XoticPC to offer Pre-Order of GTX 280M

I just received word from Justin at XoticPC that they are accepting pre-orders starting tomorrow (Mar 5th) for the upcoming nVidia GTX 280 Mobile GPU.

Sager has confirmed that the NP5796/5797 systems will accept the card. It is fairly safe to assume the D901C will also support the card, although nothing has been confirmed as of yet. No price on the card as of now, we can only hope it will be a little cheaper than the 9800M GTX due to its 55nm fab.

A few stats about the card:
G92b core - built on 55nm fab @ 585Mhz
128-Shaders @ 1463MHz
1GB DDR3 @ 950MHz
61GB Memory Bandwidth
562 GFlops
MXM 3b
75w Power Usage
nVidia claim of 50% faster than the 9800M GTX

I plan on getting one of these, so anybody who wants a used cheap 9800M GTX, let me know!

 

What about Pre-Orders for the D900F fully customizable?

 

Well without BIOS support it's hardly to run new cards in for example 5793. I tried already the 9800M GTX in M570RU and it says unknown MXM Module....But still post is possible.

 

I, uhh, doubt that

 

Hey I only said we can hope. With ATI coming out with some insane cards that finally are powerful enough to compete with nVidia, and the cards being cheaper to make, the lowering economy...who knows! Its possible.

 

The GTX 280M are 160USD more expensive than the 9800M GTX here in Norway. Im not sure if you can trust it that much.

 

well if Clevo release the new nVIDIA cards for D901C will be WOW

 

I am can't wait for pricing and benches from you emike09. If the pricing is right I just might upgrade as well.

 

I'm be skeptical of 50% faster with only 128 shaders. I haven't exactly kept up with these new ones, but are they based on new tech, or is it the same tech as 9800m series?

 

So Ati moved two cards into 40m, and NV's only just got down to 55nm; shall have to wait and see how either performs.

 

Well this card is essentially a 9800 GTX+ Desktop card with a lot lower clocks and 1GB of memory. I'm not sure what the core is clocked at, but with a little overclock of the shaders and core, you would match or beat the performance of the 8800 GTS G92 desktop card without breaking a sweat.

It is based on a die shrink of the 9800m series. Essentially the same, but manufactured in 55nm, meaning lower power, lower heat, and higher stability.

 

Well, you won't be disappointed about the price because the GeForce GTX 280M w/1GB DDR3 will be more attractive than the current pricing.

The only disappointment will be the wait until end of March for them to begin shipping.

 

Any info as to when the 260M will be available?

 

Thanks for the encouraging work, Donald! This is exciting, things were getting a bit slow around these forums till CeBit and new GPUs were announced.

 

It's semantics; slides say up to 50% faster than the 9800M GTX, so it could be comparing a 9800M GTX running on battery mode, lol

 

Well I recall seeing somewhere a benchmark in 3DMark06 running with the X9100. It got 11.5k i recall, which is pretty impressive for a stock card. The 9800M GTX gets 9500 points with the same CPU. A 50% increase in performance would put the card at 14250 points, and I have high doubts that we will really see performance like that without some powerful overclocking.

 

Yep, around 11.7k with a GTX 280M + x9100 here.

 

If the score from notebookcheck is accurate I am really disappointed.

 

Unfortunately there is no info on the GTX 280M other then the M570TU at this time. Although it is not confirmed, the GTX280M is supposed to be a drop in for the 5796/5797.

 

Yes it is =/

 

Will this card work in them M17 setup ???

 

Nah I don't mean price-wise. Performance wise the HD4850 is currently trading blows with the 9800M GTX depending on the game. The HD4870 is clocked higher so depending on how much an improvement the HD4870 is compared to the HD4850 it could possibly compete with the GTX280. I also think if ATi puts GDDR5 in the HD4870 like it claims it can than it would definitely be a lot better than the GTX280. Currently there is no laptop with a HD4870 GDDR5 though.

 

Part of the reason I want to see the new 280M vs the 4870 in benchmarks and all. Roamer has it the 570 will also have the ATI as an option.
link1313: overclocking is an issue. This is because I've seen the benchmarks and in game performance and my 9800M GTX with the current clocks is just slightly worse than the 4870 (5% at most). We need to see how the 4870 overlclocks as well.

 

You talk an awful lot....

 

lol, your that guy that was banned like 2 days ago. you created a new account, reported.

Also stop making stuff up thats why I don't bother dealing with you anyone knows this isn't true. I only deal with the facts, when you respond with lies it makes it impossible to create a valid argument.

 

Notice the words Justin uses "Unfortunately there is no info on the GTX 280M other then the M570TU at this time. Although it is not confirmed, the GTX280M is supposed to be a drop in for the 5796/5797."

Very little has officially been announced. If the 9800M GTX works in the D901C / D900F, then more than likely the GTX 280M will also. Nothing has been confirmed as of yet.

 

Maybe because the GDDR5 version hasn't been released yet... and I don't think anyone ever said that ATI performed better than the desktop version. Though the nVidia market share thing is far from being true...

 

id delete your post or you'll get banned again.

 

Probably because the card has not been released yet, and they have not finished development for the other systems. Hard to say. You can bet that the D900F and M898NU will support the GTX280M.

Who needs to delete their post?

 

Well you should probably discuss SLi in the D900F in a thread of its own, as it would be off topic here.

 

Anyways...

The GTX 280M looks to be a fine card. Its what the 9800M GTX should have been, but that aside, is a decent upgrade compared to the 8800M GTX and the 9800M GTX. We all know that the massive, high end desktop GTX wouldn't make it to mobile till it hit 40nm; more than likely that will be our next upgrade in the GTX 300 market Q4 2009.

 

No the Gtx 280 architecture will never come to the Notebook market.
The Gtx 2XX arch is too hot and power hungry for notebooks at 55nm
Nvidia tried to make a mobile 280 processor with the 40nm but It was a disaster.

The 2XX arch is designed for the 65nm process and I've heard it was a disaster when they tried to fit it on a 40nm chip.
This is why Intel does a die shrink and then redesigns the architecture, you can't just keep shrinking an architecture.
The next mobile arch will be the 3xx architecture which will either be a redesign of the 2xx arch for 40nm or an entirely new arch designed for the 40nm process.

 

You are right. More than likely the GTX 3xx will be a completely new chip instead of using the aged G92 core. You have any article references on nVidias 40nm attempts? Would be curious to read more into it.

 

http://www.dailytech.com/NVIDIAs+GTX+280M+Uses+Same+G92+Chip+as+9800+GTX/article14480.htm

All i've heard about Nvidia's 40nm process

 

Yeah, I agree on that, for the price we paied for the 9800M GTX, Nvidia should let us upgrade for free to the new 280M . Or maybe just paying a small difference ($ 50) .

 

Does the GTX m280 used the mxm type compatible with the m860tu??

 

I believe it is mxm4 and version 2.1 and not 3.0 so I believe yes.
Doesnt mean the 860TU will be able to use it thou.

 

If Clevo said the 9800M GTX was too much heat for the M860TU I am not sure if they would support it. Its pretty clear from current temperatures the M860TU is well equipped to handle it though. Its up to Clevo though

 

According to nVidia, http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_gtx_280m_us.html , it is using MXM 3.0 Type-B

 

so that would be compatible with the m860tu then....

 

No, it will not be backwards compatible

 

Ahh so the 260/280M are version 3.0?
that would require a mobo upgrade then

Is it just the 280M that is 3.0 or both the 280 and 260m

 

Are you saying the M860 cant use the GTX 260M? Because our reseller have confirmed with Clevo it will work and the GTX 260M drivers for M860 are on Clevos site.

 

The GTX260/280M both use MXM 3, just as the M860 and NP579x use MXM 3. However, I do not think the M860 will support the GTX 280M

 

Mxm 3 and Mxm Revison 3 are two different things I believe.
Mxm 3 is the slot type and the revision is the mxm version they are on.
I had thought the M860TU was revision 2.1 but I could be wrong

Qouted from MxmUpgrade.com

November 19th 2008

And no, we don't mean Type III, we mean version three. To date, we've seen 1.0, 1.3, 2.0 and 2.1 cards in the field. It didn't seem to make too much difference. Some software changes, support for the display port format, an additional mechanical format... We've never been able to pin incompatibility issues to MXM revisions even though there are probably some cases buried in the mountain of 'no go' upgrade attempts.

MXM 3.0 is different. There will be no back or forward compatibility. The reason lies in the redefined connector, which is completely incompatible on both the electric and mechanical front. So, don't even think about 'hacking' a 3.0 module to fit in an older MXM notebook. Simply will never work. Some more info...

Features:

- Only two mechanical formats
-> Type 'A' 82x70mm, 35W TDP
-> Type 'B' 82x105mm, 75W TDP
- Up to 4 dual mode Display Ports
- 16 lanes PCIe Generation 2
- Legacy VGA support

There is actually no pressing reason in this feature set to move to 3.0 It's obviously better 'future proof' so for new designs it will most likely be the choice of preference but perhaps evolutions of existing designs will stick to 2.x for some time..

Compatibility

As said: forget about backward compatibility. Type A will fit in both Type A and Type B notebooks, which seems logical. Type B modules will be restricted to Type B notebooks, again as expected. The good thing is that they clearly took a lesson from previous experiences, which means height restrictions on the card have been clearly defined, a 'generic' thermal interface was made, a generic bracket was defined,... Odd thing is that manufacturers are explicitly allowed to stray from the board outline as long as the notebook will accept 'generic' cards! While this makes sense from an OEM point of view, it is unfortunate for end users. If vendor A makes a 3.0 card and adds some height and board area there is a very decent chance it will not fit in vendor B's notebook. This is actually very reminiscent to what we've seen with Arima cards for the board size and a horde of height restriction differences.

On the electrical side, things are comparable. While most signals are very well defined, there are a few OEM reserved pins that can be used at the OEM's discretion. They can add additional power rails, features, or a control mechanism to prevent the insertion of non-native cards. There is no guarantee that such a OEM module will operate in another 3.0 notebook. Or blow up, for all we know. It is clearly stated that 'generic' 3.0 modules will not use these pins but even then it remains to be seen if OEM's will make these pins mandatory for correct operation or not. If they want to be MXM 3.0 compliant, a generic module must operate without the additional pins.

On the software side, things are once again the comparable. A normal graphics card would always 'carry' it's own vBios onboard in a small EEPROM. In this case, the spec mentions explicitly the option to integrate it in the system bios. To be MXM 3.0 compliant, the system should be able to accept 'generic' modules with an onboard vBios. Besides that, a MXM 3.0 software spec was defined. This software structure will tell the card what display interfaces the system requires and will tell a bit about thermal limitations of the system etc. Comparable efforts where done in the past but we suspect that non-implementation, free interpretation or just bug infested implementations have been at the base of some upgrade failures in the past. We seem to see a strong push to have a uniform implementation this time.

All in all, generic modules should always work in MXM v3.0 compliant platforms but manufacturers are at liberty to add some off their own flavor to their own cards, even if they make the system v3.0 compliant. So the big question is whether the 'MXM v3.0 compliant' sticker is a big enough carrot to lure OEM's to make life easier for end users (or service centers, system integrators, boutique stores,...). The second big issue is that all graphic card manufacturers that produced 'generic' MXM cards without a specific target have stopped doing so. All the cards we ever sold were designed for a specific notebook. So even if all future notebooks are 'MXM v3.0 compliant' that may remain nothing but a nice catchphrase if no MXM v3.0 compliant cards are offered on the open market...


To be continued for sure!


After rereading this I believe that M860TU's will need a Mobo Upgrade to use the new 260M's as the mobo in M860Tu's currently has mxm 2.1 and as stated 3.0 is not backwards compatible. My guess that since the mobo will be upgraded it will not just be the Mxm slot that is changed they might add support for the 1333mhz ddr 3 laptop mem out currently along with other changes mayhaps quad core :3?

I do not know if the ATI cards are MXM 3.0 and I cannot speculate on the 5790's

 

I guess i do the best to not wait then???i already payed for a 8800m Gtx but due to compatibility problems the store ordered other from clevo, but i can still wait for the m260 assuming that it wont require a new heatsink......and this might make wait two month....

 

Paid

(10 char)

 

If we are all going to be correcting everyone's spelling, and grammar, we will be doubling the posts in this forum!

 

I'm guessing my NP5790 (upgraded with a 8800M GTX) won't be able to upgrade to the GTX 280M, correct?

 

How much are these cards going to cost?