1610ftw

And don't forget that a carefully selected desktop chip with more performance per Watt can make a huge difference. If my system can only sustain 150W then I do not care what the performance would be at 250 or 300W! Not much fun being stuck with a stinker of a chip in a laptop as that will be it. Over in the Dell thread @MyPC8MyBrain went through a bunch of workstations with the 12950HX and the difference in performance was quite significant with his last unit being kind of a golden sample but I believe he went through 5 or 6 of them!

This is also my impression looking at the 12800HX, 12900HX and 12900K - very similar until the laptop CPUs top out at 150W to 200W depending on the circumstances one finds them in. Would really be cool to be able to swap CPUs in laptops again.

Efficiency in the low end indeed. I doubt that at the power levels that both achieve there will be that much of a difference between an average 13900HX laptop and 13900K desktop CPU. And no, there is no way that any current laptop can sustain 270W and I doubt we will see much more than 200W from any of them this generation with around 34 to 37K tops CB R23 in a single run and that will be with deafening fan noise and/or added water cooling.

It is rather strange that you would come to that conclusion as I would be perfectly happy to be able to select between maybe three DTR models from as many manufacturers - it is nice to have some competition like we had in the past with Alienware, Asus, Clevo and MSI. No offense but your second sentence is extremely ironic as it seems that you can only be happy with no single proper DTR in existence, why is that and why do you even care? Isn't it really you who is gatekeeping here and hopeing / insisting / explaining that not a single proper DTR shall exist? I would certainly not care much if somebody would like to see a number of thin and light 14" laptops with a 4090 as long as there are a few proper DTRs around but the mere thought of even one bigger and more powerful DTR existing seems to be a threatening thought for you. In the past when we had a handful of big DTRs this did not at all affect 99.9% of laptops nor would I care about them apart from a desire to not see that much disposable crap being sold with everything soldered down including network cards, memory and even storage. That will not make a laptop very big as you can see with that new Dell prototye or the framework laptop. HX and regular desktop CPUs are so similar that it does not make much of a difference to efficiency if you use one or the other. As for thickness it is not a quality in and of itself but even with the current 18" screens we will probably at least need 1.5" at the thickest part of the laptop to accomodate better performance unless we go back to wider bezels but that seems to be out of the question. Again with that I am talking about a handful of models at most and not more than one chassis per manufacturer. I was talking 250W and 300W GPU in that case as obviously we used to have SLI DTRs that could dissipate up to 400W GPU power alone in the past so 250W GPU with 350W combined TDP would be something to shoot for as a compromise.

It is a shame about the 4th SSD - I was hoping for a Titan 88 with more of everything not a 77 with one SSD less and still no QHD display and no 18". The Titan has quite stupid proportions as I have yet to find a laptop sleeve that is deep enough for it - would have been much better if it had been 1.5cm wider and 1cm less deep as then it could also easily have accommodated the new 18" screens. Imo CAMM is a promising concept in so far as with one form factor we would get the option for 128GB memory in a lot more laptops than now. Prices have to go down though and I would never have considered a Dell with their current highway robbery pricing. I am sure they will go down at some point now that it looks like we will see it in other laptops as early as next year: https://www.notebookcheck.net/SO-DIMM-laptop-RAM-form-factor-to-soon-be-replaced-with-Dell-developed-CAMM-standard.682337.0.html As for the thick Dell it is a very interesting idea in so far as it would allow for thicker laptops with little hardware changes if more manufacturers would go that route - imagine a thicker GT77 for example with more massive heatpipes or possibly also a vapor chamber design - just get a new bottom cover and upgrade the cooling! I could also see the added vertical headroom being used for stacked SSDs like HP does it - very smart concept but that would also necessitate a different mainboard whereas with a taller cooling section one could get away with just the cooling hardware and a new bottom cover - something that might even be done as an aftermarket solution.

Another successful screen upgrade on a GE76:

Looks like Dell has rather limited staying power this generation and unless they change their heatpipe / cooling assembly I do not see that change. The Titan is currently among the best solutions but really too slim for a Titan and it is so deep that it is not easy to handle anyway despite its rather light weight. Another pound of heatpipes and some added height would have helped. I think that for such a top chassis MSI did not want to reinvent the Wheel so quickly, maybe we will get some kind of 18" GT89 with the next generation and a jump to at least 300W system TDP would be in order to justify the Titan name. I also do not get the hysteria that laptops cannot have more than one power supply as that is rather inconsequential on the road as one could for example have 2 x 240W when stationary and 1 x 240W on the road or alternatively use one of those new 330W GAN chargers instead. Not to forget that in the next generation there could probably also be 240W USB-C charging. Lots of options there and only idiot reviewers will pretend that this is any kind of issue when it can be handled with the necessary flexibility. Rather disappointed that MSI went from 4 to 3 SSDs slots in the new GT77 - that is not helpful and imo not necessary given the area they have available. Instead we get a 1000 nits LED display - for those who like to be blinded when working indoors I guess - and probably again no QHD option.

150+ sounds about right for the Titan chassis when you get a decent one. I had one that could only sustain 125W over 10 minutes and another one that could sustain 160W. Of course noise is rather horrible but that comes with the territory I guess. Not sure how much power could be sustained with some good but also reasonably quiet external cooling solution and some optimization to the cooling / vent system. Maybe 110W to 130W.

Intel and Nvidia want to sell - obviously Nvidia can set a max TGP and Intel will not change their chips for manufacturers but I doubt that Intel will dictate to manufacturers that their CPUs can only get 75W in mixed usage - it makes Intel look bad when the GPU gets max power and their CPUs are operated at much less power than they need so why would they want that. In any case I cannot see Intel as the bad guy here in so far as they obviously allow up to 200W for their CPU - not like Nvidia who don't care how good your cooling is - even if you are below 60 degrees at max power you cannot supply their mobile cards with more than 175W which is ridiculous especially when dektop GPUs can be supplied with power way beyond their very generous TGP. Yes things used to be better. I have a GT83 here right now that pulls about 400W I believe in a Time Spy run with GTX 1070 SLI - has two 240W power supplies and the bigger version with the 8950HK and 2 x GTX 1080 pulled up to around 500W iirc. I would guess that all the later SLI designs and then the first single CPU designs with the 9900K or 10900K all could sustain at least 300W and often more - one 330W power adapter was not enough back then. About the current 250W: Which manufacturer is the third one, do you have a link? I have only seen MSI openly mentioning it, Alienware definitely is not very vocal about it.

The predecessors 12800HX and 12900HX with the same exact nominal max TDP could easily go up to 200W and more, I think I tested up to 220W. You are right about 175 + 75 - they all max out the GPU while limiting the CPU to less than half of its nominal max TDP and less than 40% to its usable max TDP of 200W. As for Intel deciding this it seems to me more like the gentleman's agreement between German car manufacturers Audi, BMW, Mercedes and VW who limit their high performance cars to a top speed of 250 km/h but then we will never know exactly if that was the case here. In any case 250W just isn't enough to do justice to both CPU and GPU when they are rated at 175 + 157 got a total of 332 which by the way is very close to the combined TDP that Clevo gave for the X170 (325W).

Asus actually is 240W, so only MSI and Alienware seem to do 250W. That Intel CPU can easily pull 200W so 250W certainly is not enough and I cannot believe Intel would limit total TDP like that. I would have expected Alienware to claim at least 275W if not 300W with that kind of weight and chassis.

Yes I know, the 51m R1 was the last Alienware with 4 sodimm slots, seems to be a thing of the past now. I need more than 64GB now and I would not want to wait around for MAYBE 64GB dimms popping up and then they never arrive. I am also not at all impressed with the shared TDP of 250W between GPU and CPU as per ultrabookreview, looks like for such a heavy system with only two dimm slots and a vapor chamber it should be able to do better than an MSI GT77 or GE78 that weigh about 2 lbs less: https://www.ultrabookreview.com/60886-alienware-m18-m16/ On the Intel side, expect up to Intel Core i9-13980HX + RTX 4090 16GB configurations. Alienware didn’t go into specific details on the power settings applied to the components here, and only mentioned up to 250W of crossload CPU + GPU power. That should translate into up to 175W TGP on the 4090/4080 models, with the rest going to the CPU, and I’d be surprised to see a higher-power GPU given what we already know from the other brands. Similar settings should be possible on both the m16 and the m18, but with arguably better thermals on the m18, due to its larger chassis.

Here is a bunch of QHD 165 Hz screens: https://www.panelook.com/modelsearch.php?op=advancedsearch&order=panel_id&inch_low=1730&inch_high=1730&resolution_pixels=8380&vertical_frequency=165 You can also filter for 240 Hz. Forum member @JeanLegi successfully made the switch to QHD with one of the above screens:

Not sure if it would have been so easy for them to get access to those panels but it looks like they are going for thin and light anyway so a bigger panel would not have helped with that. Even back when Alienware, Asus and MSI still had 18.4" panels Clevo did only have 17.3 panels so I am not sure they would be willing to go that route even with a heavier model - missed opportunity in any case. You can also see the level of excitement for it when you look at its thread in the Sager / Clevo section - oh wait, nobody bothered to start an X370 thread...

It would be nice to get those 64GB memory sticks but I will not bet the house on it 🙂 Alienware did away with 4 slots after the first 51m so I would be very surprised if they returned. For my work I prefer 4 SSD slots, 4 memory slots and RGB lighting on the keyboard in order to color code certain shortcuts and currently only MSI produces such a machine and sadly with the new GT77 starting in February they will drop the 4th SSD slot.

It would be more honest to just retire the X-series. This is insulting.

Oh, I overread the A - those indeed would not help!

There were some last year but you had to sell a kidney to get them new, I think it got as high as the RTX A4500? If you got one then that means you will not be able to buy a 4090 MXM this year as that one will cost you two kidneys 😄

So let's make it 250W TGP with air and 300W with watercooling - will be a lot more than we have now. As for TIM many manufacturers already offer liquid metal or phase change pads, that helps, the next step would be vapor chambers and bigger ones at that. It can obviously be done as laptops from the past did better even without vpor chambers and technology for cooling has improved since then. The next Intel socket that should be introduiced towards the end of this year should be good for about 2 or 3 CPU generations and AM5 for 4 or 5 - you obviously want to introduce a socketed CPU at the right time and not at the end of a cycle and like motherboards there would have to be some support. Benefits for the end user would not just be to have a socketed CPU but to choose which CPU to use. Want a lesser CPU with a 4080 or 4090? Not possible at this point with most manufacturers, same for a big CPU with a lesser GPU. That could easily be addressed and would really help those of us who do not need the top CPU AND GPU as especially the big GPUs cost a lot and are somehow forced on the buyer as he has to buy them together with a high end GPU.

Question is how much more it would have to cost. Something like the MSI GT77 is not that far away and would only need a CPU socket and vapor chamber cooling for substantial improvements and a slightly larger chassis for an 18" screen. A halo product has positive effects in and of itself so there would be some trickle down effect having the greatest and the best. Die size works for us - a 4090 desktop die has an almost twice as big die size as a 1080 and that was cooled quite well even going up to 200W. With close to twice the die size and advancements in cooling it would most probably be easier to cool a 4090 die at 300W TGP than a 1080W running at 180W TGP due to reduced thermal density. Nobody is really expecting to run a 4090 in a laptop at 450W but even 300W would be feasible with proper cooling design although a more realistic goal would probably be 250 to 275W with the 4090 desktop die and a total of 400W between the GPU and CPU. Even at 250W I would not be surprised if the 4090 die would give about 50% better performance than the current 4080 die used in the laptop 4090. Or the simplest approach with still very good results would be to "only" go with a socketed CPU and allow a power limit of up to 250W for the current 4090 chip - even the 4080 chip can do a lot more if we give it more power as currently it is only getting a bit more than half of its designed TGP. So there are options and I do not think that they would be that expensive as a socketed CPU has ben offered by Clevo in a 15" chassis and that cannot have been too successful and MSI had those , too some years ago and neither were they extremely expensive nor sold in a way that even made the customer aware they existed. So there is some room for improvement with some marketing and costs can be exaggerated for the sake of not having to answer the real reason for these not being released which is that the industry does not believe in high performance any more but mostly in slim and light even in their top models. Has been done by Asus and Tongfang/Uniwill and I have not heard of too many issues with the second approach, Asus I do not have much experience with and it was also impractical due to size.. Also with the Uniwill approach it is just tacked on to a normal system - all it does add if you do not use it is a little height and weight, probably 2 or 3mm and about 100g. It is a simple and very effective solution for people who want to use it but it can also not be used/offered for people who aren't that extreme and a very powerful system could still be offered without it.

About the hideous surcharges for the top cards: For gaming on the road a 4070 should easily handle a QHD screen as it should offer slightly above 3080 Ti performance. QHD is about the amount of detail one can resolve without the nose glued to the screen, even at 18". That leaves 1300 Euro in the above case that can be used towards upgrading the desktop PC - not too bad 😄 Of course we can expect or already know that many of the higher end laptops will not even offer a 4070 option but only the 4080 or 4090 - so much for laptops not needing to be modular. For my X170KM-G I could choose the fastest CPU with only the smallest CPU and there were three of them to choose from - not any more I guess...

The tragic thing is that we have a lot of capability these days but no ambition - not from Nvidia, not from the manufacturers and not from the customers most of all. If you look at a few tech channel guys around youtube you will now find them mentioning 6 to 7 lbs laptops as super heavy and huge when in weight they are below former 15" DTRs and in volume they are probably smaller, too. Before it was important to have a powerful laptop now it is about holding it with one hand apparently, no idea what this is all about: So not much is coming out of the capability to build a really good 8 to 9 lbs DTR with a vapor chamber and possibly water cooling when people mainly buy 14" and therefore companies innovate in those market segments? I will give it to MSI that they are the only company that still has good performance and most if not all DTR features in a less gamey chassis with the GT77 but I would much have preferred a GT88 with a socketed CPU now that socketed GPUs are obviously off the table and most of all with a bigger than 250W combined power limit - looks like this is a new invisible barrier nobody dares to cross.

It should be great - except if you need 128GB memory. Where else are we supposed to get that if not in the biggest DTR of this generation? Looks like the MSI GT77 and its Creator variant will remain the only high performance options with 4 memory slots but they don't have an 18" screen...

Thanks, I think I know that user from German forums. I can only remember one user who I believe was from Hungary - triturbo. Probably not the same guy as I only remember that he had the HP Elitebook 8740.

Glad you found it - do you have the name of the thread and the subforum for me? We also have a T-shaped heatsink and a 2080 🙂