Desktop vs. Laptop

For a long time I have been wondering about the difference between Desktop grfx cards and Laptop grfx card. For example is the Nvidia 512MB 8800GTX in a desktop the same as the Nvidia 512MB 8800GTX in a laptop?

 

8800 GTX - 128 stream processors, 575/1350/900, 384 bit interface.
8800m GTX - 96 stream processors, 500/1250/800, 256 bit interface.

 

So all desktop cards - 8800gts, 8800 Ultra, are better than their latop counterparts?

Is 1 desktop 768MB 8800 Ultra, better than 2 8800m GTXs?

 

Yes, mainly because SLI isn't a perfect technology, desktop gfx cards will always be better than their mobile counterpart.

 

I think that Desktops will always be better not because of SLI, but the greater cooling and space that a desktop has.

 

Desktop cards will always be better than laptop cards. Like tmacfan said, SLI has nothing to do with it. Since desktops are bigger, they have more space, so the graphics card is capable of being bigger so it can do more things. It creams a laptop card. It's not even a fair comparison. That's why saying a laptop card is the same is going to be comparable to a desktop (e.g. the nVidia 7600 was better than the X1600 for desktops, so people thought it would be the same for laptops).

So, if you're going to game, get a desktop.

 

Well Said, i agree

+1rep ---EDIT: sry, have to spread it around more

 

yeah just to lament the fact, desktop graphics are superior. Cooling and Power are probably the biggest factors (size as well, but that ties into cooling as well as physical PCB). With some high end desktop cards pulling more than 200 watts by themselves stock (let alone over clocked) they draw serious power and require heatsinks larger than laptops! (ok that was an exaggeration, but they're big).

 

desktop GPUs will always be better i guess is the main point of this. unless they somehow manage to make external cards that can give the same performance as the desktop ones. but even then the price will probably be ridiculous.

 

I only mentioned the SLI because 2401PT used it in his example...

 

"graphics cards on laptops use less power and hence they are 15-20% less powerful than desltop ones"..i have read this somehere i dunno where...

 

So, is one 768MB Desktop Card, better than 2 512MB 8800m GTX Laptop Cards

 

who knows and who cares. it's a huge price difference buy something that'll fit your budget and needs. the actual difference will be minimal and either will suffice until next gen hits the wave.

 

Assuming the 768 Desktop card is the first generation of 8800 cards, then I would say 2 512 8800M GTX cards would beat the desktop card because the 8800M uses the g92 core with the 65nm fabrication process, therefore being more efficient plus there being two of them. However, it wouldn't beat the single desktop card by much, and there are also other things to consider (i.e. Desktop vs Lap CPU, Memory, etc.)

 

if SLI was perfect then theoritcally yes, but SLI is at the mos about 60% effecient if your lucky.

 

at the very most 60%, more like 0%-25%

----

as far as desktop gpu's being better, it is 100% due to the space constraints. the laptop gpu has to fit into a very small space compared to a desktop gpu. this means that not only must the gpu be physically smaller, but also that its heatsink must be smaller, which in turn means it must be more power efficient, performance per watt becomes an issue because you want good performance but you have a wattage and heat budget first and foremost.

desktops also have a separate advantage compared to laptops, also related to their size. They can swap components easily. This includes the gpu. you could conceivably have picked up a 7600 gt for cheap, and have it last you until about now or the near future, and pick up a 9600 gt for cheap. You can make your dollar go a lot further with the desktop.

 

No, the 60% figure is really pretty accurate. SLi has come a long way in the past six months (probably at least a little motivated by the strides Crossfire has made). Two 8800M GTXs in SLI will generally beat a desktop 8800GTX.

What's interesting to point out, though, is that the G92 core is seldom really shader limited, as evidenced by:

1. The 8800GTS 512 (128 shaders) is generally only a few FPS faster than an 8800GT (112 shaders).

2. The 9600GT (64 shaders) is generally only a few FPS slower than an 8800GT, despite having a little over half the shader power.

I think it's reasonable to assert that the only thing really limiting the 8800M parts is their clock speed.