap is getting bigger (though the cooling requirements are not that far off). In the mean time nGREEDIA obviously does whatever the hell they want and powerful notebooks are turning into big compromises with ridiculous price tags. Then comes the question, are the newly designed GPUs capable to house an HBM chip or we'll get another redesign when that happens? I don't have a pile of money to buy every new gen, actually not even every other gen. I can get a single machine and expect (at least) 6 years out of it while I hope that I'll be able to upgrade the GPU couple of times. Desktops are more attractive than ever. So I'll keep my current machine for on the go usage, since I don't feel like throwing money for BGA, or for another machine for that matter and built a desktop. Too bad since I've put not a small amount of money into this project and half of the parts are in the drawer waiting to implement them. Oh well, might get W7170M eventually, but that's like half the price of a decent desktop.