Mobile GeForce GTX Graphics: Model Inflation Gone Awry
Table of contents
- 1. The All-New G92?
- 2. Test Settings And Benchmark Configuration
- 3. Synthetic Benchmark Results
Bringing high-end performance to the upper-mainstream masses, the 8800 GTS 512 might be the most exciting PC gaming product…of 2007. But rather than wax nostalgic for its G92 architecture, Nvidia has rehashed and revised it, first naming it the 9800 series, then shrinking it from 65 to 55nm for the G92b, and finally moving to 40nm for its latest mainstream-mobile variant. So far, so good!
But then came the naming games. Knowingly pulling one over on mobile gamers looking to buy the latest notebook products, Nvidia re-named the 8800 GTS 512 (in its 55nm, 1 GB trim) to GeForce GTX 280M. Today’s notebook comparison shows that this sneaky maneuver probably wasn’t necessary in order to win over performance-oriented customers, but may instead be intended to woo unwary buyers as they drop out of the desktop market.
That sounds like harsh criticism, so let’s have a look at the actual specs of each mobile processor to see how accurate it is.
| Mobile GPU Feature Comparison | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mobile Model | Die | Stream | Memory | Mobile | Desktop | Die | Desktop |
| GeForce GTX 280M | 55nm | 128 | 256-bits | 562 | 8800 GTS | 65nm | 624 |
| GeForce GTX 260M | 55nm | 112 | 256-bits | 462 | 8800 GT | 65nm | 504 |
| GeForce GTS 260M | 40nm | 96 | 128-bits | 396 | 8800 GS | 65nm | 396 |
The computational power might be a little lower for the mobile version than the elder desktop parts, but we’re willing to give up a little clock speed to keep heat production and power consumption at notebook-acceptable levels. What we’re not willing to give up is an entire generation of graphics development while paying for the latest “high-performance” product in name only.
To be fair, Nvidia is far from the only offender, yet we remember previous products like the Radeon Mobility 9700 (based on the 9600 XT) being much closer in performance to the desktop part from which it took its name. Indeed, the aforementioned notebook comparison even shows a Mobility Radeon HD 4850 that differs from its desktop counterpart in clock speed alone, not architecture.
Eurocom’s recent delivery of a desktop Core i7-based mobile solution gave us the perfect opportunity to see how well Nvidia’s most recent high-end notebook graphics processor stands up to last year’s desktop-performance phenomena of similar name.
Latest Notebooks News
Latest Notebooks reviews
- 17/05 – Gaming On A Netbook? 13 Great Titles Playable At 720p
- 15/05 – AMD A10-4600M Review: Mobile Trinity Gets Tested
- 24/04 – Asus Transformer Pad TF300T Review: Tegra 3, More Affordable
- 23/01 – Radeon HD 6990M And GeForce GTX 580M: A Beautiful Lie
- 03/01 – Eurocom Racer: Radeon HD 6990M In A Truly Mobile Form Factor
Grate article! Dudes like me who have tomshardware bookmarked in their browser are always immune to these naming tricks.
It will be a pity if non-informed buyers will go for 280M instead of the mobile 4850, but I am sure that once they realize of this they will dump Nvidia for good.
So in my opinion Nvidia is on thin ice.
Would be interesting to see how the mobility 4850 stands against the discrete card.
Oops! I may have not reached the last page. Sorry!
You have to admit though, that second to last page did feel like a final conclusion...
I agree with your fundamental point about naming, but you're amazingly disparaging of those benchmark results. I see something that can play the most demanding games at native resolution on medium/high settings, I'd call that a win. And 40% less graphics power isn't really enough to trigger graphics envy - if you could upgrade from one to the other I wouldn't bother.
I would really prefer naming just like was before, like my Nv7300Go. I already new it's performance before looking at benchmarks. Now I don't know anymore without it.
f_katuyan - that the point: on average the best nVidia mobile GPU CAN'T play demanding games at mid-high quality and native res as most gaming laptops have 1650*1080 TFTs and the GTX280m can't handle 40fps under those conditions. The fact that its a rebadged GPU from over two YEARS ago (an aeon in graphics) and ATi is still off even that pace suggests a critical point in mobile gaming has been reached where mobile power limits and form factors can no longer sustain true gaming-quality graphics, and until battery and cooling technology improves to allow higher-TDP parts into the mobile market things are only going to get worse for laptops.
Nvidia always has to mess up at least someting in their naming conventions.
Like with the 8800 GTS 640 vs 8800 GTS 512
Or with the GTX260 vs GTX260 216, it was just too easy to name it GTX265
However, while previous examples were just dumb, giving the name GTX280m to the mobile version of the 8800 GTS 512 is a pure scam imho, the only correct name would have been
Lot of righteous indignation being shown here!
Is there any example of a mobile card from either company that runs at the same speed as its desktop equivalent - ever?
The mobile ones always run slower - they always have run slower - but they get the desktop names to latch onto the marketing.
What happend to the good old days of each generation being a higher number and then MX, GTS & Ultra denoting the spec within each generation?
So does this mean that the 9800M GTX is actually faster then this card? Or was this card renamed to rip people off too.
The differences here aren’t as severe as what we just saw comparing a G92-based mobile GeForce GTX 280M to a desktop GTX 280, but they’re certainly notable enough that ATI should perhaps reconsider calling the Mobility Radeon HD 4850 by a name that doesn’t reflect what mainstream buyers have come to expect from reading reviews of desktop-class Radeon HD 4850 cards.
I call FUD Chris ... the benchies on the mobile vs desktop 4850 are clearly close enough ... but NVidia's is miles off.
We all know NVidia don't have any new products and are recycling old stuff ... no point in trying to cover up the real issue.
What NVidia need to do is come out with a decent new product.
Taking a swipe at ATI / AMD just to try to make the article appear less distasteful to NVidia is just Editorial Insecurity ...
Instead you have just pi$$es off ATI for no reason.
Clearly ATI's modular approach and superior silicon is an advantage in the mobile market as you can drop the voltage on the GPU and still get comparable core speed ... they undervolt better.
NVidia in comparison run a lot hotter, and need to drop the core clock a lot more before they can drop the voltage and get it stable. Their products run much closer to the thermal boundaries ... take the 8800GT ... meltdown material without proper care on a hot day.
Tell it like it is ...