What ... you mean your notebook doesn't have a 4K screen?
Naw...that'll be in next month's model.
Nvidia took wraps off the latest in its line of dedicated notebook GPUs on Tuesday, ones it says can deliver near-desktop performance in a portable form factor. Like some of the earlier GeForce 800M series, the new GeForce GTX 970M and GeForce GTX 980M cards are based on Nvidia's Maxwell architecture. But while Maxwell was …
> Naw...that'll be in next month's model.
10 years ago laptop screens were 1920x1200, then they were upgraded to 1920,1080 and many were further enhanced to be NotMuchx768. Next years laptops will be so enhanced as to be 2x1 pixel displays.
I'd love a laptop with 4K support, even if it had a 1920x1200 laptop display (actually I've given up hope of anyone making anything better than crappy "Full HD") but with support of external 4K monitors. And I don't even want to be able to play games on them, I just a pixel junky.
"10 years ago laptop screens were 1920x1200..."
Yeah, sorry, I guess I was thinking of next month's phone!
...and I don't quite get that: most of the phablets coming out are already at QHD (on a 5.5 inch screen, no less), yet you have to pay a premium just to get FHD on a laptop.
And I'd put serious money on both cards being offered as options for the new iMacs that Apple is expected to release 'real soon now' ... and they do have 2500 dpi screens.
With 80% of the power of their big brother's at about 33% of the power cost Apple's gotta be looking at putting these puppies in their iMacs.
I think the marketing department might have found that 20% figure in the engineering department's toilet. Compared to the desktop 980, the 980M has 25% fewer resources to start with, before considering the lower clock (~10%) and memory bandwidth (~30%).
They are still noticeably more efficient than the desktop part though.
Good stuff indeed, but Nvidia have been fairly coy on just how much power these screamin' GPU's will use.
Sure a gamer will usually use the power adapter when gaming , but in the 'unlikely case' of gaming sans power adapter, how would these compare to Nviadia's previous GPUs?
I assume the vendors will have the laptops use the Core i built in GPU for 'normal' Windows use
It seems as if the laptop tiptoes a little closer to the desktop in all round performance..
I can't remember where I read it (Arstechnica maybe?) but NVidia did talk about battery life in relation to Battery Boost 2.0. With a 90WH battery and a 980M (about what the higher end Macbook Pros have) you will get about 45 minutes of unadulterated Tomb Raider with 1080p@70fps. If you turn Battery Boost on and set a frame cap however (30fps in the example) they were getting "2 hours or more as a conservative estimate" with the same settings and resolution doing the benchmark.
So no it's still not great, but considering that is their most powerful chip doing high end desktop-class work entirely on battery, even an hour is impressive for the same batteries we have right now.
Not too fussed about the battery life if it can switch to a non-gaming mode an last for 10 hours. Actually, I'd like something that runs silent on my desktop.
I suspect its a bad idea to game with this thing nestled on your duvet.
If they've got something which can beat my 680 in a laptop, I'll be impressed and envious.
Until manufacturers stop shoving shite screens with1366x768 resolution as bog standard in laptops, this will be an irrelevance.
1440x900 should be a base standard, if not aspiring to 1080p. 1080p has been largely the default standard in 95%+ of TV's for years, but entry level laptops have barely moved on in 5 years display resolution-wise.
Have you not heard - most high end laptops have a thunderbolt or displayport output !!
I have been using for years - they are brilliant for connecting to quality screens - much better than low-res flaky hdmi.
Of course they require a good gpu to drive them - duhh !
And many of us do travel aswell - so desktop not practical - but we do of course, prefer a huge hi-res screen when at home on in office.
4K televisions are themselves a ridiculous concept, unless you're stinking rich and project movies onto an over-large screen for your multitude of party guests.
4K and 8K are specifically PROFESSIONAL resolutions used for making projected movies. That's it. That's what they're for. No consumer should care a rat's about 4K, ever.
Why anyone would want to bother with the massive bandwidth overhead of 4K on any kind of home device is beyond comprehension. You've been MARKETED INTO STUPIDITY if you're bothering with 4K outside of professional uses.
∑ = If you can see the added pixels, you're beyond your needs.
The main home use I can see is if you want to combine your TV screen with a computer screen.
The TV needs to be large for distance viewing, the computer needs to be hi-res for close-up work.
Kogan has a A$999 55" 4k screen (sold out) so they aren't all in the ludicrous $4k+ range.
I think 4k televisions are great.
In my case I've got 4 HDTC screens, and would prefer a single screen to replace them all (4 screens are a pain to maintain aligned + you have boundaris between them)
4k monitors are too small and expensive for their size.
I am thinking about replacing my 4 full hd monitors by a 40 inches 4k TV and display everything in picture by picture (or using an adapter).
Thinking of it, I find 4k TV more usefull than a super mega powerful 3d card to display games in 3D (1080p upscaled would do to me).
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018