[GeForce Forums] Nvidia has officially blocked 900M overclocking

[octiceps]

No, I think either an OEM or two asked to have overclocking disabled to maximize profits and push potential consumers to opt for more expensive GPU's, OR other OEMS with ultra-thin notebooks asked to have OCing disabled because temps between the CPU and GPU using shared heatpipes borderline high before OCing, OR Nvidia simply wants to save money on RMA's a la voltage lockdown like on Kepler.

I think all three excuses are ultra lame, since mobile overclocking was limited to a +135 offset to begin with and had absolutely no voltage adjustment whatsoever.

Or Nvidia wants to milk its GPUs over a couple more generations. Disable overclocking, rebadge current cards and sell them next year and year after that with small clock bumps. Because what was 880M but an overclocked 780M?

 

[tviceman]

Or Nvidia wants to milk its GPUs over a couple more generations. Disable overclocking, rebadge current cards and sell them next year and year after that with small clock bumps. Because what was 880M but an overclocked 780M?

Didn't think of that when typing, definitely a real possibility.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Or Nvidia wants to milk its GPUs over a couple more generations. Disable overclocking, rebadge current cards and sell them next year and year after that with small clock bumps. Because what was 880M but an overclocked 780M?

This is what a lack of competition brings...

 

[3DVagabond]

No, I think either an OEM or two asked to have overclocking disabled to maximize profits and push potential consumers to opt for more expensive GPU's, OR other OEMS with ultra-thin notebooks asked to have OCing disabled because temps between the CPU and GPU using shared heatpipes borderline high before OCing, OR Nvidia simply wants to save money on RMA's a la voltage lockdown like on Kepler.

I think all three excuses are ultra lame, since mobile overclocking was limited to a +135 offset to begin with and had absolutely no voltage adjustment whatsoever.

The bold part is what I said, just differently worded.

 

[garagisti]

This is what a lack of competition brings...

This is what a steady customer base, one which is willing to turn their pockets inside out brings. For example, most Apple products don't lack competition, but Apple charges premium because sheep, they flock. Nvidia prices its products the same way, competition or no competition. No disprespect, but a business has no reason to have better prices for consumers when they're buying the products regardless. If you knew anything about the GPU market/ basic principles of economics, you would not suggest that it is due to lack of competition.

 

[3DVagabond]

This is what a steady customer base, one which is willing to turn their pockets inside out brings. For example, most Apple products don't lack competition, but Apple charges premium because sheep, they flock. Nvidia prices its products the same way, competition or no competition. No disprespect, but a business has no reason to have better prices for consumers when they're buying the products regardless. If you knew anything about the GPU market/ basic principles of economics, you would not suggest that it is due to lack of competition.

Do not feed.

 

[octiceps]

This is what a steady customer base, one which is willing to turn their pockets inside out brings. For example, most Apple products don't lack competition, but Apple charges premium because sheep, they flock. Nvidia prices its products the same way, competition or no competition. No disprespect, but a business has no reason to have better prices for consumers when they're buying the products regardless. If you knew anything about the GPU market/ basic principles of economics, you would not suggest that it is due to lack of competition.

Actually he's right. AMD has not been competitive in mobile GPUs since the 7970M in early 2012. 3 years is a lifetime in this market and Nvidia has run away with it. Desktop is a different story.

 

[garagisti]

Actually he's right. AMD has not been competitive in mobile GPUs since the 7970M in early 2012. 3 years is a lifetime in this market and Nvidia has run away with it. Desktop is a different story.

Actually he's wrong. Even when 7970M was very competitive, most OEM's were charging a lot more on top of a 7970M to provide an upgrade to Nvidia top card, which was 680M iirc . You could bet your bottom dollar that Nvidia knew that their customers will pay.

Voting is essential, and in case of corporations, you must vote with your wallet. If you don't make someone fight for your dollars, well, they'll want more of them for nothing very quick.

 

[Silverforce11]

The problem with AMD on mobile is definitely drivers. I've had notebooks with Radeons in it and their reliance on major brands to update catalyst is why they failed. I could not update using direct AMD drivers, I had to get HP modified drivers, but HP stopped releasing new drivers a long time ago. Newer games had glitches or would crash.

My experience with discrete AMD graphics in notebooks have all been horrible. This is stark contrast to their desktop drivers which have been fine for many years.

They just aren't even bothered to compete in notebooks TBH. The lack of effort is clear. This leaves NV in a monopoly in that segment and as such, they are pulling an Intel with this move to lock-down OC. It allows them better product segmentation & more potential profits.

 

[octiceps]

Actually he's wrong. Even when 7970M was very competitive, most OEM's were charging a lot more on top of a 7970M to provide an upgrade to Nvidia top card, which was 680M iirc . You could bet your bottom dollar that Nvidia knew that their customers will pay.

Voting is essential, and in case of corporations, you must vote with your wallet. If you don't make someone fight for your dollars, well, they'll want more of them for nothing very quick.

Exactly. 680M vs. 7970M was ages ago. That was the last time AMD was competitive performance-wise and the last time enthusiasts had a reason to go with AMD. Then 780M came along and it's been a no-contest ever since. Now AMD can't even compete with Nvidia's third or even fourth tier GPU as they've made no progress in 3 years. 780M, 870M, 880M, 965M, 970M, and 980M are all significantly faster than the latest 7970M rebrand, M290X. It's hard to convince enthusiasts to vote with their wallets when the performance simply isn't there.

Another issue with AMD besides the lack of progress is the severe lack of segmentation near the top of their mobile GPU product stack. There's literally a 50% jump down from the flagship to the second-best card, while Nvida has tons of mid-range GPUs to hit every price and performance slot in that gap. That's part of the reason why so many more gaming notebooks contain Nvidia than AMD GPUs, because not everyone wants or can afford the flagship product. Nvidia has the mobile GPU, and by extension gaming notebook, market cornered.

 

[garagisti]

Exactly. 680M vs. 7970M was ages ago and that was the last time AMD was competitive performance-wise and the last time enthusiasts had a reason to go with AMD. Then 780M came along and it's been a no-contest ever since. Now AMD can't even compete with Nvidia's third or even fourth tier GPU as they've made no progress in 3 years. 780M, 870M, 880M, 965M, 970M, and 980M are all significantly faster than the latest 7970M rebrand, M290X. It's hard to convince enthusiasts to vote with their wallets when the performance simply isn't there.

Another issue with AMD besides the lack of progress is the severe lack of segmentation near the top of their mobile GPU product stack. There's literally a 50% jump down from the flagship to the second best card, while Nvida has tons of mid-range GPUs to hit every price and performance slot in that gap. That's a part of the reason why so many more gaming notebooks contain Nvidia instead of AMD discrete GPUs, because not everyone wants or can afford the flagship product. Nvidia has the mobile GPU, and by extension gaming notebook, market cornered.

What i was trying to highlight was how skewed the prices were still in favour of Nvidia, even though performance was matched. If you think that AMD bringing something better to table (like the 7970/ 7950, and 290s were in desktop market), the prices will come down on Nvidia mobile GPU's, then sadly you're mistaken. What i'm trying to suggest is that they have a captive market of sorts, like Apple do with their customers. Some just go asking for more punishment. Price gouging is all they get and deserve. Someone who's paying about $200 more for 10% odd performance over a 290x, well, something is wong!

Personally, before the 970 episode, and now this, i was considering a laptop with Nvidia mobile parts, fully aware of the disparity between performance of AMD mobile solutions and ones from Nvidia.

I fully agree that segmentation is something AMD should work better at. Then again, i wouldn't mind if they gave much performance at the top end for practically free. Why would i? By the way, there were AMD laptops with 7970m powered by AMD processors for about $1200 or so, which was like $600-$700 cheaper (at the least) than laptops with Nvidia 680M. Of course, Intel processors must have cost some part of it, and no denying that, but still, 7970M weren't being bought by people even though they performed good.

 

[octiceps]

By the way, there were AMD laptops with 7970m powered by AMD processors for about $1200 or so, which was like $600-$700 cheaper (at the least) than laptops with Nvidia 680M. Of course, Intel processors must have cost some part of it, and no denying that, but still, 7970M weren't being bought by people even though they performed good.

You're talking about the infamously unbalanced MSI GX60/70. A weak sauce A10 APU (about as fast as a mobile i3 if not slower) paired with a high-end dGPU such as the 7970M is a recipe for disaster and screams CPU bottleneck. The reason they were so cheap was because the performance was only about half of what a 7970M could achieve when a paired with an i7 due to the aforementioned CPU bottleneck.

So no, the MSI GX60/70 was not a great value at all. A 7970M limited to less than half of what its performance on paper should be only takes it to 670MX/765M level performance or lower. Notebooks containing those midrange Nvidia GPUs paired with an i7 were a bit over a grand at the time, same as the GX60/70, with not only similar performance in games but much better performance outside of games due to the i7.

BTW AnandTech reviewed the GX60 a couple times and the results weren't pretty:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7096/performance-retrospective-amds-radeon-hd-7970m/4

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7111/amds-a105750m-review-part-2-the-msi-gx60-gaming-notebook/4

 

[garagisti]

You're talking about the infamously unbalanced MSI GX60/70. A weak sauce A10 APU (about as fast as a mobile i3 if not slower) paired with a high-end dGPU such as the 7970M is a recipe for disaster and screams CPU bottleneck. The reason they were so cheap was because the performance was only about half of what a 7970M could achieve when a paired with an i7 due to the aforementioned CPU bottleneck.

So no, the MSI GX60/70 was not a great value at all. A 7970M limited to less than half of what its performance on paper should be only takes it to 670MX/765M level performance or lower. Notebooks containing those midrange Nvidia GPUs paired with an i7 were a bit over a grand at the time, same as the GX60/70, with not only similar performance in games but much better performance outside of games due to the i7.

BTW AnandTech reviewed the GX60 a couple times and the results weren't pretty:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7096/performance-retrospective-amds-radeon-hd-7970m/4

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7111/amds-a105750m-review-part-2-the-msi-gx60-gaming-notebook/4

Do you even check the review before you post it? The system tested was equipped with a mechanical drive, but the others? Secondly, the ram was single-channel on the test system. Yes, AMD does deserve some ridicule for sending a woefully unequipped system for a review. However, that doesn't take away from your mistakes. By the way, i refereed to that system as an alternative available at the time for the mainstream with the high-end GPU. There were other systems, with GPUs lower than 7970M.

 

[octiceps]

Do you even check the review before you post it? The system tested was equipped with a mechanical drive, but the others? Secondly, the ram was single-channel on the test system. Yes, AMD does deserve some ridicule for sending a woefully unequipped system for a review. However, that doesn't take away from your mistakes. By the way, i refereed to that system as an alternative available at the time for the mainstream with the high-end GPU. There were other systems, with GPUs lower than 7970M.

I'm not sure you read the whole review, because not only did the reviewer say that single channel RAM made no difference on dGPU performance, but HDD vs. SSD has no impact on game performance either. And I'm not sure what you mean by AMD sending a woefully unequipped review system because the A10 is their fastest mobile CPU. And it's a worse alternative to those other midrange Intel+Nvidia notebooks I mentioned precisely because of its huge CPU limitation, which is why nobody bought the GX60/70 when it was available.

 

[garagisti]

I'm not sure you read the whole review, because not only did the reviewer say that single channel RAM made no difference on dGPU performance, but HDD vs. SSD has no impact on game performance either. And I'm not sure what you mean by AMD sending a woefully unequipped review system because the A10 is their fastest mobile CPU. And it's a worse alternative to those other midrange Intel+Nvidia notebooks I mentioned precisely because of its huge CPU limitation, which is why nobody bought the GX60/70 when it was available.

You really go out of your way to twist things don't you?

On paper, the AMD-powered MSI GX60 had to seem like a good idea, and I'm not even convinced it actually isn't one. Using a less expensive CPU to force the price tag down and going whole hog on the GPU isn't that uncommon among custom built desktop PCs, so as long as the gaming performance is there in a notebook, it's certainly worth a shot. The A10-5750M is nowhere near as powerful as an Ivy Bridge quad core, let alone a Haswell, but if it doesn't need to be, that's not an issue. Of course, it does need to be, but we'll get to that.

Look at the price bud, which at the time for a laptop with the top of the line GPU from either was a bit of a bargain. Yes, the CPU could have been better, but for the cost, you're indeed getting a great bargain which even the author of the review alludes to.

By the way, Intel i7equipped system with a 7970m was about 400-500 more expensive, and not from the same manufacturer, but by various Clevo resellers. MSI was selling those at even more higher prices. Intel Nvidia systems whose performance you tout, weren't mainstream prices at all, but were much more expensive.

You're for what it is worth, not addressing price/ performance, which you brought up earlier in the reply to my post where i spoke about it. Now you're concentrating only on performance.

edit: Just thought i'd add that 7970m or the 680m weren't available with anything lower than an i7 iirc. AMD's system was able to provide better graphic power at much lower an entry price. While you may go around about in conjecture, twisting things as you want, it was very good value for people who didn't want to spend $400-$500 more for an i7 and 7970M. 680M equipped system was more expensive.

 

[octiceps]

I was comparing the GX60/70 with similarly-priced i7 plus midrange Nvidia GPU laptops such as the Clevo W230ST, not with i7 + 680M/7970M systems, which obviously cost much more. And because of the GX60's CPU bottleneck, systems like the W230ST performed just as well in games and much better in productivity/DCC apps due to the i7. Which is why I mentioned them as providing better value. In essence, they have better perf/price.

I have no idea what you're all upset about.

Edit: And I totally forgot about the Lenovo Y500/Y510p, which had Ivy/Haswell i7 + 650M/750M/755M SLI for around a grand. Cheaper and faster than the gimped GX60/70. Funny because I've had my Y500 for a couple years now and it still runs new games nicely with the 650M SLI overclocked to 1150/4500 and running 75C under load. And now we've come full circle back on topic to overclocking.

 

[garagisti]

I was comparing the GX60/70 with similarly-priced i7 plus midrange Nvidia GPU laptops such as the Clevo W230ST, not with i7 + 680M/7970M systems, which obviously cost much more. And because of the GX60's CPU bottleneck, systems like the W230ST performed just as well in games and much better in productivity/DCC apps due to the i7. Which is why I mentioned them as providing better value. In essence, they have better perf/price.

I have no idea what you're all upset about.

I'm not all upset, but just tired of doing this dance. The reviws that you linked, show nothing but comparison with i7 equipped laptops. shrug... it is not worth my time. Go on with your propaganda, why not.

 

[3DVagabond]

Another successful thread derail.

 

[MeldarthX]

The problem with AMD on mobile is definitely drivers. I've had notebooks with Radeons in it and their reliance on major brands to update catalyst is why they failed. I could not update using direct AMD drivers, I had to get HP modified drivers, but HP stopped releasing new drivers a long time ago. Newer games had glitches or would crash.

My experience with discrete AMD graphics in notebooks have all been horrible. This is stark contrast to their desktop drivers which have been fine for many years.

They just aren't even bothered to compete in notebooks TBH. The lack of effort is clear. This leaves NV in a monopoly in that segment and as such, they are pulling an Intel with this move to lock-down OC. It allows them better product segmentation & more potential profits.

Silver that was 10 years ago; before AMD started its program to provide drivers for laptops. It was of course vol; HP; Dell, MSI; Compaq*now HP* all got on board; Toshiba came on later. Sony said no.

Now how is it AMD's fault if the laptop maker; says no we're not going to be part of your program to get free driver updates all the time; no we have to repackage them.

Second even when laptops makers pull full stupid; you can usually still get around it with drivers

 

[garagisti]

Another successful thread derail.

Sorry... but if a lie is left unchecked and is repeated thousands of times, it will become the truth to a lot of people who may be exposed to such.

 

[octiceps]

I'm not all upset, but just tired of doing this dance. The reviws that you linked, show nothing but comparison with i7 equipped laptops. shrug... it is not worth my time. Go on with your propaganda, why not.

Propaganda? Hardly. Further evidence: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-MSI-GX60-Notebook.86283.0.html

I'll spare you the need to read the whole review since you're a busy man with other forums to troll , but first note the A10 getting soundly beat by an i3 in CPU benchmarks.

Then read this summary under Gaming Performance:

Gaming Performance

Fast GPU, lame CPU

When looking at the gaming results, we wonder whether MSI tested the hardware combination thoroughly in advance.

Although the GX60 could sometimes outperform Intel devices equipped with a GeForce GTX 670MX or GTX 675MX, in extreme conditions (1920 x1080, maximum details), the Radeon HD 7970M often dropped to the level of the weaker GeForce GT 650M or GTX 660M in medium settings (1366 x 768, high details). In the worst case, the refresh rate was only just above the processor-integrated Radeon HD 7660G chip.

CPU-heavy tracks, such as Guild Wars 2, Need for Speed: Most Wanted, Hitman Absolution and Assassin's Creed III can only be played with restrictions if at all. It is surprising to what extent the slow Trinity CPU affects the Radeon HD 7970M performance. The GX60 would likely score much higher with a low-end dual-core processor from Intel's Core i3 or Core i5 range. The HD 7970M is normally comparable with a GeForce GTX 680M.

After extensively studying the benchmarks, the retail price no longer seems particularly attractive. Less expensive laptops, such as Schenker's XMG A522 often accomplish a comparable gaming performance. MSI should have invested its budget in a faster CPU. The Radeon HD 7970M can only rarely exploit its true potential. A detailed benchmark list can be found below this article.

Verdict:

Verdict

All said, we regrettably cannot recommend the GX60 as a gaming machine for the enthusiast (on a budget). As our benchmark course illustrates, the lame AMD CPU affects the performance of the Radeon HD 7970M greatly in some gaming tests. The performance loss is so high in some areas that the frame rate drops to a that of a middle-level GPU.

Scroll down to the bottom and note the 7970M getting beat even by the 660M at 1080p (NFS:MW, FIFA 13), tying in other games, and losing substantially at 768p across the board. And remember that Lenovo had the Y580 with Ivy i7 + 660M available for just $800-900 at the time, compared to $1200 GX60.

What was that about the GX60's great perf/price again?

 

[3DVagabond]

Sorry... but if a lie is left unchecked and is repeated thousands of times, it will become the truth to a lot of people who may be exposed to such.

The discussion, instead of being how nVidia is nurfing there mGPU's and removing value that their customers have paid for, has now become an AMD fail thread. This is by design and whether you meant to or not you stepped right in it. :shrug:

 

[octiceps]

The discussion, instead of being how nVidia is nurfing there mGPU's and removing value that their customers have paid for, has now become an AMD fail thread. This is by design and whether you meant to or not you stepped right in it. :shrug:

If I may steer this OT train back on track, the reason Nvidia disabled overclocking is that it has a monopoly over the mobile GPU market precisely due to AMD's failure there.

 

[3DVagabond]

If I may steer this OT train back on track, the reason Nvidia disabled overclocking is that it has a monopoly over the mobile GPU market precisely due to AMD's failure there.

Sorry, but this is all on nVidia. There is nothing that anyone else has done to make them do it. They could choose to leave everything as it is.

I wouldn't be surprised they have once again cut corners and there's a fault just waiting to happen and they are trying to head it off by limiting the thermal load on the GPU. Their designs are made as cheaply as possible, but you can't blame a company for trying to maximize profits though.

 

[octiceps]

Sorry, but this is all on nVidia. There is nothing that anyone else has done to make them do it. They could choose to leave everything as it is.

I wouldn't be surprised they have once again cut corners and there's a fault just waiting to happen and they are trying to head it off by limiting the thermal load on the GPU. Their designs are made as cheaply as possible, but you can't blame a company for trying to maximize profits though.

That is one of the plausible theories. However, don't be so quick to dismiss the lack of competition angle. Remember how Nvidia straight up did nothing for 2 years while the 8800 GTX dominated the market? 9 Series was all die shrinks and we didn't get an actually faster GPU until the GTX 280! And remember the 3 generations of mobile G92? LOL!

Disabling overclocking could simply be a way to drag out the current mobile GPUs and delay the rollout of new chips and architectures. Why release new stuff when you could just keep making money on the old stuff? It's not like AMD is any threat to take away market share since they are so far behind at this point.