Gadgetory

welcome back too hard wrong box today's view is a continuation of our coverage into invidious laptop GPUs we started with the GeForce r-tx 2070 max cube we've also reviewed the ITX 2060 for laptops and now we're checking out the RT x 2080 max Q which is supposed to be a decent amount faster than the GPUs we've looked at so far as this discrete GPU is labeled as RT X 2080 we note is using a truing die complete with 29:44 cuda cores 368 tenths of cores and 46 ray-tracing course but that's where the similarities between the RT x 2018 max-q and the desktop are TX 2080 end to bring what is normally a 215 watt GPU down into the 80 to 90 watt range for slimline laptops NVIDIA has had to significantly underclock the GPU with the base clock now sitting at just 735 megahertz while the boost clock hits 1095 megahertz I've talked about how invidious laptop GPU naming scheme for the GeForce 20 series can be a bit misleading this is once again the case here while NVIDIA has differentiated this part from the regular desktop card through its name slapping max Q on the inter let you know this is optimized for tiny laptop cooler designs I think it is a bit much to even suggest this is an RT X 2080 class GPU the clock speed Delta between the RT X 2080 desktop and RT X 2080 max-q is the largest we've seen so far out of invidious cheering products while the desktop card typically hits 1900 megahertz the RT x 28 Emacs q reaches just twelve hundred megahertz so this GPU won't perform anywhere near a desktop packing in RTX 2080 especially when factoring in other typical laptop bottlenecks there's added confusion with this GPU because there appear to be two variants in the market a standard default 80 watt version that we've been talking about so far along with a higher clock to 90 watt variant the 90 watt model has a base clock of 990 megahertz and a boost of 12 30 megahertz so a 135 megahertz higher boost which is a significant jump this increased typically materializes as a typical GPU clock around 14 megahertz both variants have the same memory configuration so eight gigabytes of gddr5 to 12 gigabits per second on a 256 bit bus slid into 384 gigabits per second of bandwidth again this is one area where the r-tx 2080 max-q is under clocked compared to the desktop card would sits at 410 gigabits per second on the memory for testing today I have both variants on hand the regular RT X 2080 max-q is found in the msi gs70 5 stealth 8 SG a slimming light 17 inch notebook this laptop does have an overclocked mode available in the settings and that boosts clock speeds by about 100 megahertz allowing to sit between the 80 watt and 90 watt variants but for today's review I'm leaving the laptop at its default RT X 28 Emacs skewed clocks in the full review of the GS 75 I'll detail how it performs in the OC mode the 90 watt variant of the RT X 2018 max Q is found in the Alienware M 15 another slim and light system though this time 15 inches in size this laptop struggles to make use of the 90 watt RT X 20 18 max Q due to a constrained cooler solution I'll do tell more about this problem in my upcoming Alienware M 15 review but I did discover that raising the laptop a few centimeters above the desk does allow the GPU to operate as maximum performance without overclocking so that's what I've done for this review and should be representative of this 90 watt of range and other systems otherwise the two systems are very similar both use Intel standard 6 core gaming laptop CPU the core i7 8750 H both also have dual channel memory which is very important for unleashing the best performance in games so let's dig into the results starting with far cry 5 I've decided to use a slightly different approach to showing this data than I have in the past rather than showing how our r-tx 20/80 max Q test laptops compared to other single laptop years this data is an average of several laptops we've tested with the listed GPS inside to keep things as apples-to-apples as possible the average only includes laptops with the same CPU and same dual channel memory configuration for example our data for the gtx 1070 max cube contains an average of three laptops which should be more representative of a typical laptop that uses that GPU anyway far cry 5 is a tile that is a fairly tip representation of most modern games the r-tx 2080 max-q sits at the top of this chart although noting we haven't got any current useful data for the older GTX 1080 or GT X 1080 max q the base RTX 2080 m'excuse sneaks ahead of the gtx 1070 but only by 2% here it's also only 5% ahead of the RT x 2070 max q and less than 10% faster than the RT X 2060 however the situation is better for the 90 watt variant which delivers an additional 6 percent over the 80 watt RT X 20 80 max Q battlefield 5 is a little more favorable to the 2018 max cubed with this GPU sitting 5% ahead of the gtx 1070 however the 90 watt variant is only 3 percent faster than the Eddie watt variant here you will though get 9% more performance with the base RT X 20 80 max Q over the RT x 20 70 max Q metro Exodus is the newest title in our test suite and it presents one of the largest gains between the two RT x 2080 max euwe models a 17 percent performance uplift while the standard variant is only 1% faster than the gtx 1070 the 91 variant is a huge 18 percent faster this is again where you really will want that higher TDP model Star Wars Battlefront 2 is a good result for the RT X 2018 max Q for percent faster than the GTX 10 77 percent faster than the RT X 2017 max Q and 10 percent faster than the RT X 2060 the 90 watt model also delivers a 10 percent higher frame rate than the base model which is pretty decent Middle Earth shadow of war is highly favorable tutoring compared to Pascal showing some of the largest margins the RT X 20 80 max Q is 16% faster than the GTX 1070 here while also being 13% faster than the RT X 2070 max Q and 25% faster than the RT X 2060 and despite these large margins the 90 watt model is 10 percent faster than the 80 watt model delivering even better performance watchdogs too is a game that is CPU demanding which is why the 1% low results are a little unusual here you also won't see much to gain at the high end with the RT X 20 80 max Q it's 90 watt variants and the GTX 1070 performing around the same level that said it's a step down to the other GPUs for example the RT X 20 80 max Q is 13% ahead the ITX 2070 max-q Deus Ex mankind divided is an older title in our test suite and again a few weird 1% low numbers here due to some laptops having issues with this title that said there's a nice cadence between each laptop GPU here with a 90 watt r-tx 2080 max-q delivering a handy performance increase over the 80 watt model at least on average lots of people still play Grand Theft Auto 5 and here the r-tx 2080 max-q is on par with the gtx 1070 with the 90 watt 2080 max-q a smidgen ahead with only a 10% difference between the gtx 1070 max-q and the top of the chart these results are very clumped together shadow of the to many is the final game I'm showing here and it's another one with a few inconsistent frame time results depending on the laptop being tested it seems the GTX 970 is particularly strong here with that said there is a bit to gain from both our TX 2080 max-q models when looking at average frame rates now it's time to expand into a number of extended comparison charts which show all the other games I've been testing I'll start here with what I feel is the most relevant comparison the r-tx 2080 max Q versus the gtx 1070 the gtx 1070 was the sweet spot between price and performance for last generation pascal systems and most laptops that used it weren't outrageously massive here the r-tx 28 Emacs cute in its standard configuration pulls 5% ahead on average though it doesn't win in every game a fairly modest improvement here the 90 watt variant fares a little better here with a 12% average performance can over the gtx 1070 although again it doesn't win in every title especially in more cpu demanding games like Assassin's Creed Odyssey compared to the gtx 1070 max cubed the RT x 2080 max-q does see a handy 23% performance uplift so if you are upgrading your slim and light laptop and jumping up a performance bracket at the same time this is the sort of margin you can expect it's a decent uplift but it's nowhere near the 50 to 60 percent performance gain you can expect if you upgraded from a desktop gtx 1070 to a desktop RTX 2080 if you are hoping to see desktop margins between GPUs here you're pretty much out of luck looking at the ITX 2080 max-q versus the RT x 2070 max q there is a bit to be gained for opting for the faster RT x 20:18 mole in your ultra portable the standard variant is ten percent faster on average and that jumps up to 17 percent faster when comparing the 90 watt variant to the RT x 2070 max cubed base variant then looking at our GX 2018 max Q versus the laptop RT X 2060 decent gains here again 16 percent on average and then increases to 23 percent when using the 90 watt moral RT X 20 80 max Q laptops are considerably more expensive but at least it's also a fair bit faster finally we have the 2 RT X 20 80 max Q models compared those who can find a 90 watt brain in a laptop should be treated to around 7% more performance although there are some games where performance isn't significantly better looking at all this data there is a lot to break down here so be prepared for an extended conclusion I guess the first positive point is that the RT X xx ATM execute is faster than the GPUs you would expect it to be so there's no funny business here it's also faster than other portable focused GPUs like the RT X 2070 max Q and gtx 1070 max Q by at least 10% so it's not like you were paying a lot more money only to get a single-digit upgrade there are gains to be had at 1080p based on this data I expect the RT X 2018 max Q to be slightly faster than the GTX turn a team execute in its standard configuration with a 90 watt brain delivering around 10 percent boost nothing earth-shattering there but again it is an improvement from here there aren't too many more positive points to discuss in fact there are three major issues that I want to talk about the two variant situation the performance margins and then the pricing of RT X 2080 max q laptops starting with the two variant situation this is perhaps the worst of the issues having two GPUs with different clock speeds and power limits so ultimately different performance but giving them the same name it creates confusion it makes it hard for consumers to know what they are buying when they see an RT X 2080 max Q laptop are they getting the slower standard version or the faster 90 watt version there's really no way to know looking at the product pages for the two laptops I tested just highlights the problem on the GS 75 stealth page it tells you that you are getting an RT x 28 Emacs - but there's no information on clocks spades or TDP same thing on the Aryan where m15 page for a regular consumer looking at these laptops there is no indication that the Alienware m15 actually includes the 90 watt brain and is therefore 7% faster on average this isn't an issue with cooler design or throttling normally you'd expect some variances between laptops due to coolers and other hardware but even if you supercharged the GS 75 s cooling solution given a super cold environment to work in there is no way to make the GPU hit the performance levels of the 90 watt variant because it hits the hard-coded unchangeable power limit of its variant before thermals become an issue I could go on about this for ages but really there were two simple solutions to this problem either you have one RT x 2080 MX q variant preferably the 90 watt variant and let any laptops that can't handle it throttle or you simply give each variant a different name nvidia has really screwed buyers over by not doing either because it's led to a situation where a buyer can't know which version they're getting from the product page and they need to not only read reviews to find out what they're getting but hope that the reviewer even knows that there are two versions out there which so far hasn't necessarily been the case so it pretty much is a complete mess I do understand the motive behind having two variants having more GPU options allows the laptop maker to choose a product that best suits their cooler design if they can squeeze an extra 10 watts of cooling capacity into their cooler having a variant with the 10 watt higher power limit could give them up to a better performance and an edge over their competitors but there is no reason why each variant shouldn't have a different name it would even benefit the manufacturers who could design the better coolers because then they could easily advertise that their laptop has the more powerful GPU version inside so Nvidia we're still gonna call you out every time you try and pull this stuff whether it's for desktop cards like the GT 1030 ddr4 author laptop GPUs just stop it and give each GPU an individual easy to find name the next issue we have is the performance margins and this also links back into the naming but it's less of an outright mess and more of just an annoyance with a drop of potential confusion on top at face value there's not much wrong with how stacks up in the same slim and light gaming form-factor true in GPUs are providing about 10% more performance than that direct Pascal predecessor while also maintaining a 10% Barrett we 90 X 20 70 and 90 X 20 80 max Q models like there was for the GTX 1070 and 1080 max Q's considering that props are highly constrained by size and power that sort of improvement isn't bad give ensuring is only a minor efficiency upgrade the problem though is how the laptop ecosystem compares to the desktop ecosystem and it's something I've talked about before these Turing laptop GPUs are nowhere near the same performance levels as the desktop versions but more importantly the margins between each model are also not the same on the desktop the RT x 2080 is about 20% faster than an RT X 2070 here with the standard max Q model it's only 10% on the desktop the RT x 2080 is a massive 50 percent faster than a gtx 1070 here with the max q models it's around 20 to 30 percent faster and you'll find similar situations with basically any other comparison you want to make the problem with this is down to market confusion in video launch the desktop GPUs first and that's it this standard for performance margins then the laptop GPUs at the market and have entirely different performance characteristics despite holding very similar names in some cases or outright identical names in others it creates a situation where an everyday buyer may have heard about the awesome performance gains of truing for desktops but then thought that this would also apply for laptops only then buy a laptop that's actually not that much faster ending in of course disappointment there's nothing wrong with giving 10 percent gains but I just wish it was more obvious to buyers that they aren't going to get 20 to 30 percent gains you can look to Intel for an example as a company that is doing this right no one expects the six core Core i7 a 750 H for laptops to perform like the six core Core i7 8700 K for desktops because they have obviously different names the final issue comes down to pricing laptops with invidious top-end GPUs have never been cheap especially portable versions using a Mac skew morale but with the 20 80 max Q in particular we're reaching pre crazy territory take the Alienware m15 as an example the r-tx 2060 variant is 2000 US dollars but it will cost you an extra eight hundred and fifty dollars to get the r-tx 2080 max-q so that's a 42% increase for twenty three percent more performance ms is charging four hundred dollars or a seventeen percent increase to go from an RT x 2070 max-q to an ITX between eighty max q despite the upgrade only providing around ten percent more performance now high-end products always come with a price premium so we can't expect full price to performance scaling throughout the entire products stack but the top tier GPUs certainly are very expensive this generation especially with Pascal options still in the market when a decent gtx 1070 max q laptop costs just seventeen hundred dollars compared to an RT x 20 80 max q laptop for twenty eight hundred dollars or more it's really hard to justify spending over one thousand dollars more on the chirring option of course i haven't spent any time talking about invidious RT x technologies in this video yet but we've covered ray tracing and d LSS on the channel a fair bit in the past so you can check out those past videos for our thoughts on a performance constraint laptop these features really aren't all that useful even with the RT x 2080 max you so it still recommend just disabling ray tracing for example and gain the better performance without that feature enabled that's at this review another disappointing mobile offering from nvidia i think there's a bit of a trend here with these tree releases for laptops and i don't have particularly high hopes of the remaining two models we have to test the full RT x between 70 and the RT x 2080 subscribe for more laptop content the upcoming reviews of the msi gs70 5 and alienware and 15 should be interesting because they don't perform exactly like we showed in this review out of the box is a few weird things going on there with those laptops consider supporting us on patreon as well if you feel like it and i'll catch you in the next one