Quote from: blah on September 17, 2019, 08:08:10
You failed to mention the "Max-Q" cards, which are much more prevalent in the higher-end notebooks, but if you look at their value for money, they're borderline scammy.

You pay for the higher tier components, yet receive a GPU so gimped, it basically matches the lower tier equivalent. 2070 Max-Q is less than ~5% faster than 2060 Laptop (in most scenarios), but much more expensive. Same thing with 2080 Max-Q vs. 2070 Laptop.

Not really, you just need to ensure that the machine you're buying has the 90W variant. The 90W 2070 Max-Q can score up to 7500 on Time Spy Graphics, which is quite equivalent to some full 2070 laptop cards. Same for the 2080MQ.

Will Nvidia refund the money now? Its a major hit for the graphics card giant.

You failed to mention the "Max-Q" cards, which are much more prevalent in the higher-end notebooks, but if you look at their value for money, they're borderline scammy.

You pay for the higher tier components, yet receive a GPU so gimped, it basically matches the lower tier equivalent. 2070 Max-Q is less than ~5% faster than 2060 Laptop (in most scenarios), but much more expensive. Same thing with 2080 Max-Q vs. 2070 Laptop.

Thanks for raising this. I've noticed this previously, but it's nice to have it formalized in graphs this way.

Combined with the general surge in prices of the RTX series and their poor ray-tracing performance in anything below the desktop RTX 2080, they really do just look like poor value for money.

One thing would be appreciated - more in-review comparisons to older Pascal laptops. They tend to be ranked against their current-gen Turing alternatives, but it would be useful to see jut how much (or little) is being offered over discounted Pascal models.

My GL73 8SE RTX2060 show 6750 points in Time Spy test and 3700 in rtx test. No idea, what you talking about here.

This makes perfect sense, they are both '60' series GPUs and so should be similar in performance, you are paying extra for the RTX features.