GTX 1080M Specs revealed! What a shame.....

[AlTech]

1 minute ago, patrickjp93 said:

No, Apple proved it isn't!

I'm not sure how to respond to this.

[Curufinwe_wins]

14 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

Erm, no? 970 doesn't use more than a Fury X? Pascal is more power-hungry than Maxwell

That isn't what the chart is saying (sorry the copy pasta moved things around...)

 

It says,

 

Peak System Power Consumption

 

1070-263W

1080-303W

Titan X-361W

970-295W

Fury X-385W

 

In game situations stock to stock, GP104 is very comparable to GM204 at power consumption. The 1070 is also a much larger cutdown compared to the 970.

 

EDIT: HardOCP has 1070-254, 1080-308, 980-312, 980ti-357, Fury X-379 (pretty comparable.)

 

All reference ofc...

[patrickjp93]

2 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

I'm not sure how to respond to this.

Laugh because it's funny or cry because Apple really has neglected battery life. Those are the two obvious options.

[ProfessionalOverclocker]

6 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Yeah lol no. Battery life is a thing.

Get a bigger battery, or maybe a solar powered laptop.

[don_svetlio]

5 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

That isn't what the chart is saying (sorry the copy pasta moved things around...)

 

It says,

 

Peak System Power Consumption

 

1070-263W

1080-303W

Titan X-361W

970-295W

Fury X-385W

 

In game situations stock to stock, GP104 is very comparable to GM204 at power consumption. The 1070 is also a much larger cutdown compared to the 970.

Though the 1080 uses around 194W vs the rated 180W. 1070, I presume, would follow the trend and use around 170W.

[Curufinwe_wins]

32 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

Laugh because it's funny or cry because Apple really has neglected battery life. Those are the two obvious options.

What you want to do actual things on your laptop not just safari surf for days?

 

29 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

Though the 1080 uses around 194W vs the rated 180W. 1070, I presume, would follow the trend and use around 170W.

You can see the edit, HardOCP has similar numbers for everything.

 

The point is anything they could do power target wise with GM204, should be easy as pie to do with GP104, as stock to stock GP104 uses less or equal power.

 

The 1070 in particular is really impressive on the reference board wrt to power use.

[Mr.Meerkat]

2 hours ago, A/C said:

If only AMD could release a mobile chip good enough so that the market could punish Nvidia. If only... but history has shown that AMD is more than capable of dropping the ball on ocasions like these, or?

P10...maybe not as good performance as let's say the 1080m but since RX480 already have a TDP lower than 150W, they can easily just put it into a MXM form and fit it into a lappy and call it a day  (plus it could be a lot cheaper , slap an extra $50 , hell even $100 would be a good price on top of the normal RX480 with P10 to cover the different manufacturing costs and maybe that little extra profit but the whole laptop could still cost less than $1000 which is great Price to performance ).

[A/C]

Basically this:

 

 

[CTR640]

1080M faster? Lol, that's cute. I have a GeForce 9600M GT so it will smoke that 1080M by over 9000!! miles!!!

 

/s

[AlwaysFSX]

 

Good God and I thought we had some special members a year ago but this is fucking gold. 

[Suika]

Wait so it's possible that we have a GTX 980 Ti / GTX 1070 in a laptop and people are crying about it because NVIDIA's Pascal yields probably aren't up to par to bin a mobile capable fully fledged GP104?

 

Fuck dude, maybe my priorities are too straight and I have to tone it down a notch to understand why these nerds are crying.

 

 

[Rune]

Reading this thread was fun.

Anyway, 1080M looks beyond impressive to me. Not really sure what people have their panties in a twist for. If I could afford to buy a laptop with one in it, I'd do it without regret. The last "gaming" laptop I owned was a p-7805u with a 9800m in it. For the performance, bring on the heat motherfuckers.

[vanished]

I'm not sure what happened here but we somehow seem to have gotten from talking about the 1080M to which games are good.  That would be a topic for another thread please

[MageTank]

5 hours ago, don_svetlio said:

I agree. The 980M would be much slower but the 980M was also 125W IIRC and even though OEMs mod the 980 around, it was still a more reasonable jump. We need to see the 1080M laptop prices but if it's priced like a 980 laptop, then I couldn't care less, I am comparing it to the 980 laptops as it's unreasonable to compare a 1500$ laptop to a 2500$ laptop.

The whole reason I am salty is that I was being told over and over that there would be no "M" Pascal and I'd have a 75W 1060 laptop with lower clocks. (within my budget) but from the looks of it they're going back on their word - that is what pisses me off.

This is the exact rational most people should have. People keep comparing product SKU across generations, but the real comparison should always be price:performance. No other metric should matter for the vast majority of consumers. You don't compare a 980 to a 780 just because both are x80 cards. You do it based on how much each card is priced. That way, you have a proper metric to gauge the components worth. Even if performance does not change in a new generation, if its priced much lower, then its a win. It means the price:performance has improved, even though the raw performance itself has not changed.

 

If they charge more for less performance just for the sake of it being "newer" then that is when people are justified to grab their pitchforks. 

[2FA]

5 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I'm not sure what happened here but we somehow seem to have gotten from talking about the 1080M to which games are good.  That would be a topic for another thread please

I saw this thread as soon as it was made and I had no idea where it was going. Not exactly something I was expecting a flame war out of.

[vanished]

7 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

I saw this thread as soon as it was made and I had no idea where it was going. Not exactly something I was expecting a flame war out of.

well unless there's more off-topic stuff farther back, it's been cleaned up now.

 

On topic, this just proves that you can't trust leaks and rumours; we had heard weeks ago that there would be no 1080M and that laptops would all just use the full chip, and now look where we are!  

[don_svetlio]

11 hours ago, MageTank said:

This is the exact rational most people should have. People keep comparing product SKU across generations, but the real comparison should always be price:performance. No other metric should matter for the vast majority of consumers. You don't compare a 980 to a 780 just because both are x80 cards. You do it based on how much each card is priced. That way, you have a proper metric to gauge the components worth. Even if performance does not change in a new generation, if its priced much lower, then its a win. It means the price:performance has improved, even though the raw performance itself has not changed.

 

If they charge more for less performance just for the sake of it being "newer" then that is when people are justified to grab their pitchforks. 

Exactly - the reason I flipped my shit (though prematurely now that I think about it) is because I saw specs which aren't that impressive and mad an assumption based on the overpriced 1080s that it would cost a lot as well. Safe to say, if it does end up costing more than a 980 laptop I won't let it slide.

[Dabombinable]

18 hours ago, don_svetlio said:

Most laptops are designed with 120W in mind. 150W would melt them

Considering I've had a friend with their laptop's GTX 860M overclocked to the limit of the memory and core clock sliders, out performing GTX 870M and with the i7 4700HQ locked at its turbo speed of 3.4GHz-all in a laptop. You really don't have much experience-if any-with mid to high end gaming laptops do you? Manufacturers design their laptops around the parts that will be used. Its not like they just take any old design and cram the latest hardware into it.

[Lays]

23 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

Exactly - the reason I flipped my shit (though prematurely now that I think about it) is because I saw specs which aren't that impressive and mad an assumption based on the overpriced 1080s that it would cost a lot as well. Safe to say, if it does end up costing more than a 980 laptop I won't let it slide.

Even if it is slightly more expensive, say ~100$ or MAYBE even $200, I still think it would be alright, since there definitely is a performance bump.

 

You really don't think 980 TI performance in a laptop isn't impressive with 100w less than a 980 ti?

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, Dabombinable said:

Considering I've had a friend with their laptop's GTX 860M overclocked to the limit of the memory and core clock sliders, out performing GTX 870M and with the i7 4700HQ locked at its turbo speed of 3.4GHz-all in a laptop. You really don't have much experience-if any-with mid to high end gaming laptops do you? Manufacturers design their laptops around the parts that will be used. Its not like they just take any old design and cram the latest hardware into it.

860M is a 60W GPU, not a 120-150W one. Not to mention the variables are SO many - binning, voltage, cooling, ambient temps

[don_svetlio]

2 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Considering I've had a friend with their laptop's GTX 860M overclocked to the limit of the memory and core clock sliders, out performing GTX 870M and with the i7 4700HQ locked at its turbo speed of 3.4GHz-all in a laptop. You really don't have much experience-if any-with mid to high end gaming laptops do you? Manufacturers design their laptops around the parts that will be used. Its not like they just take any old design and cram the latest hardware into it.

Oh they do that. Y510P from Lenovo, Blade from Razer, G551/N551 from Asus, A few Alienwares from Dell, GE6/7 from MSI, Nitro/Aspires from Acer, Pavilions from HP and many others.

[don_svetlio]

3 minutes ago, Lays said:

Even if it is slightly more expensive, say ~100$ or MAYBE even $200, I still think it would be alright, since there definitely is a performance bump.

 

You really don't think 980 TI performance in a laptop isn't impressive with 100w less than a 980 ti?

It would be, unless that was less than promised with a large drop in the manufacturing process...

[Lays]

Just now, don_svetlio said:

It would be, unless that was less than promised with a large drop in the manufacturing process...

Can you show me where it was "promised" ?

 

 

[Dabombinable]

1 minute ago, don_svetlio said:

860M is a 60W GPU, not a 120-150W one. Not to mention the variables are SO many - binning, voltage, cooling, ambient temps

You don't get it do you? It was heavily overclocked and drawing far more power and the i7 (which is this one http://ark.intel.com/products/75116/Intel-Core-i7-4700HQ-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_40-GHz -and remember that Intel's CPU can easily exceed their TDP) was locked to its boost speed of 3.4GHz. And despite the multiple variables-the difference would only be a few watts at most.

[don_svetlio]

1 minute ago, Dabombinable said:

You don't get it do you? It was heavily overclocked and drawing far more power and the i7 (which is this one http://ark.intel.com/products/75116/Intel-Core-i7-4700HQ-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_40-GHz -and remember that Intel's CPU can easily exceed their TDP) was locked to its boost speed of 3.4GHz. And despite the multiple variables-the difference would only be a few watts at most.

You can't exceed the TDP too much. The adapter simply has no headroom for anything past 10W extra.