Gaming laptop are seeing some drastic improvement in size and cooling.

[ResonanceAud]

While gaming laptops unfortunately only come in 15.6 inch screen sizes variant, their dimensions and cooling system are gradually improving.

I remember a couple years ago, gaming laptops only have one fan for cooling, but nowadays almost every gaming laptop comes with a dual-fan setup.

Their dimensions is also getting slimmer. The legion Y530 is under 15 inches in width and only one inch thick.

I am hopeful that as time passes, we can see massive improvements across the board in terms of slimness relative to cost.

There are gaming laptops out there that have consumer laptop level battery life in addition to being slim, but also are accompanied by a hefty price tag.

 

[heymrdj]

While laptops have gotten slimmer, the need for cooling has far outstripped cooling technology in those chassis. If you look at all the thin gaming systems, they all are notorious for throttling. Examples include the Alienware M15, the Razer Blade, the MSI GS65, and a few of the Asus Zenbooks. 12 years ago an Nvidia GeForce 8800M GTX (flagship card) in a laptop was rated at 65 watts. Now, both the Nvidia 1080 and 2080 mobile parts are 150W. More than double the power consumption. Now take another flagship from the same time period, an Intel Cored 2 Duo T7700 processor. It was rated at 35W. These combos were seen in the desktop replacement gaming laptops of the 2007/8 time period.

The most popular gaming mobile processor right now is the Intel I7-8750H, at 45W. The modern PL1/2 states for laptops (and the fact that Intel's TDP is inaccurate as can be for burst loads), means much higher wattage, and temperatures. The 8750H will burst PL2 80W in a Gigabyte Aero 15X before settling to 45W, a MSI GS65 will also start at 80W before doing the same. So now for up to 28 seconds (the allowed time for the PL2 state) you have the processor being allowed (if not power limited by system firmware, such as the RB2018 which limits power to 60W PL2 and 35W TDP for the same processor) to produce twice its TDP.

Now we have even more extreme stuff, the Intel I9 abominations. These combos get so hot with their GPU's, that in sustained workloads, we can actually see I7-8750H + 1070 or 1080 Max-Q GPU outperform the heavily throttling I9 + 1080 combinations. The I9-8950HK is a 45W TDP processor. However, most laptops built around them have power delivery up to 95W, and some (like the Auros) are supposedly pushing over 105W power delivery in burst. To these systems, 100C temperatures are the limit, and they will simply put a ratio of juice between the CPU and GPU to maximize clock speeds multiple time per second, and keep under the 100C CPU 85C GPU thresholds.

What I don't like about this current time is the fact that specifications mean nothing anymore. Every single model of laptop has to be analyzed down to the piece to know if it's going to be any good and deliver what's promised. You can't look at a thinner laptop without finding pages of throttling complaints. They are endless. These processors can burst for loading up an application or render a heavy web page, and then go back to sleep, keeping temps low. But everything goes down hill if you say run Handbrake for half an hour, or worse, try to run a game so that both GPU and CPU are fighting for power and heat expulsion. Even the larger gaming systems are no longer good enough, with just a handful of giant machines (like the MSI GT75 Titan) able to maintain gaming workloads without throttling anything. I just feel like people are getting sold a bag of goods. They see all this clockspeed, but they can never use it. I have a Sony Vaio Flip 13A I7-4500U model, and it even has overheating issues. If you run a game, then eventually it hits the power limit throttle and clocks down. Here comes the stuttering!

 

[ResonanceAud]

While laptops have gotten slimmer, the need for cooling has far outstripped cooling technology in those chassis. If you look at all the thin gaming systems, they all are notorious for throttling. Examples include the Alienware M15, the Razer Blade, the MSI GS65, and a few of the Asus Zenbooks. 12 years ago an Nvidia GeForce 8800M GTX (flagship card) in a laptop was rated at 65 watts. Now, both the Nvidia 1080 and 2080 mobile parts are 150W. More than double the power consumption. Now take another flagship from the same time period, an Intel Cored 2 Duo T7700 processor. It was rated at 35W. These combos were seen in the desktop replacement gaming laptops of the 2007/8 time period.

The most popular gaming mobile processor right now is the Intel I7-8750H, at 45W. The modern PL1/2 states for laptops (and the fact that Intel's TDP is inaccurate as can be for burst loads), means much higher wattage, and temperatures. The 8750H will burst PL2 80W in a Gigabyte Aero 15X before settling to 45W, a MSI GS65 will also start at 80W before doing the same. So now for up to 28 seconds (the allowed time for the PL2 state) you have the processor being allowed (if not power limited by system firmware, such as the RB2018 which limits power to 60W PL2 and 35W TDP for the same processor) to produce twice its TDP.

Now we have even more extreme stuff, the Intel I9 abominations. These combos get so hot with their GPU's, that in sustained workloads, we can actually see I7-8750H + 1070 or 1080 Max-Q GPU outperform the heavily throttling I9 + 1080 combinations. The I9-8950HK is a 45W TDP processor. However, most laptops built around them have power delivery up to 95W, and some (like the Auros) are supposedly pushing over 105W power delivery in burst. To these systems, 100C temperatures are the limit, and they will simply put a ratio of juice between the CPU and GPU to maximize clock speeds multiple time per second, and keep under the 100C CPU 85C GPU thresholds.

What I don't like about this current time is the fact that specifications mean nothing anymore. Every single model of laptop has to be analyzed down to the piece to know if it's going to be any good and deliver what's promised. You can't look at a thinner laptop without finding pages of throttling complaints. They are endless. These processors can burst for loading up an application or render a heavy web page, and then go back to sleep, keeping temps low. But everything goes down hill if you say run Handbrake for half an hour, or worse, try to run a game so that both GPU and CPU are fighting for power and heat expulsion. Even the larger gaming systems are no longer good enough, with just a handful of giant machines (like the MSI GT75 Titan) able to maintain gaming workloads without throttling anything. I just feel like people are getting sold a bag of goods. They see all this clockspeed, but they can never use it. I have a Sony Vaio Flip 13A I7-4500U model, and it even has overheating issues. If you run a game, then eventually it hits the power limit throttle and clocks down. Here comes the stuttering!

I would take a laptop that has a Max Q variant video card over the desktop equivalent just purely on the basis that a gaming laptop offer a lot more mobility than even a slim desktop. A slim gaming laptop offers so much more because they are versatile in the sense that they could be use for school and for business purposes. My room is very small so laptops are going to be ideal for me.

You indicated a glaring problem but I feel that it is mainly geared towards gamers that need to push their system to the limit. For someone like me, Max Q is good enough.

So in your opinion, would you say a slim gaming laptop even if it is throttled, offers more value for gamers that need a compact and mobile system?

 

[heymrdj]

I would take a laptop that has a Max Q variant video card over the desktop equivalent just purely on the basis that a gaming laptop offer a lot more mobility than even a slim desktop. A slim gaming laptop offers so much more because they are versatile in the sense that they could be use for school and for business purposes. My room is very small so laptops are going to be ideal for me.

You indicated a glaring problem but I feel that it is mainly geared towards gamers that need to push their system to the limit. For someone like me, Max Q is good enough.

It's not pointed at pushing the systems to the limit, it's aimed at all of them. I say that as a laptop guy, I have one desktop and 4 laptops. Most of my gaming has always been done mobile due to the nature of my previous job. 1080 Mobile is already a slowed down 1080 desktop part (not a 1080Ti which is a GP102 part, for which a mobile version doesn't exist, this is strictly OG 1080). It runs cooler, consumes less power, has lower frequency, and slower memory frequency. 1080M =/= 1080 Desktop. Same for the 1070 (and the new 2070/2080 stuff). Max-Q is a further slowed M (18% clocks), with more efficient voltage delivery components. The real difference in the Max-Q is all in the software, which has a 40db fan noise cap, and adjusts frequency down to ensure that is maintained. While slighly more efficient, you can essentially modify a 1080/70M part in software to limit frequencies down to Max-Q levels and meet the same limitations. Max-Q is just essentially a heat enforcer that prevents the hardware from pulling an Intel and peaking 2-3x over its base wattage.

Max-Q has not resolved the base issue, only made that issue appear in much smaller systems. We have thin and lights using 1070 Max-Q, but they can only deliver 1050 or 1060 performance. This is again a bit of a bait and switch. Customers are expecting a bar of performance, and based on the day or BIOS revision or driver update, the base clocks and boost clocks are suddenly no where near their namesake's abilities. I personally wish they had just went with the slower names instead of doing Max-Q design. Reviews prove that the 1080 Max-Q is around or slightly less than a 1070. A 1070 Max-Q falls between a 1050 and a 1060. So name them that, and call it a day. Let 1050 performance be called a 1030. Right now, with it controlled by software, yet again we're at the mercy of the OEM. An Alienware 15M 1070 Max-Q is not the same as the MSI GS65 Max-Q is not the same as the Gigabyte Aero 15X. That's a problem. Back in the day, you didn't have to guess if a 8800 was actually an 8800 or if it was a 8600 with an 8800 badge at the whim of the manufacturer. We actually have post purchase BIOS updates coming out of some brands that lower clocks even further in light of overheating issues. Your post-purchased product gets slowed down even further at the whim of the OEM.

 

[ResonanceAud]

It's not pointed at pushing the systems to the limit, it's aimed at all of them. I say that as a laptop guy, I have one desktop and 4 laptops. Most of my gaming has always been done mobile due to the nature of my previous job. 1080 Mobile is already a slowed down 1080 desktop part (not a 1080Ti which is a GP102 part, for which a mobile version doesn't exist, this is strictly OG 1080). It runs cooler, consumes less power, has lower frequency, and slower memory frequency. 1080M =/= 1080 Desktop. Same for the 1070 (and the new 2070/2080 stuff). Max-Q is a further slowed M (18% clocks), with more efficient voltage delivery components. The real difference in the Max-Q is all in the software, which has a 40db fan noise cap, and adjusts frequency down to ensure that is maintained. While slighly more efficient, you can essentially modify a 1080/70M part in software to limit frequencies down to Max-Q levels and meet the same limitations. Max-Q is just essentially a heat enforcer that prevents the hardware from pulling an Intel and peaking 2-3x over its base wattage.

Max-Q has not resolved the base issue, only made that issue appear in much smaller systems. We have thin and lights using 1070 Max-Q, but they can only deliver 1050 or 1060 performance. This is again a bit of a bait and switch. Customers are expecting a bar of performance, and based on the day or BIOS revision or driver update, the base clocks and boost clocks are suddenly no where near their namesake's abilities. I personally wish they had just went with the slower names instead of doing Max-Q design. Reviews prove that the 1080 Max-Q is around or slightly less than a 1070. A 1070 Max-Q falls between a 1050 and a 1060. So name them that, and call it a day. Let 1050 performance be called a 1030. Right now, with it controlled by software, yet again we're at the mercy of the OEM. An Alienware 15M 1070 Max-Q is not the same as the MSI GS65 Max-Q is not the same as the Gigabyte Aero 15X. That's a problem. Back in the day, you didn't have to guess if a 8800 was actually an 8800 or if it was a 8600 with an 8800 badge at the whim of the manufacturer. We actually have post purchase BIOS updates coming out of some brands that lower clocks even further in light of overheating issues. Your post-purchased product gets slowed down even further at the whim of the OEM.

Yeah, I agree with this. I think Laptop should have their own-branded GPU like back in the days where there is a M at the end of the GPU name. I think your point is that Max-Q designs can be confusing and it mislead consumers since they are heavily throttled and don't have the perfomance capabilities as desktop equivalents.

 

[heymrdj]

I would take a laptop that has a Max Q variant video card over the desktop equivalent just purely on the basis that a gaming laptop offer a lot more mobility than even a slim desktop. A slim gaming laptop offers so much more because they are versatile in the sense that they could be use for school and for business purposes. My room is very small so laptops are going to be ideal for me.

You indicated a glaring problem but I feel that it is mainly geared towards gamers that need to push their system to the limit. For someone like me, Max Q is good enough.

So in your opinion, would you say a slim gaming laptop even if it is throttled, offers more value for gamers that need a compact and mobile system?

Yes, I still think Max-Q slim systems offer a lot of value for the money. Compared to my 12 years ago where power states were few, and components were essentially 0% power or 100% power, today laptops have very sophisticated power management systems. They can manage a constant change of ratio of power between CPU and GPU, making the most out of the power and thermal envelopes. If you're playing a CPU weak game, the system can dedicate power and cooling to the Max-Q GPU, making it function as close to its namesake as it can. Otherwise, when use is low, the GPU can slow down and disengage, yielding a much cooler system. It is really nice compared to what it used to be a decade ago.

I myself will probably get a Max-Q laptop. It's nice when on the road to get some decent GPU performance when I want it, but still have a super slip sub 5lb system. For the real performance, I'll most likely have a thunderbolt eGPU to connect it to my screens. So for me, Max-Q will work. All my complaints aren't really again Max-Q itself, as much as the industry taking advantage of consumers via unscrupulous naming and design practices.

 

[Franz316]

There are a few things you can do like undervolting and repasting which helps a bit. Unfortunately physics always wins.

I have a Dell XPS 15 9570 with the 8750H in it and it will sit around 3.5ghz at 100% on all cores after those changes. It's best score in Cinebench R15 is 1251 which is pretty damn good for a laptop!