Read more.Quote:
For those that liked the GX700 but not its extreme cooling appendage.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
For those that liked the GX700 but not its extreme cooling appendage.
Bit late to the game, especially since the 1000 series is here now.
Isn't it with 1070?
They've release a mobile/MXM 1000 series? That came out quietly then!Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
I think this has the 'desktop' class GTX 980 but Nvidia haven't created a similar product from Pascal yet - even if they released a 1080M I suspect this wouldn't be far behind in performance terms, even if it uses far more power.
Wrong on every count.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3s-gtech
This isn't a 'desktop' class GTX 980. Nvidia have created a similar product from Pascal already. This is already far behind in performance terms. This doesn't use far more power.
The GTX 980 (notebook, no M) is just marketed without an M, to make people like you think it's a 'desktop class' chip. It's a downclocked chip which uses less power and performs lower.
Un-named Pascal mobile parts were shown off months ago, and meanwhile we've seen leaked benchmarks of the 1080(M) scoring over >3500 points higher in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics, compared to this GTX 980. Other sources show the 1080(M) has a 40% higher clockspeed, faster VRAM, and the same TDP, ROP, and core counts as the GTX 980 notebook (no M) Guess what, with the Pascal part being much more efficient, it's going to be faster. A lot faster, if the benchmarks with early silicon and pre-release drivers are anything to go by.
See here
Nope, just some ignorant fool spouting rubbish again. Though leaks/rumours point to the mobile/MXM 1000 series being announced at the beginning of August. They do exist though, and manufacturers have shown off notebooks with "next-gen Nvidia graphics" at trade shows (e.g. Computex), without disclosing the exact details.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
I was unaware that nVidia had to sprinkle marketing fairy dust to make a GPU work in a laptop. My bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
The only marketing spiel is convincing people like you that 980, 980 (Notebook), 980M, 970, 970M and 965M are different chips. They're not. Literally the only differences between them are clock speeds (which are software defined), and how they're wired up to GDDR5, and the lower end application chips may have been binned because they didn't do well in QC. But they were all cut from the same slabs of silicone.Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
It's almost as if they are trying to get it into a system with a limited thermal profile.Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
You should acquaint yourself with the forum rules, and basic civil decency.Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
GeForce GTX 980 graphics?
Could someone please add an M on there as someone, somewhere, will REALLY think that this machine has a full 980.
They seem to have to make some adjustments - the 980 for mobiles was quite different to the desktop, and the 980M even more so. I presume they pick some low leakage parts so that they get better power efficiency. Bringing out a 10 series on mobile already would indicate yields are probably good and we could see from what changes they've made from the desktop exactly how high quality the chips are.Quote:
Originally Posted by aidanjt
It does have a full GM204 chip, 'GTX blah' just a brand name for different chip settings. Regardless, nVidia's marketing blurbs brand it as "GTX 980 (Notebook)", not "GTX 980". With the settings "GTX 980 (Notebook)" uses, it runs faster and hotter than "GTX 980M", and has access to all the shaders and compute units of the GPU. Besides, it's 11 months too late to be nit picking at clock equivalency with a reference GTX 980. Like I said, this thing has been around for quite awhile now in other laptops. And it's a bit petty anyway, since you would wouldn't claim custom cooled GTX 980's aren't GTX 980's because they're running faster and hotter. It's silly. You're only talking about 80MHz and 20W in the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur1814
Not really, the only difference is in clock speed. The itself chip is otherwise identical.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
It's the same part. They may have binned high quality GM204's specifically for that market segment, but it's still a GM204 regardless.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
I really loved the design of the ROG 501, the only show-stopper was the graphic card, that was really poor for what was sold as a gaming pc.
I wish Asus would release a new model with updated graphics and the same design.