RTX 4000 mobile series officially released.

[MyPC8MyBrain]

15 minutes ago, ryan said:

you guys are all dishing the 4090

its the greedy sales tactics and shady marketing behind it, when exactly did it happen that a gpu is x4 more expensive then a cpu, today it really doesn't matter what we think its what the young kids with zero understanding or technical knowledge that they are aiming after and marketing this for, those in the know will be fine navigating these technical waters those who don't are their bread and butter,

[ryan]

yeah?

 

What choice do you have? build your own gpu? I dont see how this is only for the ignorant. honestly they can charge whatever they want

[MyPC8MyBrain]

9 minutes ago, ryan said:

build your own gpu?

you cant, and you cant also build your own cpu but you don't see intel charging an arm and a leg for it over the years,

 

9 minutes ago, ryan said:

What choice do you have?

not to buy into the hype,
it is so simple for these companies to raise hype with their capital on demand in our social media world,

if they know they need to deliver value instead of hype we wouldn't see these greedy eye gauging prices,

 

9 minutes ago, ryan said:

I dont see how this is only for the ignorant.

i didn't infer or call anyone ignorant! there is a huge difference being an ignorant to not being educated or knowledgeable in certain areas or fields, i am not an accountant but it doesn't imply i am ignorant or don't know how to do math,

[1610ftw]

Just now, ryan said:

yeah?

 

What choice do you have? build your own gpu? I dont see how this is only for the ignorant. honestly they can charge whatever they want

 

They cannot charge that much if enough people do not buy.

 

Do yourself a favor and check what resolution you really want to game in. If it is QHD you might be happy with an older laptop with a 3070Ti or better or a new one with the 4070. Personally I would probably not game on a laptop in 4K - not good enough for what you have to pay nor do I think that my eyes appreciate the added resolution on a laptop screen.

 

So if you still want to game in 4K on a laptop then you are entering a world of (financial + performance) pain - you have been warned 😄

[ryan]

ahhh 

 

Man, they run the show not us. we are the consumers. its like trying to stop the rise in food prices. food prices have doubled here in canada why should gpus be an exception...

 

ill add its not just inflation we are going to be in a big recession. after covid

[MyPC8MyBrain]

6 minutes ago, ryan said:

why should gpus be an exception

food prices will eventually go back down,
gpu prices never go down its a one way nvidia street, they are just testing how much they can get away with, 

[ryan]

1 minute ago, MyPC8MyBrain said:

they are just testing

source? joking but yeah I hear ya.

 

I don't have a problem paying more for more performance. I don't see why anyone else would be different. 10 bucks for a litre 20 bucks for 2 litres this is not new sales tactics

[MyPC8MyBrain]

6 hours ago, 1610ftw said:

A bit above in this thread there was a quote for a 23K+ Time Spy for the 4090 in the MSI GT77 - that is a very big upgrade in non-DLSS performance

i saw the benchmark result for the 4090 with the new gen cpu architecture its pretty impressive, but I'm still not convinced for the simple reason it is not showing us the real picture or actual gains it is showing an entire generation as a whole performing better, we don't know if its the cpu or the gpu that's giving these high scores and we don't know if these benchmarks are DLSS3 aware of these artificial frames being injected, that is not real performance but trickery performance, NVidia didn't put the 4090 with last gen cpu that's already been benched with 3090 and show us the delta of just the 4090 with and without DLSS3, why is that if they are so proud their achievements?

[VEGGIM]

1 hour ago, 1610ftw said:

 

You only have to look at the Clevo X170 for a traditional laptop design that was rated at 325W of cooling, the P870 went even well beyond 400W. There really is no reason for not dissipating more heat except for the manufacturer and Nvidia not wanting to go there.

 

When MSI can do 250W with traditional heat pipes in a super slim chassis (GT77) they could certainly make that design a bit bigger and thicker with an 18" screen and go to 300W+ with the added thickness and real estate. Weight would probably be somewhere between 8 1/4 to 9 1/2 lbs but I bet that enough people of the male variety who just carry their laptop from one place to another would not mind, especially when they also get a socketed Intel CPU and stacked NVME SSDs like HP does it. You only need on average about 5mm more height for all of that to happen.

 

OK I see. But one question. Why did you specify the "male variety" in people?

[1610ftw]

1 hour ago, VEGGIM said:

OK I see. But one question. Why did you specify the "male variety" in people?

 

I have no clue, should have just written male or men.  Point is that average men should have no trouble carrying and handling a laptop that is a bit heavier and bigger than what we get these days. That is if they are mainly looking for a DTR.

 

I get that there are exceptions and people who cannot lift that much but there are plenty of lighter and thinner laptops for them already.

[1610ftw]

1 hour ago, MyPC8MyBrain said:

i saw the benchmark result for the 4090 with the new gen cpu architecture its pretty impressive, but I'm still not convinced for the simple reason it is not showing us the real picture or actual gains it is showing an entire generation as a whole performing better, we don't know if its the cpu or the gpu that's giving these high scores and we don't know if these benchmarks are DLSS3 aware of these artificial frames being injected, that is not real performance but trickery performance, NVidia didn't put the 4090 with last gen cpu that's already been benched with 3090 and show us the delta of just the 4090 with and without DLSS3, why is that if they are so proud their achievements?

 

Supposedly this is the GPU score, not the combined one. Up until the last generation improvements in Time Spy were a pretty good predictor for improvements in QHD gaming at least.

[VEGGIM]

10 minutes ago, 1610ftw said:

 

I have no clue, should have just written male or men.  Point is that average men should have no trouble carrying and handling a laptop that is a bit heavier and bigger than what we get these days. That is if they are mainly looking for a DTR.

 

I get that there are exceptions and people who cannot lift that much but there are plenty of lighter and thinner laptops for them already.

Also should've mentioned that the main issue is pcb size.  The studiobook one for example had a big mobo because  of size for traces. Like how much is a bit bigger and thicker. Since with 16:10 coming along that is starting to change again. Another factor was the deisgn the x170/gt77/76 arent only wider, but their longer. Like 13 inches long.

 

There's also antoher factor. WIth HX being a glorified desktop cpu in bga form. There would really need to be a very specific case where the board would go for a desktop cpu rather than an HX one.

[MyPC8MyBrain]

22 minutes ago, VEGGIM said:

HX being a glorified desktop cpu in bga form

i am using HX cpu in mobile chassis, i run a test against my desktop 9900KS and was floored with results,
completion was 25 min on the 9900KS, same test on the 12950HX in the 7770 completed in 15 min,

granted there are 3 cpu generation between but its a powerful desktop cpu with better cooling etc.,

[Etern4l]

35 minutes ago, MyPC8MyBrain said:

i am using HX cpu in mobile chassis, i run a test against my desktop 9900KS and was floored with results,
completion was 25 min on the 9900KS, same test on the 12950HX in the 7770 completed in 15 min,

granted there are 3 cpu generation between but its a powerful desktop cpu with better cooling etc.,

 

9900KS in ancient. Consider that 13900K is 30% faster than 12900KS. I don't even know what the percent increase over the 9900KS is. 100%+ for sure. Edit: ca. +200% or 3x as fast... Nuts.

[MyPC8MyBrain]

9900ks paired with 2080Ti is not ancient its just not the newest, it is still a powerful desktop that can run for hours at 5Ghz with no issues and it is way behind a mobile cpu in my test, my desktop system can still be upgraded today, at the time it was first built i didn't spare a dime maybe 3 years ago it was packed with top of the line components of the time,

 

[SapphiraTriX298]

I don't think the prices are all that different as they are made out to be. 

 

In Ivy bridge days, a top end laptop was around $2700

That is around $3500 today

 

In 2020 a Legion 7 top end was $3200 or so, that is around $3700 today.

 

These numbers are based on inflation only, not the increased demand of the last couple years, which would invariably drive prices higher as we see. 

 

It is still expensive, certainly, but not far outside the historical norm. Nor do I expect that will ever change. 

 

 

Couple other things for S&G

 

In 1996 console games cost around $50 each. That is almost $95 today.

 

A low/midrange EVGA (rip) 1080ti cost around $1100, that is almost $1400 today. You can find 4080's above and below that price today.

 

So for those that want a laptop because they need the mobility and power, and can afford the cost, in intrinsic value, they haven't changed though you are getting more features for the money and a large uptick in performance over previous laptop GPU. 

 

Also full power SFF are not as small as they used to be, so to take advantage of desktop performance demands also an even larger PC than previous generations. Not so important in a house but much more important to those who travel. Plus screen of appropriate quality and resolution to make gaming worth while.

 

At this stage also, graphical demand is not increasing at the same rate as GPU performance (4k has yet to become the 1080p of yester year) 

So while GPU performance is expected to make a large jump next year also, 4k performance on this generation of top end laptop chips is pretty good, still exceeding top end desktop numbers from last year in at least a few applications. In terms of real world usability, I would not be surprised if today's 4090 laptops will be capable at high resolutions for a couple years if portability is what you need. Just pay to play

[Etern4l]

1 hour ago, MyPC8MyBrain said:

9900ks paired with 2080Ti is not ancient its just not the newest, it is still a powerful desktop that can run for hours at 5Ghz with no issues and it is way behind a mobile cpu in my test, my desktop system can still be upgraded today, at the time it was first built i didn't spare a dime maybe 3 years ago it was packed with top of the line components of the time,

 

 

Ancient on the warped time scale of recent tech progress. Of course, it can still hold its own in workloads not exceeding the number of threads it supports. It's just particularly deprecated in the heavy mulitthreading department. 

[ryan]

1 hour ago, Spring1898 said:

I don't think the prices are all that different as they are made out to be. 

 

In Ivy bridge days, a top end laptop was around $2700

That is around $3500 today

 

In 2020 a Legion 7 top end was $3200 or so, that is around $3700 today.

 

These numbers are based on inflation only, not the increased demand of the last couple years, which would invariably drive prices higher as we see. 

 

It is still expensive, certainly, but not far outside the historical norm. Nor do I expect that will ever change. 

 

 

Couple other things for S&G

 

In 1996 console games cost around $50 each. That is almost $95 today.

 

A low/midrange EVGA (rip) 1080ti cost around $1100, that is almost $1400 today. You can find 4080's above and below that price today.

 

So for those that want a laptop because they need the mobility and power, and can afford the cost, in intrinsic value, they haven't changed though you are getting more features for the money and a large uptick in performance over previous laptop GPU. 

 

Also full power SFF are not as small as they used to be, so to take advantage of desktop performance demands also an even larger PC than previous generations. Not so important in a house but much more important to those who travel. Plus screen of appropriate quality and resolution to make gaming worth while.

 

At this stage also, graphical demand is not increasing at the same rate as GPU performance (4k has yet to become the 1080p of yester year) 

So while GPU performance is expected to make a large jump next year also, 4k performance on this generation of top end laptop chips is pretty good, still exceeding top end desktop numbers from last year in at least a few applications. In terms of real world usability, I would not be surprised if today's 4090 laptops will be capable at high resolutions for a couple years if portability is what you need. Just pay to play

@Spring1898 how dare you...point out this.

 

lol

 

yeah man are you guys feeling alright, its always been an expensive game.  want the greatest pay the piper. I dont get why every gen people moan about prices.yes its expensive it has always been the case

[1610ftw]

20 minutes ago, ryan said:

@Spring1898 how dare you...point out this.

 

lol

 

yeah man are you guys feeling alright, its always been an expensive game.  want the greatest pay the piper. I dont get why every gen people moan about prices.yes its expensive it has always been the case

 

Top of the line laptops indeed have not gone up in price much. But in the days of the GTX 1080 and RTX 2080 they were also quite close in performance when compared to desktop solutions.

 

Now they are still priced similarly but the GPU performance just isn't competitive any more.

[KING19]

16 hours ago, 1610ftw said:

 

It gives an idea what could be accomplished if notebooks really had a proper 4090 chip and 24GB memory. Performance would probably be about on par with a 4080 desktop card and then give or take a few percentage points depending on TGP.

 

 

 

Yeah agreed plus using GDDR6X and having a 384bit Bus but thats not going happen. Laptops GPUs will be stuck at 175W unless something changes.

 

9 hours ago, Shark00n said:

 

 

4080 is barely faster than 3080Ti, which was already barely faster than 3080.

 

How is frame generation synonimous with 'great performance'? They're fake frames. I'd say that tech is nice when you have less than 60FPS, still wouldn't use it, and pretty pointless over 60FPS.

 

A 15FPS to 35FPS increase in games isnt a small increase whatsoever especially on 1440p. Also the tests was done without DLSS/FG on as well. According to the data in Jarrod's video the RTX 4080 has a 28% average above the RTX 3080ti. That still a major performance jump.

[VEGGIM]

1 hour ago, KING19 said:

 

Yeah agreed plus using GDDR6X and having a 384bit Bus but thats not going happen. Laptops GPUs will be stuck at 175W unless something changes.

 

 

A 15FPS to 35FPS increase in games isnt a small increase whatsoever especially on 1440p. Also the tests was done without DLSS/FG on as well. According to the data in Jarrod's video the RTX 4080 has a 28% average above the RTX 3080ti. That still a major performance jump.

Fromer is cuz gddr6x is too innefienct and hungry for power. latter is cuz of size. mobo has to be large for that bit bus. the studiobook one iirc is the only laptop i've seen with a 102 die but it comes with consequenses. Laptops do not have a standard at all. the only standard that there is are where components are placed. battery at the front, heatsink at the rear below the back side of the keyboard. and ram/storage in the middle. the x170 is kinda an exception. as the heatsink components extend from the middle to the top.

The other thing is that a chip would have to be one where it peforms more efficiently under high power but struggles weakly under low power. The equivalent to that car wise is a rotary. Low rpm, it sucks, it needs high rpms.

[Sniffy]

4 hours ago, Spring1898 said:

I don't think the prices are all that different as they are made out to be. 

 

In Ivy bridge days, a top end laptop was around $2700

That is around $3500 today

 

In 2020 a Legion 7 top end was $3200 or so, that is around $3700 today.

 

These numbers are based on inflation only, not the increased demand of the last couple years, which would invariably drive prices higher as we see. 

 

It is still expensive, certainly, but not far outside the historical norm. Nor do I expect that will ever change. 

 

 

Couple other things for S&G

 

In 1996 console games cost around $50 each. That is almost $95 today.

 

A low/midrange EVGA (rip) 1080ti cost around $1100, that is almost $1400 today. You can find 4080's above and below that price today.

 

So for those that want a laptop because they need the mobility and power, and can afford the cost, in intrinsic value, they haven't changed though you are getting more features for the money and a large uptick in performance over previous laptop GPU. 

 

Also full power SFF are not as small as they used to be, so to take advantage of desktop performance demands also an even larger PC than previous generations. Not so important in a house but much more important to those who travel. Plus screen of appropriate quality and resolution to make gaming worth while.

 

At this stage also, graphical demand is not increasing at the same rate as GPU performance (4k has yet to become the 1080p of yester year) 

So while GPU performance is expected to make a large jump next year also, 4k performance on this generation of top end laptop chips is pretty good, still exceeding top end desktop numbers from last year in at least a few applications. In terms of real world usability, I would not be surprised if today's 4090 laptops will be capable at high resolutions for a couple years if portability is what you need. Just pay to play

 

To be fair to your point I was using the GT77 pricing, which is way above most other models both in this gen and last gen. It makes the perf/$ metric look worse than for other laptops like the Scar which seems to be by far the most properly priced.

 

GT77 (13980HX, 4090) - $9599AUD

Scar 18 (13980HX, 4090) - $5999AUD

 

Not sure what MSI are smoking. They are charging $6999AUD for their 4080 GE78HX as well. Maybe their pricing in the US is more reasonable.

[ssj92]

\\Random TS result I found of the m16 with 4080. 

39% faster than the 3080Ti laptop score someone posted of their laptop on page 3. 

 

4090 is an additional 25-30% faster. 

 

 

[SapphiraTriX298]

3 hours ago, 1610ftw said:

 

Top of the line laptops indeed have not gone up in price much. But in the days of the GTX 1080 and RTX 2080 they were also quite close in performance when compared to desktop solutions.

 

Now they are still priced similarly but the GPU performance just isn't competitive any more.

 

That is true, but the 1080 - 2080 (even the 980 to a degree) were exceptions to the rule. Where the increase in efficiency (but limited max TDP due to architecture) allowed the two to be much closer than they ever could have been prior.

 

Generational leaps and bounds in architectural process = greater efficiency (today), meaning that we can gain some performance at efficient levels, but then dump loads of power (actually possibly only as a way to stay competitive with TSMC using Samsung 8nm with significant diminishing returns) to boost performance even higher, thus separating the mobile GPU and Desktop markets once again.

 

Recall that the TDP of the 2080ti was 250w, while the 3080Ti grew to 350w. While still a nominal number, the typical real world 30%~ increase in generational performance came at the cost of raw energy more than the design improvements from Nvidia.

 

This set the standard at the same time for previously 'outrageous' levels of wattage being tolerated in the desktop community that are not feasible in the laptop side.

Or put another way, hamstring the desktop cards back to 250w, and the difference between desktop and mobile comes much closer again.

 

I don't yet see a direct connection, but I suspect something about this may be why Nvidia is limiting the TDP of the Mobile cards, considering that manufacturers have traditionally tolerated 200w+ from the GPU's alone. I also don't see this changing until AMD is able to match the performance of nvidia at notably lower TDP, or put another way, when simply dumping more watts into a card no longer matters.

 

This trend however, is likely limited. TSMC's year over year breakthroughs in die shrinking are probably not sustainable long term (at least not at the current manufacturing timelines/materials/PRICES). So the giant leaps/improvements we see now may be temporary to a few generations, I suspect. You can only shrink so small with current materials before quantum mechanics starts getting in the way.

Or put another way, most of the performance we have been seeing, I believe, is due mainly to TSMC's manufacturing, and less to do with Nvidia's design improvements.

Perhaps when AMD matches those improvements, it will no longer be a power/TDP game, but true design/driver gains.

[MyPC8MyBrain]

2 hours ago, ssj92 said:

39% faster than the 3080Ti laptop score someone posted of their laptop on page 3

 

check your math, not even close to 39% slower!

at best gpu results shown are 25% slower then a 3080Ti @150w, while my previous gen cpu is 25% faster! note that the same 3080Ti @175w highest scores is 14832 which shrinks these perceived percentages further to only 15% overall performance gap with the newer higher cpu core count and a 4080 mobile (i tested and still on stock dell paste mind you and no fan control beside windows power plan, I can easily nudge the top score for my hardware spec way further, I just choose not too I'm good where i am atm),

you should ask yourself is it really all we get for our money from a newer gen cpu and newer gen gpu? only 15% together? also ask... why would anyone want save few bucks in few weeks buying previous gen hardware performing only 15% slower at dirt cheap prices?

On 1/26/2023 at 11:26 AM, MyPC8MyBrain said:

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/34145892