Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
GeForce GTX 880M, 870M, And 860M: Mobile GPUs, Tested
By ,
1. Introducing The GeForce GTX 800M-Series

Sometimes it feels like desktop gamers get all of the cool toys, while the notebook guys get hand-me-downs. Rare is it that a new graphics processor debuts in the mobile space. There's just so much more involved when you bring technology down into limiting form factors and power budgets. 

It really comes as no surprise, then, that we're on a third generation of mobile products with Nvidia's GK104 in the mix. After all, that was quite the efficient GPU when it launched more than two years ago. Today it remains viable as the engine driving Nvidia's highest-end GeForce GTX 800-series modules. Let's take a look at some of the brand's specs:

Nvidia GeForce GTX 880M Comparative Specs
 Desktop
GTX 780
Notebook
GTX 880M
Notebook
GTX 780M
Notebook
GTX 680MX
Desktop
GTX 680
Shaders23041536153615361536
Texture Units192128128128128
Full Color ROPs4832323232
Graphics Clock MHz
(Boost)
863 (900)954 (993)771 (797)7201006 (1058)
Texture Fillrate166 Gtex/s122.1 Gtex/s105.3 Gtex/s92.2 Gtex/s128.8 Gtex/s
Memory Clock1502 MHz1250 MHz1250 MHz1250 MHz1502 MHz
Memory Bus384-bit256-bit256-bit256-bit256-bit
Memory Bandwidth288 GB/s160 GB/s160 GB/s160 GB/s192 GB/s
Graphics RAM3 GB GDDR58 GB GDDR54 GB GDDR54 GB GDDR52 GB GDDR5
Die Size551 mm²294 mm²294 mm²294 mm²294 mm²
Transistors (Billion)7.13.543.543.543.54
Process Technology28 nm28 nm28 nm28 nm28 nm

The original GeForce GTX 680M appeared to be an underclocked GeForce GTX 670; Nvidia quickly augmented performance through an updated GeForce GTX 680MX.

Here's the thing: you have a certain amount of freedom to ramp up clock rate and voltage on a graphics card designed for a desktop PC. Transitioning to a mobile form factor limits flexibility immensely. Sure, we've seen some huge desktop replacements with big graphics power inside. But both AMD and Nvidia are trying to enable technologies that make maximum performance available when it's needed, then scaling back as much as possible when it isn't.

Like the GeForce GTX 780M, Nvidia's recently-introduced 880M lifts all eight SMX units from the GK104 processor. Whereas the 780M operated at a 771 MHz base clock rate, however, the 880M starts at 954 MHz. Nvidia gives it a typical GPU Boost rating of 993 MHz. Both of those figures are far closer to the desktop GeForce GTX 680 (even if the new mobile flagship carries over the 780M's slower GDDR5-5000 data rate).

At least on the specification side, there's little more than this frequency increase to discuss. Memory density doubles, but without the large jump in GPU spec needed to push similarly-increased display resolutions. So, we have to hope that the latest GK104s coming out of TSMC are running faster at lower voltages to keep power and heat under control.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 870M Comparative Specs
 Desktop
GTX 770
Notebook
GTX 870M
Notebook
GTX 770M
Notebook
GTX 670MX
Desktop
GTX 670
Shaders153613449609601344
Texture Units1281128080112
Full Color ROPs3232242432
Graphics Clock MHz
(Boost)
1046 (1085)941 (967)706 (797)600915 (980)
Texture Fillrate134 Gtex/s105.4 Gtex/s64.9 Gtex/s48 Gtex/s102.5 Gtex/s
Memory Clock1753 MHz1250 MHz1002 MHz700 MHz1502 MHz
Memory Bus256-bit192-bit192-bit192-bit256-bit
Memory Bandwidth224 GB/s120 GB/s96 GB/s67.2 GB/s192 GB/s
Graphics RAM2 GB GDDR56 GB GDDR53 GB GDDR53 GB GDDR52 GB GDDR5
Die Size294 mm²294 mm²221 mm²221 mm²294 mm²
Transistors (Billion)3.543.542.542.543.54
Process Technology28 nm28 nm28 nm28 nm28 nm

Moving down the stack, Nvidia's GeForce GTX 870M gives mobile users the same seven SMX units from the desktop GeForce GTX 670. The previous two generations (GeForce GTX 770M and 670MX) were both based on GPUs with five SMX blocks instead.

The new GeForce GTX 860M offers an even bigger surprise, also utilizing the GK104 graphics processor. In this implementation, however, it includes six functional SMX units, yielding 1152 CUDA cores, similar to Nvidia's GeForce GTX 760 card. Of course, it operates at far lower base and typical GPU Boost frequencies, and is complemented by slower GDDR5-5000 memory on a narrower 128-bit bus. But that's all in the name of pulling power lower and making the 860M work in a line-up of other GK104-driven modules.

Nvidia GeForce GTX 860M Comparative Specs
 Desktop
GTX 760
Notebook
GTX 860M
Notebook
GTX 765M
Notebook
GTX 660M
Desktop
GTX 660
Shaders11521152768384960
Texture Units9696643280
Full Color ROPs3216161624
Graphics Clock MHz
(Boost)
980 (1033)797 (915)797 (863)835980 (1033)
Texture Fillrate94 Gtex/s76.5 Gtex/s54.4 Gtex/s26.7 Gtex/s78.4 Gtex/s
Memory Clock1502 MHz1250 MHz1002 MHz1250 MHz1502 MHz
Memory Bus256-bit128-bit128-bit128-bit192-bit
Memory Bandwidth192 GB/s80 GB/s64 Gb/s80 GB/s144.2 GB/s
Graphics RAM2 GB GDDR54 GB GDDR52 GB GDDR52 GB GDDR52 GB GDDR5
Die Size294 mm²294 mm²221 mm²118 mm²221 mm²
Transistors (Billion)3.543.542.541.32.54
Process Technology28 nm28 nm28 nm28 nm28 nm

There's a caveat, though. Nvidia specifies its GeForce GTX 860M with two completely different GPUs. The same we received, of course, employs GK104. But you'll also find GeForce GTX 860Ms based on the GM107 found in the GeForce GTX 750 Ti. That’s kind of like reserving a 16-hand gelding for your day at the ranch and arriving to find a Shetland pony.

Of course, it's hard to say how both versions compare without having them both on-hand for testing. The GM107-based version is configured to run at similar clock rates as the card we tested in GeForce GTX 750 Ti Review: Maxwell Adds Performance Using Less Power, albeit with a slightly lower memory frequency. Meanwhile, GK104 is pared way back.

Without performance data to look at, we have to hope that Nvidia is realizing similar results from GK104 and GM107. If it's not, the most we can do right now is make you aware of the two different versions of GeForce GTX 860M.

2. How We Test Nvidia's GeForce GTX 800M Graphics

Origin PC supplied all the hardware needed to test the latest GeForce modules, and the previous set of data we generated was also facilitated by Origin PC. This is how the company's Eon17-S looks for 2014, when ordered in white:

Using the stats reported by GPU-Z, this is how our hardware and software is being benchmarked. The notebook needed to be custom-ordered to retain the previously-used Core i7-4930MX, since that processor was replaced by Intel's slightly-faster Core i7-4940MX.

Test System Configuration
CPUIntel Core i7-4930MX: 3.0 to 3.9 GHz, 8 MB Shared L3 Cache, FCPGA946
Motherboard,
Chassis
Origin PC Eon17-S: Intel HM87 Express, 4 x DIMM, 3 x SATA/2 x mSATA/1 x eSATA 6Gb/s, HDMI, Dual DisplayPort, 17.3" FHD 1080p
Cooling SystemDual-blower air: 2 x CPU pipes, 2 x GPU pipes, 1 x GDDR5 pipe
RAMKingston 99U5469-041.A00LF (8 GB)
2 x 4 GB DDR3-1600 CAS 11-11-11-28, Dual-Channel Mode
GeForce GTX 800M GraphicsNvidia GeForce GTX 880M: 954-993 MHz GPU, 8 GB GDDR5-5000
Nvidia GeForce GTX 870M: 941-967 MHz GPU, 6 GB GDDR5-4008
Nvidia GeForce GTX 860M: 797-915 MHz GPU, 4 GB GDDR5-4008
GeForce GTX 700M GraphicsNvidia GeForce GTX 780M: 771-797 MHz GPU, 4 GB GDDR5-5000
Nvidia GeForce GTX 770M: 706-797 MHz GPU, 3 GB GDDR5-4008
Nvidia GeForce GTX 765M: 797-863 MHz GPU, 2 GB GDDR5-4008
StorageSamsung 840 Pro MZ-7PD256, 256 GB SSD
SoundIntegrated HD Audio
NetworkRealtek 802.11b/g/n + Bluetooth v4.0+LE Combo Half Mini-Card module
PowerChicony A12-230P1A: 100-240 VAC to 19.5 VDC, 11.8 A
System Software
OSMicrosoft Windows 7 Home Premium x64
GeForce GTX 800M GraphicsNvidia GeForce Mobile 337.50 WHQL
GeForce GTX 700M GraphicsNvidia GeForce Mobile 332.21 WHQL

Nvidia's newest modules are tested with the company's new 337.50 driver, which could have thrown a wrench in our plans to compare last generation's hardware to the latest and greatest (at least as far as isolating the graphics modules was concerned). Fortunately, we found that the games we're using are barely affected by the update.

The Eon17-S’s only potential benchmarking issue is that its 1920x1080 panel resolution is too low to maximally stress Nvidia’s potent Kepler-based GK104 GPU. StarTech's MDP2DVID dual-link DVI adapter supplies the bandwidth to feed our aging Dell 30" screen its native 2560x1600 resolution from the notebook’s DisplayPort output, pushing slightly beyond the capabilities of QHD-equipped machines.

3D Games
Arma 3
Version 1.08.113494, 30-Sec. Fraps "Infantry Showcase"
Test Set 1: Standard Preset, No AA, Standard AF
Test Set 2: Ultra Preset, 8x FSAA, Ultra AF
Battlefield 4Version 1.0.0.1, DirectX 11, 100-Sec. Fraps "Tashgar"
Test Set 1: High Quality Preset, No AA, 4X AF, SSAO
Test Set 2: Ultra Quality Preset,  4X MSAA, 16X AF, HBAO
Far Cry 3V. 1.05, DirectX 11, 50-sec. Fraps "Amanaki Outpost"
Test Set 1: High Quality, No AA, Standard ATC., SSAO
Test Set 2: Ultra Quality, 4x MSAA, Enhanced ATC, HDAO
F1 2012Steam version, in-game benchmark
Test Set 1: High Quality Preset, No AA
Test Set 2: Ultra Quality Preset, 8x AA
Metro: Last LightSteam version, Built-In Benchmark, "Frontline" Scene
Test Set 1: DX11, Med Quality, 4x AF, Low Blur, No SSAA, No Tesselation, No PhysX
Test Set 2: DX11, High Quality, 16x AF, Normal Blur, SSAA, Tesselation Normal, No PhysX
Tomb RaiderSteam version, Built-In Benchmark
Test Set 1: High Quality Preset (8x AF, FXAA), Motion Blur, Screen Effects
Test Set 2: Ultimate Quality, (16x AF,  FXAA), Tesselation, TressFX
Synthetic
3DMark ProfessionalVersion 1.1, SystemInfo 4.17.0.0, Fire Strike Benchmark (Extreme Off/On)
3. Results: F1 2012 And Tomb Raider

F1 2012 and Tomb Raider are the only two games in today’s suite that don't include frame rate over time charts, so we're combining both titles on one page.

The first test, F1 2012, is primarily bottlenecked by system memory at its High Quality preset, though GPU limits are more pronounced at 2560x1600.

Everyone wins in F1 2012; even the GeForce GTX 765M pushes 44 FPS at Ultra quality and 2560x1600.

If you’re ordering a notebook with a QHD display, you’ll probably want at least the GeForce GTX 770M to play Tomb Raider using the game's High Quality preset. I could also recommend the GeForce GTX 860M, though we need to be specific to the GK104-based version for now. Without benchmark results to gauge Nvidia's Maxwell-based part, there's no telling where it places in comparison.

Shifting focus to 1920x1080, the GeForce GTX 870M is more than sufficient for Tomb Raider’s Ultimate quality profile. It also stomps on its predecessor, the GeForce GTX 770M.

4. Results: Arma 3

Arma 3’s Standard preset is easy for both generations of high-end mobile GPUs to work through, though users of 3D Vision-capable displays might want to avoid the older GeForce GTX 765M due to its lower performance.

Frame rates fall across the board as we step up to Arma 3's Ultra preset, and the GeForce GTX 870M emerges as the minimum for smooth game play at 1920x1080.

5. Results: Battlefield 4

Although Battlefield 4's single-player campaign is mostly graphics-bound, our benchmark isn't a problem for these variations of Nvidia's GK104 GPU, though the GeForce GTX 765M gets a little sluggish at 1920x1080 using the High quality preset.

The GeForce GTX 770M pulls through that resolution well, fumbling as we step up to 2560x1600. Buyers of QHD-equipped machines will want a GeForce GTX 870M or higher upgrade.

Nvidia's 3D Vision technology might have been an option in Arma 3, but the frame rates in Battlefield 4 using High quality and 1920x1080 are too low. The GeForce GTX 880M dips below 60 FPS at one point, which would yield sub-30 FPS performance in each eye. We haven't pulled those 3D Vision glasses out for a long time...

Anyone who enjoys the visual fidelity of Battlefield 4’s Ultra preset will probably enjoy the performance of Nvidia's GeForce GTX 870M, 780M, and 880M.

6. Results: Far Cry 3

Performance improvements inherent to the GeForce GTX 870M continue to impress us in Far Cry 3, where that particular flavor of GK104 starts looking like the minimum performance standard for QHD-equipped machines. Most mobile gamers are going to cap out at 1920x1080 though, and even the old GeForce GTX 765M is fast enough for FHD using the High detail preset.

Gamers who prefer Ultra quality on the same 1920x1080 screens will want to step up to Nvidia's GeForce GTX 870M. Even more powerful, the 880M and 780M still aren’t fast enough to push QHD resolutions at this quality level.

7. Results: Metro: Last Light

My notes show that only Nvidia's GeForce GTX 880M is able to hold Metro: Last Light frame rates above 20 FPS throughout the test at 2560x1600, and even then only at mid-range quality with advanced features disabled. The funny thing is that this game still looks great at those settings.

Gamers looking to run a FHD panel at its native resolution should find the GeForce GTX 860M sufficient at 1920x1080, if barely. Again, our analysis applies specifically to the GK104-based version of the module; we don't know exactly where GM107 would land.

Though the GeForce GTX 770M's average frame rates look fairly good, analyzing the minimums show us that only Nvidia's 880M is capable of playing Metro: Last Light smoothly at our High quality settings and the display’s native 1920x1080 resolution.

 

8. Results: 3DMark

Some readers like to use 3DMark as a yardstick, and our previous mobile graphics round-up proved its adequacy for that purpose. The relatively smooth progression of performance is a little different than what our real-world benchmarks showed this time, though; Nvidia's GeForce GTX 770M was closer to the 860M in most of those tests.

9. Power And Heat

So far, the GeForce GTX 770M looks to be slightly faster than the 860M. And yet, it also uses less power. Other modules follow the power curves we'd expect, given their performance. I wouldn't be surprised to see the next generation of gaming notebooks including larger and heavier coolers to contend with the additional heat. 

Thermals aren't an issue for Origin PC’s full-sized Eon17-S, though. I didn’t need to adjust its fan speed at any point during our experimentation. Rather, the system sets its fans to roughly 50% under load, regardless of the graphics module you have installed. If, at some point in the future, you find your Eon17-S to be noisy, it’s probably time to blow the dust out.

10. Average Performance And Efficiency

The GK106-equipped GeForce GTX 770M appears out of place compared to GK104-based 880M, 780M, and 860M models. That's one reason we need to stay cautious about references to the GeForce GTX 860M, which is available as two different GPUs. Even though Nvidia appears to be running its efficient GM107 processor at close-to-desktop frequencies, there's just no way to know where it falls in the following chart until benchmark data is available.

Anyone who spends a lot of time gaming should be happy to know that performance increases proportionally with power. All three of Nvidia's new modules improve frame rates enough to bolster efficiency compared to the modules they replace, and that's what we want to see.

11. Is The GeForce GTX 800M-Series A Better Buy?

Focusing on Nvidia's newest GeForce GTX 800M-series graphics modules and Origin PC's mobile platform for today’s performance analysis simplifies the value comparison for us, since we only need to look one place for our pricing. Granted, the old parts were discontinued as soon as the 800Ms launched, so I did have to use February pricing in my calculations.

That also meant subtracting $78 from the configured price of the refreshed machine, since the old CPU, which Origin PC custom-installed for us, was $78 cheaper. Still, that's a marginal subtraction on a system that costs as much as ~$3000 with high-end graphics.

You do pay more for Nvidia's faster GeForce GTX 800M-series graphics modules. Regardless, the new GPUs offer enough of a performance boost to offset their premium as part of a complete system. Not only does the latest and greatest win out on performance, but also value.

A little adding and subtracting from quoted prices for various Eon17-S configurations suggests that Origin PC charges about $900 for the GeForce GTX 880M, around $600 for the 870M, and roughly $500 for the GTX 860M, as part of the package deal. That makes the 860M roughly twice as pricey as the GeForce GTX 765M. Then again, Nvidia's GK104 is a more expensive graphics processor than GK106. 

Some folks will suggest that only the cost of the component under test can be used to calculate value, even when that piece of hardware affects the performance of an entire system. I tend to disagree, but went ahead and created a chart for them based on my findings, too.

This chart makes certain assumptions based on Origin PC's prices. More problematic, its results suggest that the rest of the notebook is free. The first diagram is more realistic, conveying that the biggest generational improvement happens going from GeForce GTX 770M to 870M. And that's probably the GPU I'd choose if I were spending my own money. It's adequate through our benchmark suite at the most demanding settings.

Of course, if you need even higher frame rates for 3D Vision or more taxing details in games like Metro: Last Light, you could always spend the few hundred extra dollars on the GeForce GTX 880M. That is, unless you'd like to wait for AMD's response.