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.
Actually, if you look at the notebook it's in...you could probably cool at least a GTX 275 with same-sized sinks if you had a lower power CPU.
It would be hard, but when nVidia makes a card using the same specs as the GTS 250...except lower clock speeds...it could at least call the thing a GTS 250M.
Then again, both it an the GTS 250 are actually die-shrunk, underclocked 8800 GTS 512s...with twice the memory.
Check the temps with HWmonitor until you find a happy overclock versus temperature. i bet you will find it going to the same clock speeds as the desktop variety.
Nvidia however, I agree is atrocious with it's naming. If anyone has the time and money, they could probably be successfully sued over this haha. Of course....in about 1 minute on Nvidia's website you can figure out the equivalent desktop GPU as well...
All you have to remember is that GTX 280 > GTX 260 > GTS 260 and you know how much you want to spend. Whether the name corresponds with desktop parts is a non-issue as you are not going to substitute an 11lb gaming notebook with a 15lb Shuttle case and 20lb LCD.
Except that GTX280M = GTS250. That's the complaint.
At best, the top end part should be a GTX250M. This is misleading and shady as hell. Im done with nVidia, I'll never buy or recommend one of their products again.
We should remember that there are allot scarafices made to get either card into a laptop and in many cases the card will vary from laptop to laptop.