Slashdot Mirror
NVIDIA Unveils Lineup of GeForce 800M Series Mobile GPUs, Many With Maxwell
MojoKid writes "The power efficiency of NVIDA's Maxwell architecture make it ideal for mobile applications, so today's announcement by NVIDIA of a new top-to-bottom line-up of mobile GPUs—most of them featuring the Maxwell architecture—should come as no surprise. Though a couple of Kepler and even Fermi-based GPUs still exist in NVIDIA's new line-up, the heart of the product stack leverages Maxwell. The entry-level parts in the GeForce 800M series consist of the GeForce GT 820M, 830M, and 840M. The 820M is a Fermi-based GPU, but the 830M and 840M are new chips that leverage Maxwell. The meat of the GeForce GTX 800M series consist of Kepler-based GPUs, though Maxwell is employed in the more mainstream parts. NVIDIA is claiming the GeForce GTX 880M will be fastest mobile GPU available, but the entire GTX line-up will offer significantly higher performance then any integrated graphics solution. The GeForce GTX 860M and 850M are essentially identical to the desktop GeForce GTX 750 Ti, save for different frequencies and memory configurations. There are a number of notebooks featuring NVIDIA's GeForce 800M series GPUs coming down the pipeline from companies like Alienware, Asus, Gigabyte, Lenovo, MSI and Razer, though others are sure the follow suit. Some of the machines will be available immediately."
Just in time for Titanfall
I've been using the GTX 750 Ti for scrypt-based mining. ~280KH/s out of the box at ~60watts is fantastic.
Any theory that does not provide a method to falsify and validate its claims is a useless theory.
Example; if someone said a watermelon is blue on the inside, but turns red when you cut it open, how could you prove them wrong? How could they prove they're right?
You couldn't and they can't. There is no method available to confirm or disprove what was said about the watermelon. Therefore we can dismiss the theory of the blue interior of watermelons as being pure speculation and guess work, not science. You can not say something is true without demonstrating how it is not false, and you can not say something is not true without demonstrating how it is false. Any theory that can not explain how to both validate and falsify its claims in this manner can not be taken seriously. If one could demonstrate clearly that the watermelon appears to indeed be blue inside, without being able to demonstrate what colors it is not, we still have no absolute confirmation of its color. That is to say asserting something is the way it is, without being able to assert what it is not, is a useless claim. Therefore, in order for any theory to be confirmed to be true, it must be shown how to both validate and falsify its claims. It is circular reasoning to be able to validate something, without saying how to falsify it, or vice versa. This is the nature of verification and falsification. Both must be clearly demonstrated in order for a theory to be confirmed to be true or false. Something can not be proven to be true without showing that it is not false, and something can not be proven to be not true, unless it can be proven to be false.
Unfortunately, Darwin never properly demonstrated how to falsify his theory, which means evolution has not properly been proven, since it has never been demonstrated what the evidence does not suggest. In the event that evolution is not true, there should be a clear and defined method of reasoning to prove such by demonstrating through evidence that one could not possibly make any alternative conclussions based on said evidence. It is for this reason we must be extremely skeptical of how the evidence has been used to support evolution for lack of proper method of falsification, especially when the actual evidence directly contradicts the theory. If it can be demonstrated how to properly falsify evolution, regardless if evolution is true or not, only then can evolution ever be proven or disproved.
It will now be demonstrated that Darwin never told us how to properly falsify evolution, which will also show why no one can claim to have disproved or proven the theory, until now. It must be able to be demonstrated that if evolution were false, how to go about proving that, and while Darwin indeed made a few statements on this issue, his statements were not adequate or honest. In order to show Darwin's own falsification ideas are inadequate, rather than discussing them and disproving them individually, all that needs to be done is demonstrate a proper falsification argument for evolution theory. That is to say if the following falsification is valid, and can not show evolution to be false, then evolution theory would be proven true by way of deductive reasoning. That is the essence of falsification; if it can be shown that something is not false, it must therefore be true.
So the following falsification method must be the perfect counter to Darwin's validation method, and would therefore prove evolution to be true in the event this falsification method can not show evolution to be false. As said before; if something is not false, it must therefore be true. This would confirm the accuracy of this falsification method, which all theories must have, and show that Darwin did not properly show how evolution could be falsified, in the event that evolution was not true. In order to show evolution is not false (thereby proving it to be true), we must be able to show how it would be false, if it were. Without being able to falsify evolution in this manner, you can not validate it either. If som
This marketing speak is poisoning our language.
More dribble from Slashdot. Nvidia builds exactly ONE Maxwell chip, which is currently given FOUR different names for its 2 uses in mobile, and two uses in desktop graphics.
Nvidia has still FAILED to explain why, if Maxwell is so wonderful at the ONE thing it excels at (using little power compared to other solutions in the same performance range), it didn't sell the entire first batch of Maxwell parts into the far more lucrative mobile market. Launching Maxwell first on the desktop, where the part is a god-awful joke (vastly more expensive than AMD's 265, and massively slower in taxing AAA games), made no sense whatsoever.
Maxwell for the desktop needed to be at least 50% more powerful (bigger die, with more graphics capability). On mid-end gaming notebooks, the chip MAY prove quite nice if its power efficiency scales to mobile power constraints.
All the other parts are but re-badges- a commonplace FRAUD in the industry, sadly, designed to con less knowledgeable consumers when they go shopping for a new laptop. The ONLY good thing about these dishonest practices is that laptops built with the EXACT SAME chips, but labelled with the old number, tend to see rapid discounting.
Industry watchers are completely mystified by Nvidia (and AMD) because it now seems certain that the process shrink to 20nm long awaited for new GPU chips is not going to happen any time soon (and certainly NOT in 2014), meaning that both AMD and Nvidia need a new round of parts, top to bottom, in the current 28nm process. Nvidia currently only has this one Maxwell, poorly positioned. AMD has the 260 and 290 (both with the as yet unused Trueaudio DSP), BUT the AMD designs are now so old they are way too power inefficient.
One must assume new 28nm Maxwell chips are on their way, and equivalent competing parts from AMD, but the growing weakness of the PC market sems to make both companies reluctant to invest in new parts when the old ones are still selling OK.
That's the second biggest GPU I've ever seen.
I thought I would always want discrete graphics. But nowadays the majority of laptops really have no need of it, The AMD and Intel integrated offerings while not amazing are more than adequate for the vast majority of purposes. my latest 2 laptops both use integrated Intel 4th gen and handle laptop needs completely for both my work and the limited gaming I do on a laptop. I would imagine Nvidia are very uncomfortable with the way their market has been contracting over the last couple of years.
... how I hate businessmen...
It is NOT a verb. You can't 'leverage' something.
This takes the cake. I've never complained once about an obvious advert disguised as a story.
But to pimp this, this CRAP company that has been so incredibly hostile to the free and open source community is such bad judgement.
The new slashdot management seems determined to undermine the loyalty of their userbase. What a disgrace.
Does the GeForce 800M series have hardware support for x265 (HEVC) decoding?
Can it do HDMI 2.0 and support 4k output to a UHDTV?
Your statement is true for a Windows world only. AMD Linux support is piece of shit; Intel is just "usable" leaving us with nvidia option only.
I've toasted two laptop monitors because of trying to play too many high-needs video games on them. Both of the monitors theoretically were good enough for the games by specs, but both of them burnt out within two years of when I bought them (admitedly, they were both a couple years old when I purchased them). With the first laptop, I just thought it was an age thing and didn't think enough of it, but with the second one, I realized the sad pattern. Now, I play my games with an external fan running, blowing cool air under the laptop, with the laptop on a stand to increase airflow. (I'd stick to playing games on desktops, but I'm living abroad at the moment, and a desktop takes up too much room in the suitcases)
All this being said, it seems like each new generation of laptop video card is more powerful, but I would just like to know of a mid-range card that ran really cool. That would help me much more than power.
cool. was wondering when Nvidia was going to release the 800 series GPUs
Other than professionally modeling or doing video editing, or playing #D games - what use does a average person have for discrete graphics today?
Intel's refusal to properly support HDMI/DisplayPort to a TV without clipping the black levels makes their integrated GPUs worthless to me. I'm selling my newer laptop in favor of keeping my old one that has ATI graphics for this reason alone.
> Win7 on it and a 256MB 7900GS
I asume that means Aero is enabled. That will use up a huge percentage of video RAM.
It's likely both on XP (for which I assume the specs were written originally) and Win7 with Aero off will work much, much better.
Mobile gpu drivers are crap, they are an afterthought and after about 6 months they seem to be forgotten. Cooling is often a problem also. Laptop solutions are just utter shite. (Unless you get a quadro, then at least your drivers will be usable).