Already done. All XMG CORE and XMG NEO laptops with RTX 30 series allow the user to disable NVIDIA Optimus via a BIOS Switch. It requires a reboot.

// Tom

Damn, pls allow to bypass optimus on neo 15 and 17 with g-sync direct connection and you will provide the best gaming laptop out-there, they all failed and left 3080s sleeping!!!!

Hi capr,

I'm not quite sure what you are talking about. The XMG CORE 14 is advertised with an CPU TDP of 28 watts. You can take a look at the CPU-Z screenshot of the NBC review of our XMG CORE 14: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Schenker-XMG-Core-14-Clevo-NV40MB-laptop-review-baby-gamer.512225.0.html#toc-performance

// Thomas

---

Hi capr,

I know what you mean. With Intel and AMD we are still noting the official TDP's that are given to us by the chip vendor. Intel describes this as "28W" with some wiggle room upwards. AMD Renoir was described as 54W but can actually sustain a PPT of 72W in our Overboost-Profile.

We are hearing the calls of the community for more transparancy in CPU/APU power limits and we will consider how to put this into our spec sheet.

A problem here: Intel and AMD CPU sides allow much more flexibility to the ODM, so no matter which number we quote - it will only tell half the story. Our systems usually have 3 to 4 performance profiles - each of them with very different CPU PL1/PPT power levels. NVIDIA on the other hand does not allow any performance profiles that are below the TGP of the VBIOS. The TGP is hard-written in NVIDIA, so it's easier to advertise. And besides, GPU use cases (such as Gaming) usually load the GPU at ~99% so you will actually reach those limits. CPU's are going through much more varied use cases, where a Single Core load will be way below the total design power.

There is also a difference between temporary boost and sustained power. Core i7-1165G7 can boost higher than 28W for a short while, but will fall down to a sustained 28W after 2 minutes. Here is the full performance table for XMG CORE 14:

(https://download.schenker-tech.de/media/products/xmg-core-14_l20/core14_power-table.png)

If we would now just quote the 64W maximum power for our i7-1165G7, casual users would be shocked because they would think that the CPU is using this much power all the time. When in reality the system will drop down to 28W (because that's what it is designed for; TDP = Thermal Design Power) and with dGPU off can go down to 3~4W at the wall socket in Idle.

Long story - too long to press it in a simple number in a spec sheet. We will discuss internally how to handle this in the future, especially since customers are now prone to compare the differently defined TPD metrics of Intel vs. AMD which can lead to false conclusions if not properly addressed. We could probably just post the above performance table for every product, but we haven't found the right format for this yet.

Cheers,
Tom (colleague of Thomas)

It's all great but advertised XMG Core 14 CPU TDP was a lie.

The golden rule for price/performance was always to compare the wattage of desktop cards vs laptop versions. The 3000 series has like what? Roughly a 100w to 150w difference from desktop to mobile. If you want the best price performance look for the model with the least discrepancy in wattage compared to the desktop version. Else you pay for a full 3080 chip but only get half of what you paid for. The 10xx series was the best and the closest we could get to desktop performance. Kudos to Bob of all trades for pointing that out.

The problem is that the installation of a 135 W version doesn't guarantee that you actually have the cooling required to let it rip. So, even if they all stated the numbers and they miraculously managed to avoid making mistakes in their datasheets (extremely unlikely), we'd still have to test them to find out if it works as one would expect.

In the olden days before thermal throttling, failure to provide enough cooling would result in a shutdown (or even destruction if you go further down the history) which made it much easier to argue that the product is not fit for purpose. Nowadays, you have such a wide envelope of performance from throttling to boosting that it really muddies what is guaranteed.

The previous speaker might have an interesting name, but I totally agree with what he said. nVidia did a good job with the GTX 10xx series that performed (within certain limitations of course) quite similar in notebooks and desktops. Unfortunately they left his path with the RTX 20xx series where you wild get an "2080" that performed not much better than a "2070". At least you had the Max-Q back then (which - like I did) not to many producers/resellers (looking at you "Lenovo" for example) cared to mention. This is going to get worse with the RTX 30xx sereies. So please (resellers): advertise the wattage or (nVidia) name the cards not according to the number of ALUs but in relation to the desktop performance -> 3080mobile = 3060ti desktop.

Best regards

phila

P.S.: GOOD JOB XMG a.k.a. Schenker a.k.a. Bestware

These things must be enforced by law and regulations.

Unfortunately the European Commission is too busy with more important topics, but hopefully with enough customer backlash and pressure on OEMs, they will add exact Watt numbers on GPUs.

RTX 3000 series nomenclature is a diaster, ranging from 65W to 135W+ for supposedly the same card...