Wednesday, September 26th 2012

MSI Announces A10 "Trinity" Powered GX60 Gaming Notebook with Radeon HD 7970M

MSI announced the GX60, an AMD-powered gaming notebook first spotted at this year's Computex event. The notebook is powered by an AMD A10-4600M quad-core "Trinity" APU, Radeon HD 7970M discrete graphics processor with 2 GB GDDR5 memory, and up to 16 GB dual-channel DDR3-1600 MHz memory. Its storage components include 128 GB SuperRAID SSD, 750 GB hard drive, Blu-ray writer or Blu-ray + DVD-RW combo drive. The 15.6-inch anti-glare screen packs 1920 x 1080 pixels resolution. Other gaming-grade features include Bigfoot Killer NIC, keyboard made by SteelSeries, and HD webcam. Pricing differs with optional components.

Source: Engadget
Add your own comment

22 Comments on MSI Announces A10 "Trinity" Powered GX60 Gaming Notebook with Radeon HD 7970M

#1
cadaveca
My name is Dave
I hear 7970m, @ 1100 MHz, is like a desktop 7950 @ 900 MHz.


:eek:
Posted on Reply
#3
Atom_Anti
That Super-raid SSD sounds very interesting, actually the whole laptop is! Great job MSI, looking forward to see a nice review;).
Posted on Reply
#4
Atom_Anti
by: dieterd
Very, very stupid idea :|. because best A10 cpu is on the level of Pentium B950 (32nm 2011.y) and that is not only unacceptable for gaming but it is just disgusting!
Even a 2 Core I3 capable for gaming close as much as big I7 CPUs. Do not write silly things, read here CPU contest in gaming with GeForce GTX 680M.

And the Quad Core A10-4600M about level with Twin-core Intel i5 if program use all available Cores:

Posted on Reply
#5
HumanSmoke
by: cadaveca
I hear 7970m, @ 1100 MHz, is like a desktop 7950 @ 900 MHz.
:eek:
Really? I'd heard that the 7970M is basically hit-and-miss as often as not thanks to AMD's enduring woes with Enduro.
[source] [source][source]
When forum threads get closed down by the manufacturer it's usually a sign that things aren't going to plan
Posted on Reply
#6
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Since everyone is freaking out there is an Intel version floating around in the same case with the 7970 as well. I for one wouldn't mind going with the AMD one if it is a good bit cheaper.
Posted on Reply
#7
dieterd
by: Atom_Anti
Even a 2 Core I3 capable for gaming close as much as big I7 CPUs. Do not write silly things, read here CPU contest in gaming with GeForce GTX 680M.

And the Quad Core A10-4600M about level with Twin-core Intel i5 if program use all available Cores:


1. to compare i3 to A10 will be big flattering for A10!
2. Yes - I know that i3 like CPU in most games won't make any bottle neck vs i7, but here is the "gamingmachine" accordingly priced and it was "most games". and for that price you get something like B950 in CPU department!!!! - even 1 ssd would be overkill for that system
3. and I am just silly ;)
Posted on Reply
#8
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: dieterd
1. to compare i3 to A10 will be big flattering for A10!
2. Yes - I know that i3 like CPU in most games won't make any bottle neck vs i7, but here is the "gamingmachine" accordingly priced and it was "most games". and for that price you get something like B950 in CPU department!!!! - even 1 ssd would be overkill for that system
3. and I am just silly ;)
It has a 15.6" screen, 1080P and the option for raid'd SSD's (they are not in every laptop) The 1080P screen shouldn't be bottlenecked by an A10 or i3 or i5 or whatever.
Posted on Reply
#9
MxPhenom 216
Corsair Fanboy
I love the way MSI gaming laptops look. I wouldn't mind having this one.
Posted on Reply
#10
NC37
2 months ago MSI, 2 months ago...oh well, i7 ftw!
Posted on Reply
#11
NeoXF
IMHO... they seriously need to release faster iterations on their CPUs for mobile... the 4 real-cores to 4 almost-cores transition doesn't look that great, but I agree in some aspects it worked out well. However, I expect the Steamroller mobile APU is gonna kick (even more) ass... Hopefully they will have a triple or quad module version (6 almost-almost-cores LOL)... or double module with 3 or 4 cores each.
Posted on Reply
#12
mypg0306
Nice gaming laptop. Don't know when can I afford to own this machine.
Posted on Reply
#13
ramcoza
by: Atom_Anti
Even a 2 Core I3 capable for gaming close as much as big I7 CPUs. Do not write silly things, read here CPU contest in gaming with GeForce GTX 680M.

And the Quad Core A10-4600M about level with Twin-core Intel i5 if program use all available Cores:


What he said is A10 is not a gaming APU. It's good for media PC or light gaming environments. But it cannot be a CPU for a Gaming Laptop, specially when having a high-end GPU like 7970M or 680M. For that i3 or i5 is the great option. Moreover 7970M's enduro technology is having major issues. Because of that, it cannot flawlessly work with the CPU, unlike nvidia optimus technology. If you don't believe, go and google it. Because of enduro problem sometimes the gamer is only having about 20 FPS performance and sometimes the battery drain is higher than nvidia optimus. That's why we don't see much of 7970Ms in laptops despite having a great value.
Posted on Reply
#14
eidairaman1
Gaming on a battery in a laptop. Makes me laugh. Laptops with high end parts are normally called desktop replacements. Great perf fair battery life.

Trinity Core is capable of driving the gpu. Otherwise it wouldnt be sold.
Posted on Reply
#15
tacosRcool
gaming on the go at a reasonable price?
Posted on Reply
#16
Super XP
by: NeoXF
IMHO... they seriously need to release faster iterations on their CPUs for mobile... the 4 real-cores to 4 almost-cores transition doesn't look that great, but I agree in some aspects it worked out well. However, I expect the Steamroller mobile APU is gonna kick (even more) ass... Hopefully they will have a triple or quad module version (6 almost-almost-cores LOL)... or double module with 3 or 4 cores each.
I agree Steamroller should have the ability to put AMD back into strong performance competition. But your comment regarding "4 real cores to 4 almost codes transition is flawed. Define a core? Anyhow, eventually we will see Intel once again copy AMD.

With AMD's approach to CPU module design, AMD can offer 2x more cores than conventional designs. In about a few years, this design will mature and AMD would benefit.
Posted on Reply
#17
TheGuruStud
by: Super XP
I agree Steamroller should have the ability to put AMD back into strong performance competition. But your comment regarding "4 real cores to 4 almost codes transition is flawed. Define a core? Anyhow, eventually we will see Intel once again copy AMD.

With AMD's approach to CPU module design, AMD can offer 2x more cores than conventional designs. In about a few years, this design will mature and AMD would benefit.
Hey, no logic or reasoning allowed, here!

He's right. Fab costs will be skyrocketing and even intel will struggle to make monolithic cores. Plus, IPC is becoming maxed. The only reason HT works is b/c of sloppy coding. AMD decided it's cheaper and more efficient (if TSMC/GloFo didn't suck), to make these modules and share a few things vs big cores with more threads.

Properly coded software that isn't ICC only, runs great on AMD. The servers are killer (and dirt cheap) and linux performance is fantastic (I guess 2600/2700k is slow too :rolleyes:). Single thread will be forced out (cmon lazy devs), eventually.

Keep flaming AMD, b/c you know intel will just keep copying them :laugh:
I'm not excusing their poor execution and delays, but the Āµarch is sound, if just unpolished.

Remember, software is responsible for nearly all speed. You can gain up to several hundred of percent in performance just from using optimized compilers and tuned code.

I can provide you a small, personal real world example that was barely optimized soon after BD launch:
I was encoding a TV show at 720 from 1080 source using x264:

My PII at 3.8 GHz was achieving a mind blowing 8 fps as a kind of reference :laugh:
I slapped in the 8120 and OCed to 4.2.
I used the same encoder ver and got 22 fps. I thought not bad, but not spectacular.
Then, I saw that preliminary support for BD was out (FMA).
I ran it and got a kick ass 30 fps.
The settings for quality were stupidly maxed out, btw.

Now, that's more than just regular tuning since it supported new instructions, but the results aren't any different. (Especially, considering that ICC disables instructions and uses crappy libraries for AMD :wtf:) "Marketing" money also goes a long way.
Posted on Reply
#18
Super XP
I fully agree software is the #1 culprit for processor performance. But that does not excuse AMD's lack luster management regarding Bulldozer's unique design but limited performance gains. The design is great, good job on that, just not expected properly.

As I said many times, 3rd and 4th generation Bulldozer's should quadruple in performance via design modifications alone. Then comes software, and if implemented properly should gain even more.

If Intel does not move to something such as a modular approach, they are in trouble, unless of course they develop something better.
Posted on Reply
#19
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: Super XP
I fully agree software is the #1 culprit for processor performance. But that does not excuse AMD's lack luster management regarding Bulldozer's unique design but limited performance gains. The design is great, good job on that, just not expected properly.

As I said many times, 3rd and 4th generation Bulldozer's should quadruple in performance via design modifications alone. Then comes software, and if implemented properly should gain even more.

If Intel does not move to something such as a modular approach, they are in trouble, unless of course they develop something better.
It doesn't matter what Intel does if the server market goes AMD then the market will swing AMD. Thereare way more cpus sold to the server market than enthusiast.
Posted on Reply
#20
eidairaman1
AMD really needs a chip that will perform because if it doesnt stock holders are likely to drop out too
Posted on Reply
#21
HumanSmoke
by: Super XP
As I said many times, 3rd and 4th generation Bulldozer's should quadruple in performance via design modifications alone. Then comes software, and if implemented properly should gain even more.
400+% performance improvement between Bulldozer and Excavator!?!?!?......

by: Super XP
If Intel does not move to something such as a modular approach, they are in trouble, unless of course they develop something better.
Why bother guessing about something that is already fairly well known?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment