75 W vs. 130 W TGP GeForce RTX 3060 laptop: The performance gap isn't as wide as many were expecting

[Redaktion]

The performance gap is definitely there, but it's nothing that we haven't seen before from previous generation Max-Q and non Max-Q designs. Gamers will see about 15 to 20 percent slower performance if jumping from a 130 W GeForce RTX 3060 GPU to the 75 W version.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/75-W-vs-130-W-TGP-GeForce-RTX-3060-laptop-The-performance-gap-isn-t-as-wide-as-many-were-expecting.527244.0.html

[Andy M]

Interesting. I'd like to know the performance gap for the rtx 3070 and the 3080 as well. It would help me pick a new laptop.

[LL]

15-20% is big. If it is scalar then it is roughly 1/6 to 1/5 loss.

[Keshav]

Nice observation NB team! Is the scenario similar for 3070 as well ?

[hubert]

It's not too bad but the deceptive naming is that's kind of the point, ok call it 3060m-75, 3060m-130 etc no problems. But just calling them the same name is slimy. Why nvidia doesn't just have 3 basic models, 3060m, 3070m, 3080m is a big problem, it's just marketing babble to charge more for less of people who aren't into the details of what they are buying in a gaming laptop, they do exist. IMO 10%+ difference is too much for the same name on a card. Don't get me started on the difference from desktop card and laptop card with the same name either, and this gen the difference goes up with higher models, 3060 25%+, 3070 40%, 3080 55% timespy graphics scale.

[Spunjji]

It's not too bad but the deceptive naming is that's kind of the point, ok call it 3060m-75, 3060m-130 etc no problems. But just calling them the same name is slimy.

100% agreed with your whole post. Max-Q was just an excuse to sell a larger, more expensive chip to be shoved into a smaller chassis so that OEMs can overcharge customers who think they're getting high-end performance in a small chassis. Now they've even eliminated that distinction, so the money-grab is even more transparent.