I see that today, the FX 3500M is offered in addition to the FX 2500M and 1500M when you buy an M90. I also see that going from a 1500M to a 2500M adds US$249 while going from a 1500 to a 3500 sets you back a cool US$964 . Details are scant - there are a bunch of regurgitated press releases or pretty pictures touting its 38.4GB/s memory bandwidth (which, by the way, the 2500M also has). NVIDIA don't say much either beyond giving the 3500M a Perf # (UGS) \tof 7 compared to 6 for the 2500M. Famed for its cynicism, The Register notes the increased power consumption of 70W compared to 65W, and:
As both those figures show a 5% increase, I speculate its clocked at between 5 and 10% higher - say 550 core and 650 memory? Whats puzzling, then, is the fact that the M90 has an A04 bios which just adds 3500M support; and the previous bios is A02 (an A03 didn't ship?) which seems to indicate there is more to it than light overclocking, surely.
|190m triangles per second and 11.3bn texels per second to the old part's 181m and 10.8bn. Essentially, it's clocked higher, though Nvidia didn't say by how much.|