Gtx 1080M faster than desktop Titan x? (Coming in June)

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

21 hours ago, DXMember said:

pffff... what? who draws graphs like that?

....

 

LTT

[Castdeath97]

16 hours ago, alexyy said:

What? no the 980m is slightly weaker than a 960. 

 

What are you talking about, pretty sure it's better than a 960:

It's probably stronger than a 960 and close to the 970.

 

Edited May 21, 2016 by Castdeath97
Wrong video linked

[Misanthrope]

6 hours ago, atrash said:

I forgot who was arguing about the 'misleading' graph of AMD stock price not too long ago but he/she should see this shit graph and try to defend this instead.

Oh yea gotta love those instances, "our stock doubled!" yeah and if my stock was worth 1 orange and I get another one it just doubled big deal.

[Prysin]

callin BS on a mobile part being this fast. It would take time to bin the chips used in mobile. and Quadro/Tesla cards always have first pick. You would need Quadro level of efficiency for this GPU in a laptop.

 

Also, the laptops with a full fledged 1080m will be excessively heavy and noisy. Much like many of todays laptops will full fledged 980s. yes i strongly believe we WILL see a 1080m full fledged version one day, but not in june.

 

Also, that benchmark in the OP is so full of shit.

Every reputable reviewer would tell you a R9 295x2 on average (yes not always) is 10-15% faster then a Titan X. Sure, without CF profiles it is not. But on average, it is 10-15% faster.

[othertomperson]

22 hours ago, DioOmicida said:

Why did they flip the key on the right from the Y axis?
Seems like a strange thing to do. 

Why would you bother with a key anyway when all but one of the bars are the same colour, and they are labelled anyway?

 

7 minutes ago, Prysin said:

Also, the laptops with a full fledged 1080m will be excessively heavy and noisy. Much like many of todays laptops will full fledged 980s. yes i strongly believe we WILL see a 1080m full fledged version one day, but not in june.

 

Why are you comparing the noise of a laptop with a full desktop 980 with one with a mobile 1080m? These are not equivalents. You should compare this with laptops with a single 980m.

 

22 hours ago, Commander Llama said:

Since the desktop variant isn't ready for 4K gaming, there is no chance the mobile version will be either.

 

However, the eventual 1060M is going to make usher in some rather cheap, high quality 1080p mobile gaming.

I would like a source that this card is worse than a Fury X, 980 Ti, Titan X or 295x2, since these are all capable for 4K gaming.

 

Also the only reason you should want a card these extreme for a resolution as crap as 1080p is because you are trying to achieve the ~200fps the DisplayPort standard is capable of.

[Mr.Meerkat]

Hehe...maybe MSI's MS40 can be upgraded to a 1080m? That means that it would faster than my 2x290Xs (although one is currently not working ) oh wait, that graph is full of BS as a 295x2 is not slower than a titan X...unless there's no CF profile then...yes, it is a lot slower  

[Prysin]

4 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

Why would you bother with a key anyway when all but one of the bars are the same colour, and they are labelled anyway?

 

 

Why are you comparing the noise of a laptop with a full desktop 980 with one with a mobile 1080m? These are not equivalents. You should compare this with laptops with a single 980m.

no i should not.

 

laptops with a cut down and downclocked 1080 will NOT beat a titan X. It is very simple. You need the FULL version with slightly lower clocks. You cannot do a 1070 equiv SKU with lower clocks and call it a 1080m then pretent it is a proper 1080. Like the 980m is. A 970 equivalent SKU.

 

The 1070 is estimated to be around 980Ti territory. There is a gap between 980Ti and TitanX, especially if you are looking at potential. Sure in games it is only 3-5% at most when comparing lower end stock 980Tis to the Titan X.

 

Also, laptop makers are trying to make their products into MacBook Air's. So thinner and smaller. Which doesnt work with high perf parts inside.

5 minutes ago, Mr.Meerkat said:

Hehe...maybe MSI's MS40 can be upgraded to a 1080m? That means that it would faster than my 2x290Xs (although one is currently not working ) oh wait, that graph is full of BS as a 295x2 is not slower than a titan X...unless there's no CF profile then...yes, it is a lot slower  

in Firestrike AMD scores lower then Nvidia, historically. That being said, i score around 17k with a STOCK 4790k. Every benchmark made by AMD or Nvidia is always made with Overclocked 5960Xs with faster memory then what i have and open test benches. A 5960X will score like nearly 18-22k in Physics test alone . My setup is a 4790k, stuck in a corner inside a Phantom 820. Ofc i wont see THE best performance ever in that case. But because people on these forums are generally turds. here is my actual, validated Firestrike run: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/6977082

 

Crossfire scaling for AMD is really shit in Firestrike. But it works if nothing else.

That being said. a 5960X at 3.75GHz is like 70%+ faster in physics and 40%+ faster in combined tests.

[othertomperson]

40 minutes ago, Prysin said:

no i should not.

 

laptops with a cut down and downclocked 1080 will NOT beat a titan X. It is very simple. You need the FULL version with slightly lower clocks. You cannot do a 1070 equiv SKU with lower clocks and call it a 1080m then pretent it is a proper 1080. Like the 980m is. A 970 equivalent SKU.

 

The 1070 is estimated to be around 980Ti territory. There is a gap between 980Ti and TitanX, especially if you are looking at potential. Sure in games it is only 3-5% at most when comparing lower end stock 980Tis to the Titan X.

 

Also, laptop makers are trying to make their products into MacBook Air's. So thinner and smaller. Which doesnt work with high perf parts inside.

What benchmark for the 1080M are you citing here, or are you talking out of your arse? Nvidia are not calling it a "proper 1080". Only you are doing that. Nvidia are very clear that the M variant of a card doesn't perform as well as the full desktop variant.

[Michael McAllister]

Some people had some wildly different results with the GTX 1080.  Strangely, Elric had better results in GTA V 4K than 1080p.  Not sure what that was all about.  Maybe we will see similar results on the mobile side of things.

 

 

[awesomeness10120]

Did you guys notice at the bottom of the ROG article it has the tag "24 inch laptop"

[NateGSR117]

I've been waiting for the new mobile graphics card before getting a laptop for school and play in my down time. 

[Commander Llama]

15 hours ago, othertomperson said:

I would like a source that this card is worse than a Fury X, 980 Ti, Titan X or 295x2, since these are all capable for 4K gaming.

 

Also the only reason you should want a card these extreme for a resolution as crap as 1080p is because you are trying to achieve the ~200fps the DisplayPort standard is capable of.

Errr I'm not sure why you quoted me because I said nothing related to what you're talking about.

[othertomperson]

1 minute ago, Commander Llama said:

Errr I'm not sure why you quoted me because I said nothing related to what you're talking about.

You said that the 1080 is not a 4K capable card. All of those cards I listed are 4K capable. I would like a source, therefore, that the 1080 is weaker than each of them.

[Commander Llama]

3 minutes ago, othertomperson said:

You said that the 1080 is not a 4K capable card. All of those cards I listed are 4K capable. I would like a source, therefore, that the 1080 is weaker than each of them.

I said the hypothetical 1060M is not a 4K capable card. But that's without even getting into the semantics of what "4K capable" means, which is rather subjective.

[BuckGup]

3D Mark 11 Sky Diver and when you put it on something real like fire strike extreme it will throttle to death. Also Nvidia type graphs

[DrM]

18 hours ago, don_svetlio said:

The 980M is 5% slower than a 970......

firestrike scores point more towards 25% less performance..

[don_svetlio]

3 hours ago, DrM said:

firestrike scores point more towards 25% less performance..

A heavily OCed 970 vs a stock 980M. erm - you also have to take into acount the particular laptop. some 980M laptops have a LOT of boost headroom

[xAcid9]

5 hours ago, DrM said:

firestrike scores point more towards 25% less performance..

That is not Firestrike and 980m throttles in many laptops.

[Big-G]

8 hours ago, SamStrecker said:

3D Mark 11 Sky Diver and when you put it on something real like fire strike extreme it will throttle to death. Also Nvidia type graphs

I find Sky Diver is a better OC gaming validation as if it konks out during a run it will most likely konk out during a gaming session 

[MatsNorway]

960 vs 980M sounds like something they should test on LTT.