Login

u/LSSJPrime

▲ 0

NVIDIA's laptop GPU's are an absolute mess with no signs of being sorted out anytime soon. Here are some proposed changes that I came up with to streamline and de-clutter the mobile GPU line that I hope will make more sense than what is currently being used. TL;DR at the bottom.

First things first, their names. Nearly half of all of the current confusion, disarray, and supposed dishonest marketing from vastly different performance numbers could all be alleviated if they just named their laptop GPU's to match their desktop counterparts based on the die itself. In fact, let's also just bring back the "M" or "Max-Q" moniker while we're at it. I never liked NVIDIA referring to their mobile cards as a "Laptop GPU" since it wasn't just laptops that used them but also NUC's and other mini-PC's as well. But I digress. By bringing back the suffix, you will automatically know that the GPU is a more efficient, power-limited version of the desktop die prioritized for mobility and better thermal management, but the same chip as the desktop nonetheless. I'll use "Max-Q" going forward since that's what NVIDIA used last before abandoning it.

Therefore, following my new naming convention, we would get:

  • The laptop RTX 5090, based on the GB203 die, would be renamed to the RTX 5080 Max-Q like the desktop 5080.
  • The laptop RTX 5080, based on the GB203 die, would be renamed to the RTX 5070 Ti Max-Q like the desktop 5070 Ti.
  • The laptop RTX 5070 Ti, based on the GB205 die, would be renamed to the RTX 5070 Max-Q like the desktop 5070.
  • The laptop RTX 5070, based on the GB206 die, would be renamed to the RTX 5060 Ti Max-Q like the desktop 5060 Ti.
  • The laptop RTX 5060, based on the GB206 die, would be renamed to the RTX 5060 Max-Q.
  • The laptop RTX 5050, based on the GB207 die, would be renamed to the RTX 5050 Max-Q.

Hell, let's just do it for the previous generation too:

  • The laptop RTX 4090, based on the AD103 die, would be renamed to the RTX 4080 Max-Q like the desktop 4080.
  • The laptop RTX 4080, based on the AD104 die, would be renamed to the RTX 4070 Max-Q like the desktop 4070.
  • The laptop RTX 4070, based on the AD106 die, would be renamed to the RTX 4060 Ti Max-Q like the desktop 4060 Ti.
  • The laptop RTX 4060, based on the AD107 die, would be renamed to the RTX 4060 Max-Q.
  • The laptop RTX 4050, based on the AD107 die, would be renamed to the RTX 4050 Max-Q.

If NVIDIA does nothing else, at least naming their GPU's like this makes so much more sense.

Now, you might have noticed that this would mean that no mobile GPU will be given a 90-class name anymore. That is by design. In no way shape or form can a 90-class desktop GPU be retrofitted to suit a mobile design. There's only so much wattage you can limit and CUDA cores you can disable before it just becomes way too distant in performance from the desktop version. The thermal constraints of a laptop chassis prevents a 90-class GPU from being put inside of it, so it will be excluded outright from the notebook GPU lineup. The 80-class is back to being the top dog in laptops.

Alright, now that GPU's are defined by their chipset and not an arbitary name, you immediately know that a laptop RTX 5070 will be the same as a desktop RTX 5070, just with a lower wattage and potentially different number of CUDA, Tensor, ray-tracing cores, and VRAM. A GPU is henceforth defined by its chipset, not its actual name. When you purchase an RTX 5070 in either laptop or desktop form, you are paying for the GB205 die. This makes it totally unambiguous for the buyer and therefore resolves accusations of misleading and dishonest marketing on the part of NVIDIA.

But, more importantly, this also now somewhat fixes the performance disparity between the desktop and laptop chips with the same name, bridging the gap significantly.

Looking at numbers from 3D Mark Time Spy, we can see that a laptop RTX 5090 scores 25,024, while a desktop RTX 5080 scores 32,995. This means that a full desktop GB203 is about 32% faster than the laptop GB203. Still a fairly big gap, but a far more reasonable one than the absurd 87% difference in performance that the desktop 5090 has compared to the laptop 5090, and with room to further close it (which I will touch upon later). For now, my point is that in no world should two GPU's share the same name where one of them performs almost 90% faster than the other. It gets even worse if we compare it to a more demanding test, such as Steel Nomad DX12. The desktop 5090 scores 14,553, while the laptop 5090 scores 6,193. The desktop 5090 is nearly 2.4x faster. Yeesh.

This trend continues down the entire line:

If we cross-reference with the GPU comparison charts from u/jarrodstech, we can see that his numbers also support the notion that "laptop GPU's = desktop GPU's - 1 tier" for the RTX 40 series as well.

1080p numbers

1440p numbers

2160p numbers

These differences in performance numbers are a much more reasonable disparity than the ones between the current laptop and desktop GPU's are. Following my revised naming scheme, a laptop GPU and desktop GPU will now always be the same chip and offer within roughly 70-90% performance of their desktop equivalents.

However, there is another way to further close the gap, particularly for the higher-end GPU's, which I mentioned earlier. This is by increasing their wattage, or power delivery, or TGP. Various laptop enthusiasts and modders, including our very own u/GizmoSlipTech, have proven that not only can higher-end laptop GPU's handle the increased wattage, it's recommended to do so for the potentially enormous performance gains, sometimes by more than 40% in certain scenarios. I highly recommend you watch his very informative video to get the full rundown, but here is the summary version:

Courtesy of GizmoSlipTech

NVIDIA is leaving so much performance on the table by locking down the TDP of these chips. It's borderline a crime to cripple such capable silicon by not delivering it the power that it needs to reach its full potential. Let's take the RTX 5090 as an example. A shunt-modded RTX 5090 in an Asus Scar 18 running at 250W was able to exceed 30,000 in Time Spy:

Courtesy of GizmoSlipTech

This means we are now only 7% behind the desktop GB203 with the proper wattage being supplied to the mobile variant. The performance gains are absolutely incredible, and if this were to become standard, nobody would be criticising NVIDIA for poor performance of their laptop chips or accusing them of misleading marketing. Quite the contrary actually, as I believe many people would be singing NVIDIA's praises for being able to match desktop performance within mobile constraints and for achieving such astounding efficiency with its architecture.

Obviously, not every GPU will be able to handle the increased wattage. Here is how I would go about this:

  • The top-of-the-line flagship models, i.e., the RTX 5080 Max-Q (formerly RTX 5090) and RTX 4080 Max-Q (formerly RTX 4090), will be able to receive up to 250W of power.
    • Pure performance is the sole objective of this chip. Despite the fact that many if not all 16-inch laptop chassis are capable of and equipped to handle up to 250W of TGP, I will restrict the flagship GPU's to only be allowed to be utilized in large, vapour chamber 18-inch laptop chassis only. This is to allow as much cooling headroom as possible and maximize the airflow. Since 18-inch laptops are primarily going to be used as desktop replacements anyways, I believe that this restriction makes the most logical sense.
  • The high-end models, i.e., the RTX 5070 Ti Max-Q (formerly RTX 5080) and RTX 4070 Max-Q (formerly RTX 4080), will be able to receive up to 200W of power.
    • Performance is the primary objective of this chip, with efficiency coming second. Therefore, it will be restricted to only be allowed to be utilized in vapour chamber 17-inch or 16-inch laptop chassis if the OEM decides to provide the full wattage to the chip. This is to allow as much cooling headroom as possible and maximize the airflow. Lower wattage variants may be put into any laptop chassis should it be able to provide adequate cooling.
  • The upper mid-range models, i.e., the RTX 5070 Max-Q (formerly RTX 5070 Ti), will be able to receive up to 175W of power.
    • Performance is the primary objective of this chip, with efficiency coming second. Therefore, it will be restricted to only be allowed to be utilized in vapour chamber 16-inch or 15-inch laptop chassis if the OEM decides to provide the full wattage to the chip. This is to allow as much cooling headroom as possible and maximize the airflow. Lower wattage variants may be put into any laptop chassis should it be able to provide adequate cooling.
  • The mid-range models, i.e., the RTX 5060 Ti Max-Q (formerly RTX 5070) and RTX 4060 Ti Max-Q (formerly RTX 4070), will be able to receive up to 125W of power.
    • The primary objective of the mid-range models is a balance of performance and efficiency. They are intended to be utilized in 15-inch and 14-inch laptops, but can be put into any laptop chassis should it be able to provide adequate cooling.
  • The entry-level models, i.e., the RTX 5060 Max-Q and RTX 4060 Max-Q will be able to receive up to 100W of power.
    • The primary objective of the mid-range models is a balance of performance and efficiency. They are intended to be utilized in 14-inch and 13-inch laptops, but can be put into any laptop chassis should it be able to provide adequate cooling.
  • The budget models, i.e., the RTX 5050 Max-Q and RTX 4050 Max-Q, will be able to receive up to 75W of power.
    • Efficiency is the primary objective of this chip, with performance coming second. The entry-level models can be utilized in any laptop chassis should it be able to provide adequate cooling.

Here is a summary table of all of my proposed changes:

GPU model: Desktop GPU equivalent Desktop VRAM Desktop TDP Current laptop GPU name Revised laptop GPU name Laptop VRAM Laptop TDP Intended laptop chassis size
GB203 RTX 5080 16 GB 360W RTX 5090 RTX 5080 Max-Q 24 GB 250W 18-inch only
GB203 (cut-down) RTX 5070 Ti 16 GB 300W RTX 5080 RTX 5070 Ti Max-Q 16 GB 200W 17, 16-inch
GB205 RTX 5070 12 GB 250W RTX 5070 Ti RTX 5070 Max-Q 12 GB 175W 16, 15-inch
GB206 RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB 180W RTX 5070 RTX 5060 Ti Max-Q 8 GB 125W 15, 14-inch
GB206 (cut-down) RTX 5060 8 GB 145W RTX 5060 RTX 5060 Max-Q 8 GB 100W 14, 13-inch
GB207 RTX 5050 8 GB 130W RTX 5050 RTX 5050 Max-Q 8 GB 75W Any
AD103 RTX 4080 16 GB 320W RTX 4090 RTX 4080 Max-Q 16 GB 250W 18-inch only
AD104 RTX 4070 Super 12 GB 220W RTX 4080 RTX 4070 Max-Q 12 GB 200W 17, 16-inch
AD106 RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB 160W RTX 4070 RTX 4060 Ti Max-Q 8 GB 125W 15, 14-inch
AD107 RTX 4060 8 GB 115W RTX 4060 RTX 4060 Max-Q 8 GB 100W 14, 13-inch
AD107 (cut-down) None None None RTX 4050 RTX 4050 Max-Q 6 GB 75W Any

So there you have it. This was a labour of love as a fellow gaming laptop enthusiast. I spent way too many brain cells on this. If NVIDIA were to implement something like this going forward, I would be thrilled. Or at the very least, rename their laptop chips to match the desktop dies they're based on.

Let's have a discussion!

TL;DR: NVIDIA should rename their laptop GPU's to match their desktop counterparts, increase the wattage for higher-end models, and assign only certain chassis sizes depending on the TGP.

reddit.com
u/LSSJPrime — 16 days ago
▲ 62

NVIDIA's laptop GPU's are an absolute mess with no signs of being sorted out anytime soon. So, if I was in charge of the mobile graphics division at NVIDIA, here is how I would go about overhauling things. TL;DR at the bottom.

First things first, their names. Like honestly, nearly half of all of the current confusion, disarray, and supposed dishonest marketing from vastly different performance numbers could all be alleviated if they just named their laptop GPU's to match their desktop counterparts based on the die itself. In fact, let's also just bring back the "M" or "Max-Q" moniker while we're at it. I never liked NVIDIA referring to their mobile cards as a "Laptop GPU" since it wasn't just laptops that used them but also NUC's and other mini-PC's as well. But I digress. By bringing back the suffix, you will automatically know that the GPU is a more efficient, power-limited version of the desktop die prioritized for mobility and better thermal management, but the same chip as the desktop nonetheless. I'll use "Max-Q" going forward since that's what NVIDIA used last before abandoning it.

Therefore, following my new naming convention, we would get:

  • The laptop RTX 5090, based on the GB203 die, would be renamed to the RTX 5080 Max-Q like the desktop 5080.
  • The laptop RTX 5080, based on the GB203 die, would be renamed to the RTX 5070 Ti Max-Q like the desktop 5070 Ti.
  • The laptop RTX 5070 Ti, based on the GB205 die, would be renamed to the RTX 5070 Max-Q like the desktop 5070.
  • The laptop RTX 5070, based on the GB206 die, would be renamed to the RTX 5060 Ti Max-Q like the desktop 5060 Ti.
  • The laptop RTX 5060, based on the GB206 die, would be renamed to the RTX 5060 Max-Q.
  • The laptop RTX 5050, based on the GB207 die, would be renamed to the RTX 5050 Max-Q.

Hell, let's just do it for the previous generation too:

  • The laptop RTX 4090, based on the AD103 die, would be renamed to the RTX 4080 Max-Q like the desktop 4080.
  • The laptop RTX 4080, based on the AD104 die, would be renamed to the RTX 4070 Max-Q like the desktop 4070.
  • The laptop RTX 4070, based on the AD106 die, would be renamed to the RTX 4060 Ti Max-Q like the desktop 4060 Ti.
  • The laptop RTX 4060, based on the AD107 die, would be renamed to the RTX 4060 Max-Q.
  • The laptop RTX 4050, based on the AD107 die, would be renamed to the RTX 4050 Max-Q.

If NVIDIA does nothing else, at least naming their GPU's like this makes so much more sense.

Now, you might have noticed that this would mean that no mobile GPU will be given a 90-class name anymore. That is by design. In no way shape or form can a 90-class desktop GPU be retrofitted to suit a mobile design. There's only so much wattage you can limit and CUDA cores you can disable before it just becomes way too distant in performance from the desktop version. The thermal constraints of a laptop chassis prevents a 90-class GPU from being put inside of it, so it will be excluded outright from the notebook GPU lineup. The 80-class is back to being the top dog in laptops.

Alright, now that GPU's are defined by their chipset and not an arbitary name, you immediately know that a laptop RTX 5070 will be the same as a desktop RTX 5070, just with a lower wattage and potentially different number of CUDA, Tensor, ray-tracing cores, and VRAM. A GPU is henceforth defined by its chipset, not its actual name. When you purchase an RTX 5070 in either laptop or desktop form, you are paying for the GB205 die. This makes it totally unambiguous for the buyer and therefore absolves accusations of misleading and dishonest marketing on the part of NVIDIA.

But, more importantly, this also now somewhat fixes the performance disparity between the desktop and laptop chips with the same name, bridging the gap significantly.

Looking at numbers from 3D Mark Time Spy, we can see that a laptop RTX 5090 scores 25,024, while a desktop RTX 5080 scores 32,995. This means that a full desktop GB203 is about 32% faster than the laptop GB203 (and there is actually still room to further close this gap, which I will touch upon later). At 32%, the disparity is still fairly big, but a far more reasonable one than the absurd 87% difference in performance that the desktop 5090 has compared to the laptop 5090. For now, my point is that in no world should two GPU's share the same name where one of them performs almost 90% faster than the other. It gets even worse if we compare it to a more demanding test, such as Steel Nomad DX12. The desktop 5090 scores 14,553, while the laptop 5090 scores 6,193. The desktop 5090 is nearly 2.4x faster. Yeesh.

This trend continues down the entire line:

If we cross-reference with the GPU comparison charts from u/jarrodstech, we can see that his numbers also support the notion that "laptop GPU's = desktop GPU's - 1 tier" for the RTX 40 series as well.

1080p numbers

1440p numbers

2160p numbers

These differences in performance numbers are a much more reasonable disparity than the ones between the current laptop and desktop GPU's are. Following my revised naming scheme, a laptop GPU and desktop GPU will now always be the same chip and offer within roughly 70-90% performance of their desktop equivalents.

However, there is another way to further close the gap, particularly for the higher-end GPU's, which I mentioned earlier. This is by increasing their wattage, or power delivery, or TGP. Various laptop enthusiasts and modders, including our very own u/GizmoSlipTech, have proven that not only can higher-end laptop GPU's handle the increased wattage, it's recommended to do so for the potentially enormous performance gains, sometimes by more than 40% in certain scenarios. I highly recommend you watch his very informative video to get the full rundown, because he gets into far more detail and explains it much better than I ever could. But for those who are short on time, here is the summary version:

Courtesy of GizmoSlipTech

NVIDIA is leaving so much performance on the table by locking down the TDP of these chips. It's borderline a crime to cripple such capable silicon by not delivering it the power that it needs to reach its full potential. Let's take the RTX 5090 as an example. A shunt-modded RTX 5090 in an Asus Scar 18 running at 250W was able to exceed 30,000 in Time Spy:

Courtesy of GizmoSlipTech

This means we are now only 7% behind the desktop GB203 with the proper wattage being supplied to the mobile variant. The gap between desktop and laptop is practically closed. The performance gains are absolutely incredible, and if this were to become standard, nobody would be criticising NVIDIA for poor performance of their laptop chips or accusing them of misleading marketing. Quite the contrary actually, as I believe many people would be singing NVIDIA's praises for being able to match desktop performance within mobile constraints and for achieving such astounding efficiency with its architecture.

Here is how I would go about this:

  • The top-of-the-line flagship models, i.e., the RTX 5080 Max-Q (formerly RTX 5090) and RTX 4080 Max-Q (formerly RTX 4090), will be able to receive up to 250W of power.
    • Pure performance is the sole objective of this chip. Despite the fact that many if not all 16-inch laptop chassis are capable of and equipped to handle up to 250W of TGP, I will restrict the flagship GPU's to only be allowed to be utilized in large, vapour chamber 18-inch laptop chassis only. This is to allow as much cooling headroom as possible and maximize the airflow. Since 18-inch laptops are primarily going to be used as desktop replacements anyways, I believe that this restriction makes the most logical sense.
  • The high-end models, i.e., the RTX 5070 Ti Max-Q (formerly RTX 5080) and RTX 4070 Max-Q (formerly RTX 4080), will be able to receive up to 200W of power.
    • Performance is the primary objective of this chip, with efficiency coming second. Therefore, it will be restricted to only be allowed to be utilized in vapour chamber 17-inch or 16-inch laptop chassis if the OEM decides to provide the full wattage to the chip. This is to allow as much cooling headroom as possible and maximize the airflow. Lower wattage variants may be put into any laptop chassis should it be able to provide adequate cooling.
  • The upper mid-range models, i.e., the RTX 5070 Max-Q (formerly RTX 5070 Ti), will be able to receive up to 175W of power.
    • Performance is the primary objective of this chip, with efficiency coming second. Therefore, it will be restricted to only be allowed to be utilized in vapour chamber 16-inch or 15-inch laptop chassis if the OEM decides to provide the full wattage to the chip. This is to allow as much cooling headroom as possible and maximize the airflow. Lower wattage variants may be put into any laptop chassis should it be able to provide adequate cooling.
  • The mid-range models, i.e., the RTX 5060 Ti Max-Q (formerly RTX 5070) and RTX 4060 Ti Max-Q (formerly RTX 4070), will be able to receive up to 125W of power.
    • The primary objective of the mid-range models is a balance of performance and efficiency. They are intended to be utilized in 15-inch and 14-inch laptops, but can be put into any laptop chassis should it be able to provide adequate cooling.
  • The entry-level models, i.e., the RTX 5060 Max-Q and RTX 4060 Max-Q will be able to receive up to 100W of power.
    • The primary objective of the mid-range models is a balance of performance and efficiency. They are intended to be utilized in 14-inch and 13-inch laptops, but can be put into any laptop chassis should it be able to provide adequate cooling.
  • The budget models, i.e., the RTX 5050 Max-Q and RTX 4050 Max-Q, will be able to receive up to 75W of power.
    • Efficiency is the primary objective of this chip, with performance coming second. The entry-level models can be utilized in any laptop chassis should it be able to provide adequate cooling.

Here is a summary table of all of my proposed changes:

GPU model: Desktop GPU equivalent Desktop VRAM Desktop TDP Current laptop GPU name Revised laptop GPU name Laptop VRAM Current Laptop TDP Amended Laptop TDP Intended laptop chassis size
GB203 RTX 5080 16 GB 360W RTX 5090 RTX 5080 Max-Q 24 GB 150W (175W boost) 250W 18-inch only
GB203 (cut-down) RTX 5070 Ti 16 GB 300W RTX 5080 RTX 5070 Ti Max-Q 16 GB 150W (175W boost) 200W 17, 16-inch
GB205 RTX 5070 12 GB 250W RTX 5070 Ti RTX 5070 Max-Q 12 GB 115W (140W boost) 175W 16, 15-inch
GB206 RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB 180W RTX 5070 RTX 5060 Ti Max-Q 8 GB 100W (125W boost) 125W 15, 14-inch
GB206 (cut-down) RTX 5060 8 GB 145W RTX 5060 RTX 5060 Max-Q 8 GB 100W (125W boost) 100W 14, 13-inch
GB207 RTX 5050 8 GB 130W RTX 5050 RTX 5050 Max-Q 8 GB 100W 75W Any
AD103 RTX 4080 16 GB 320W RTX 4090 RTX 4080 Max-Q 16 GB 150W (175W boost) 250W 18-inch only
AD104 RTX 4070 Super 12 GB 220W RTX 4080 RTX 4070 Max-Q 12 GB 150W (175W boost) 200W 17, 16-inch
AD106 RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB 160W RTX 4070 RTX 4060 Ti Max-Q 8 GB 115W (140W boost) 125W 15, 14-inch
AD107 RTX 4060 8 GB 115W RTX 4060 RTX 4060 Max-Q 8 GB 115W (140W boost) 100W 14, 13-inch
AD107 (cut-down) None None None RTX 4050 RTX 4050 Max-Q 6 GB 115W 75W Any

So there you have it. This was a labour of love as a fellow gaming laptop enthusiast. I spent way too many brain cells on this. If NVIDIA were to implement something like this going forward, I would be thrilled. Or at the very least, rename their laptop chips to match the desktop dies they're based on.

Let's have a discussion!

TL;DR: NVIDIA should rename their laptop GPU's to match their desktop counterparts, increase the wattage for higher-end models, and assign only certain chassis sizes depending on the TGP. I think a lot more people would be happier this way.

reddit.com
u/LSSJPrime — 16 days ago