The nomenclature from Nvidia has become extremely confusing these days with Super, Super Maxq, Max-p, Max q, ti, non-ti.. all these variants (especially one's starting from 2060 mobile) have overlapping performance and wattage which makes it extremely difficult to know the type of GPU and its true potential in gaming. OEMs anyways don't reveal these things to make max. money out of cutomers.

Laptop gaming may be heading to extinction if it continues this direction. It's rapidly increasing in expense, and decreasing in performance. If this isn't rectified soon,the bottom will fall out completely....

So the point is dont pay 1000 extra to get the 2080 super maxq, dont pay 400 extra for 2070 super maxq either, get 2070 or 2060, if you look at the game fps numbers the difference is not that much, many games its inside 10 fps difference for a lot more money, and if you use not for game you dont need 2080 super for sure....

Sad in that it appears that Nvidia can't get Ampere to stifle it's power needs enough to make a mobile version yet.  So, just like Intel, they "extend" their current series' lifespan with "super" or "ultra".  Nvidia makes 30% of their revenue from mobile so if they can't fix this fast - well you get the picture.

It used to be that you knew pretty well how a given notebook GPU would perform based on its model number. That was nice. Some of the devices produced by OEMs would overheat and throttle, but that was a known quantity and you could at least take some measures to ameliorate it.

With the advent of turbo, performance began to vary more significantly based on the cooling solution the OEM used, so you'd get different performance from the same product. That wasn't great, and quite confusing for the consumer.

Then Nvidia introduced "Max-Q". The theory was good - performance more specifically optimised for a given form factor - but in practice it very quickly became a way to charge more money for lower performance, especially when they started selling parts that were effectively Max-Q but not labelled as such with the 15W MX150. At least that was limited to the low-end.

We've now reached the point where Nvidia are selling / allowing OEMs to sell *materially different high-end products under the same name*, whilst releasing equivalently-performing products *with different names* into one bloated product stack. Performance now depends on the base spec, the TDP implementation, *and the cooling solution used by the OEM*.

All of this while the average selling price of a high-end gaming laptop continues to rise. It's disgusting and I entirely blame Nvidia's monopolistic practices. Having gamed almost exclusively on laptops over the past 10 years, I'm probably going to have to give up and switch to a desktop, unless AMD pull a rabbit out of a hat with RDNA 2 and OEMs finally decide to put it into non-gimped laptops.