AVADirect was kind enough to provide us with our testing unit, a specially equipped Clevo W880CU, and a refresher of the notebook's configuration is below:

AVADirect Clevo W880CU Specifications
Processor Intel Core i7-820QM
(4x1.73GHz, 45nm, 8MB L3, Turbo to 3GHz, 45W)
Chipset Intel PM55
Memory 2x2GB DDR3-1333 (Max 2x4GB)
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480M 2GB GDDR5
(352 CUDA Cores, 425MHz/800MHz/2.4GHz Core/Shader/RAM clocks)
Display 17.3" LED Glossy 16:9 1080p (1920x1080)
Hard Drive(s) Seagate Momentus XT 500GB 7200 RPM Hybrid Drive
(additional empty bay with RAID 0/1 capability)
Optical Drive Blu-ray Writer
Networking Gigabit Ethernet
Intel Centrino Ultimate-N 6300 (a/b/g/n)
Clevo Bluetooth
V.92 56K Modem
Audio Realtek ALC888/1200 HD Audio
4.1 speakers with line-in, mic, optical, and headphone jacks
Capable of 5.1
Battery 3-Cell, 12V, 48Wh battery
Operating System Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
Pricing $2936.80 as configured from AVADirect

We ran the W880CU through our usual lineup of Futuremark synthetic benchmarks, bouncing between four different versions of 3DMark and two different PCMarks. The matchup you'll want to watch is how the W880CU compares against the W860CUs; these three units are all equipped with an Intel Core i7-820QM processor and 4GB of DDR3, making them fairly ideal comparisons. The only difference that may effect scores is the use of the Corsair Nova SSDs in the W860s.

Futuremark 3DMark Vantage

Futuremark 3DMark Vantage

Futuremark 3DMark06

Futuremark 3DMark05

Futuremark 3DMark03

Futuremark PCMark Vantage

Futuremark PCMark05

The first thing to notice is that the GeForce GTX 480M takes the W880CU to the top of the class in almost every 3DMark benchmark; in fact, the newer the 3DMark gets, the wider the 480M's lead. The only exceptions are units equipped with dual-GPU solutions. PCMark is much less favorable, but the reduced scores are very likely attributable to the SSDs used in the higher scoring test systems.

So how does the GeForce GTX 480M fare in actual gaming scenarios?

The Fastest Mobile GPU in the World: NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 480M Mobile Gaming Showdown
POST A COMMENT

46 Comments

View All Comments

  • my_body_is_ready - Thursday, July 08, 2010 - link

    Any news on what ASUS will be doing with this chip? I hear they are refreshing their G series and adding 3D Vision Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, July 08, 2010 - link

    If ASUS doesn't someone else will. I suspect we'll see that sort of notebook come fall. Reply
  • drfelip - Thursday, July 08, 2010 - link

    IIRC the Asus G73JW is going to sport a GTX 480M, but probably a downclocked one... Reply
  • LtGoonRush - Thursday, July 08, 2010 - link

    Given the very tiny lead of the GTX 480M, I'm very much looking forward to the next enthusiast mobile graphics products from AMD. Given that the Mobility 5870 has a 50TDP and is essentially a desktop R5770, they may be able to cram an underclocked desktop R5870 into a 100W TDP like the GTX 480M, maybe call it the Mobility 5970? Ah well, it will be exciting to see what the Mobility 6870 brings to the table, I'm assuming we'll see a Southern Islands-derived mobile GPU lineup. Reply
  • blyndy - Thursday, July 08, 2010 - link

    Isn't ATI supposed to release some new mobile parts about now? Reply
  • james.jwb - Thursday, July 08, 2010 - link

    Sorry to bring this up here, but the front page carousel is killing the front page performance. I've heard lot's mention this over time, and it's now started happening to me. I think some random update, possibly to Flash or Firefox has caused this for me.

    Is this problem being acknowledge or ignored? I kinda expect more form a site like this, with this much traffic.

    Using Firefox.
    Reply
  • JarredWalton - Thursday, July 08, 2010 - link

    If you're not at native size (i.e. no magnification), performance is okay. I'm on a quad-core 3.2GHz Kentsfield system, and the main page is fine normally but if I magnify suddenly it's super slow. Like, peg a core of my CPU at 100% for a couple seconds slow. If you were on a slower system, I imagine it would be terrible.

    FWIW, I believe we're talking about killing the carousel. I thought it sounded like a good idea in the design phase, but in practice I don't like it that much.
    Reply
  • tommy2q - Thursday, July 08, 2010 - link

    the carousel is a cpu hog and makes the front page harder/slower to browse for information because it takes up way too much space... Reply
  • B3an - Thursday, July 08, 2010 - link

    It would be better to keep it, but make it Flash. For any sort of animations Flash runs much better with less CPU usage - if done right.

    I make stuff like this all the time, you're looking at around 2 - 4% CPU usage with Flash on a average quadcore. Even an Atom CPU would easily cope.

    But Anand seems to be a big crApple supporter, so i cant see that happening.
    Reply
  • strikeback03 - Thursday, July 08, 2010 - link

    I just tried on my work computer (3GHz Q6600) and I get processor usage spiking to about 28% spread across 2-3 cores when the carousel shifts. Using the keyboard buttons to magnify doesn't change the processor usage any.

    I never look at it though, without any defined beginning and end I find myself having to watch the whole thing to see what might be new, it is far easier to just look at the static listing.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now