How much faster is desktop vs laptop gaming machine

I can guarantee that my laptop + Vostro 1500 cost less together than your NP8660 did.

 

Yeah, but don't forget the bit about actually gaming on the move. A 9300M can't even handle WoW properly. Not without turning the settings allll the way down.

I'm just not quite enough into games that don't require so much power. Like Plants Vs. Zombies. Or World Of Goo.

Vostro 1500's a laptop. Do you mean desktop?

And if you did... maybe they did cost less together, but don't forget about the extra benefits of having a high-quality laptop.

 

I practically live outside my house, I run a shop. A gaming laptop makes sense because I'm always plugged in, I've got a table, and I've got the time to burn to play some games.

 

Well.. I don't have WoW... but GTA 4, FarCry2, Crysis (yes!), all the games in Orange box and The Witcher, runs smoothly at minimum/medium/medium-high settings (depending on the game). GTA4 has the most problems.
I said its equivalent to a Geforce 9300M overclocked.
And, a Geforce 9300M is a broken Geforce 9600M. Basically, it's a Geforce 9600M where several of it's sharder cores are broken and laser cut, and then to fit better the low-mid range market downclocked. The Quadro NVS 160M increased its speed.
Now, you can see, and well it's the truth, using Nvidia own system tool to overclock the GPU, you can overclock.. or more like setting the default speed more or less, of the 9600M, which end up given you a similar to a Geforce 9500M GPU. , And now, you can play games in even higher settings. Yes, in THIS LAPTOP, it handles the increase perfectly. Of course, I don't say people to do this. Read the warning about overclocking on my signature within my overclocking guide.

[edit]
Just to clarify something. I am NOT using my laptop as a gaming system. I am just being informative of what you can do. Not saying if it's wise or not.. just laying the info there. I use my desktop as my real gaming rig, my laptop is used on those rare moments where I want to play a game on the go. The main reason why I selected this laptop with the Nvidia solution was not to game, but to ensure the best system experience, and not touch the crap/joke called """"Intel GPU's"""" with it's list of issues, and downsides, just to save few minutes of battery life[/edit]

 

Yeah, I meant Desktop + Vostro 1500.
Now I don't have a screen that makes my eyes go cross eyed, I don't have a keyboard that gives me cramps, and I get to play games relatively well (but not as good as your laptop does) on the go. And for the 95% of the time I game at home, my desktop kicks the crap out of your laptop.

 

Yea, about the comment "eye go cross eye", by MrFong.
What in the world are you talking about?
Laptop LCD are inferior than desktop LCD's of similar price range. Laptop LCD's are TN panels, for the same great price, you get 8-bit panel (and not 6-bit) ISP LCD panels with proper color accuracy, view angle, non-glossy, great sharpness, in 22inch form.

 

statistics or it didn't happen. there have been numerous studies on high powered gaming machines showing they annually cost much more than notebooks.

i'll link them when i get back, but it's lunch time and i'm out of the office now.

 

Oh yes! I am sorry, a full gaming desktop with a 24inch LCD display uses more power then your cellphone/netbook that you consider a computer.. as well it has a processors, and calculates.
SOOOORRRRYYYY!

 

Well to be fair, yes a full featured gaming desktop (high end Core 2 Duo/Quad, Geforce 9800 GTX/Radeon 4850 or higher, 4 GB DDR2, etc) will end up needing a 450 watt power supply or more depending on the total components. However, the cost to build the computer + electricity really isn't too much more over two or three years than the cost of a laptop in general, since a comparable laptop in terms of graphics power usually costs another 300 bucks or so to a desktop of similar graphics capability, as well as processing if you have a full speed quad-core.

I've looked at power usage articles, and a 450 watt drawing desktop from 2 or 3 years ago would cost about $150 dollars a year to run electricity wise assuming a balance of full load and idling. To compare my Asus laptop has a max draw of 125 watts, however it never would use that full amount considering their were and are other Asus models with the same chasis and power adapter with quad-cores and higher end graphics. I assume it uses no more than 110 watts (I'd say 100, but I have a second HDD and it's got built in OCing) so that's a nice fraction of the amount in power savings. However the initial cost of buying the laptop somewhat negates those power savings.

So...............for the fun of overestimating I'd assume the laptop would use about $40 of electricity a year in comparison to the 450 watt desktop in comparative use not considering monitor needs.

$1000 laptop + ($40 a year x 2 years) = $1080
$800 desktop + ($150 a year x 2 years) = $1100

At two years the laptop barely edges the desktop out assuming our electricity usages are correct, however the laptop's power savings become much more apparent over the course of more years, but the problem is, would you even still have the laptop after 2 or 3 years or at least have a more powerful replacement? And also what about the desktop's higher potential capabilities per dollar? It's amazing what you can do with $800 for a desktop, unless you need a monitor.

I just built a new desktop myself for just under $700. While it only has a 3.0 GHz dual core AMD processor, and a Radeon 4670, and 2 GB of RAM, it's a AMD AM3 system and uses DDR3 which automatically upped the cost another $60 or so just for that capability. Had I wanted to though, I could've gotten a much more capable video card and a cheaper case and stayed under $800 and my lappy would be blown away on the graphics front, but for now, my lappy is the graphical king still

 

Fair enough I suppose.

Now NOT to argue about this anymore, because I have I just can't. But, just things to consider (I don't expect an answer... just brain storming here)

What is the PSU used on the desktop. Is it a ~40$ one.. or a ~200$ 80Plus Gold certified PSU (price are approximations and are in Canadian currency).
Something else to note, is that it depends on the hardware. Some desktop hardware have power saving features some don't.
Now, yes, of course a laptop computer uses less power, as it doesn't have the further engineering applied to it for the crazy amount of optimization applied to it (and a reason why it cost less then laptop hardware), but something to consider, is that your Geforce 9800M is slower then the desktop Geforce 9800, and I talk about a visible difference.

Another thing to consider, desktop flexibility.
A desktop you can upgrade anything, and easilly, a laptop not so much. Most laptop have the GPU soldered in. In such case, if you want to upgrade the GPU you can't and have to buy a whole new system despite having adequate CPU/memory performance.

Also, you can't overclock a laptop. I mean you 'can' but can it handle the increase heat management? Most likely not. A desktop you can. And if it's custom build, well you have everything you need to make a perfect overclock via the BIOS on your memory, CPU, motherboard.


P.S: mobius1aic, wow electricity is expensive in Texas :/
Here we have A/C in summer and Heating during winter (heating consume more power), and we pay like (we live in a 4 and half) about (average) 24-28$ per month. We have 2 desktop computer, 1 laptop, a 27inch CRT TV (it is said that is consumes more power than a desktop computer in idle... I have no proof or study or article on this claim)

 

Well I have always been fondled by gaming laptops, but they don´t stand a chance in hell against a gaming desktop. That´s why I have both a desktop and a notebook.

Next up is a Core I7 for my desktop. The best GPU I have ever bought was the desktop 8800GTX that even holds today, that´s one hell of a GPU that lasted that long when I bought it in late 2006, now upgraded to a GTX 260 factory overclocked.

Best parts with desktops is the amount of overclocking you can do, meanwhile notebooks are more limited. Nevertheless I am happy with the performance of the gaming notebooks and I am going to upgrade the CPU in my XPS M1730 to an X9000 CPU.

 

Had my 8800GTS in my last desktop not died at 1.5 years old, it would still be kicking and taking names. I still have it and I'm not completely sure it really died, I'm almost enticed to put the cooler and card back together (I love dismantling complicated electronics) and attempting to boot it I'm so close to going out and buying new thermal compound right now and attempting this , oh the curiosity! The 8800s both in GTX and GTS flavors are arguably the most revolutionary products Nvidia ever put out as far as I'm concerned. They really just upped the game on graphics, pretty much doing double the in-game framerates of the previous Nvidia graphics king: the Geforce 7950, especially at a time when the PS3 was releasing with it's comparatively measly G71 based GPU, the same in the Geforce 7800.

 

we have users that overclock their notebooks very well. N.B.R. is a team on this forum that dedicated themselves to overclocking and smashing out benchmarks.

the M17X at the base build has a P8600 (i think) that users have been clocking to 3.0 GHZ without issues.

 

Yeah nice to hear mobius, were long time ago I bought a GPU that lasted as long as my 8800GTX. Well I only run a 19 inch wide syncmaster with a max res of 1440x900 so my 8800GTX would probably have lasted me even longer.

But now it´s in it´s original box, though not sold still want to keep it.

I figured I would go SLI 8800GTX first but leaned towards a GTX 260, very happy with my GTX 260, quite a boost from my 8800GTX

Yeah I overclock my XPS M1730 too, only GPU´s of course since I can´t overclock the CPU with out the X9000 CPU. But when I have bought it I will run it at 3.2 GHz that is my goal if it´s stable enough.

 

As in the Samsung, with the 2 ms refresh rate? I had one of those too!

The 8800GTS 320 MB was an excellent match for it! Though I really wish I had the 640 MB for Crysis

That supposedly dead 8800GTS I still have is staring me in the face, dammit I have to try it out! It would kick the **** out of the Radeon 4670 I have in my new custom build!

 

Yes the 2ms one

 

Those people who 'don't understand why people would get a gaming laptop' will never need one... their lives consist of staying at home/school. Here are some situations:

1) You have a job that requires lots of travel... maybe as an onsite consultant for weeks at a time. Maybe in the military. You are an avid gamer....

2) You do NOT have room for a desk in your dormroom/apt. So you need a small footprint on any surface you can find.

3) Frequent LAN players as mentioned before.

4) Spend long periods of time between 2 homes during the year... maybe parents are divorced, you are at school 1/2 the year, etc.

5) Want 1 central location for everything... do not want 2 computers.

 

No, most of the things you listed are all myths. Gaming desktops are LOUD. I went threw $500 dollars worth of "silent" heatsinks, fans, even got a custom computer from alienware (costs thousands of dollars) with "acoustic sound damping." I have never found a silent gaming desktop, powerful graphics cards are very loud and combine that with everything else in the case and its a total 747. The only way to get a silent gaming system is to have an oil filled case that looks like a fish tank. Pudget builds quiet systems but they cost way to much and there fanless cooled graphics cards are very moderate for gaming. Zalman makes a TNN case but even that comes with a 300w PSU so it cant really be a gaming PC. All im trying to say is that if you want gaming and guiet. You either get a console (NOT 360 lol that thing is loud as well) or a gaming laptop. However keep in mind not even all gaming laptops are quiet (at least up to my standards)

 

The fact that you spent thousands of dollars on an Alienware desktop at all invalidates your opinion, to me.
My desktop is nearly silent. In fact, it makes about the same amount of noise as my Vostro 1500 does.
Antec P180
PC Power & Cooling S75QB
Stock Intel HSF
4x120MM fans, all set to lowest speed.
Ambient temp of about 30C, idles at about 40C, load is never higher than 60C, but that's on a hot day and after a few hours of intense gaming.

 

So wait... you are saying.. that my gaming system (see signature), that I HAVE in front of me, is a lie? BTW, I have no hearing problem.. I did a checkup about 7 months ago... I am not old, and my computer is old since 2006.
Not to make an add, but you should read silentPCreview (website) .
It doesn't take a a scientific lab to test every point that I mentioned above. You can test this at home, and no special equipment required other then a good hearing. I have done several year of research as I do have many people that want a silent as possible computer. So FAR, my laptop is the noisiest system. the fan kicks in when you play about 20-30 min Flash based video (like youtube), the fan is noisy when you play a game. My desktop... you can hear the GPU fan kick in when you game... but still quieter then my laptop fan.
In fact my CPU is soo cool at idle that the fan doesn't even turn (and NO it's not broken, I made it that way). My CPU is at 35C. The fan kicks in at 38C. Meaning, when I browse folder, or sleeping the CPU fan doesn't turn. (it kicks in at 37C). The heatsink provided with my CPU, left the CPU at 45C idle. As you can see I am well under that.

Here is a picture of my computer case:
See cable management is KEY (and well large heatsink, and a well engineered computer case)


Other pictures:
http://pages.infinit.net/eps/case2.JPG
http://pages.infinit.net/eps/backcase.JPG

In the case, the air flow comes in with the frontal air fan located at he bottom HDD. the air comes in, cools off the sound card SPU (sound processing unit), and the rest is all taken by the GPU.
The HDD, is on a vibration absorbing system, where the HDD is also a very quick Western Digital one. It has more plasters, so slight reduction of performance, but nothing big. The HDD does NOT make a "swiiizz" sound when you power up the system. It's quiet.. for a HDD, of course. The steal case, bottom case vibration absorbing and case sound damping panels absorb the rest.
Now, you might notice that the HDD is not connected. Well in reality it is. I put the HDD on reverse, so the wires goes UNDER the frontal case fan, so that nothing blocks it. Clever, no?
Ok so the CPU heatsink is a 110mm Zalman model for Socket 939, which cools off my RAM and trows the heat to the back of the case. The PSU is one of the quietest PSU 80 plus certified you can get. The first time I installed, I thought it was broken, as I did not hear the fan, but it was turning. My CPU automatically downclocks to 750MHz when idle and increase speed as the system needs it. This is AMD Cool'nQuiet technology... which is how laptops CPU works. The motherboard as ASUS "Ai Life" which now every high end motherboard has, which again downclocks everything when the system is idle, and increase speed as you need it.. again like laptops.
Oh, and the top HDD is not connected. It's my emergency HDD (old).. it has a not activated Vista 64-bit, Microsoft Office 2007, and Firefox. It's in the case my main HDD fails during university, I can just switch HDD. Windows Vista does a daily backup to my external HDD. This was done before I had my laptop, so now I don't need that.

Sound DAMPING panels, are NOT sound PROOFING! that is something you need to understand. it absorb some sound, but doesn't absorb it completely. Such panel/product is not used (blacking all sound) as it also builds up heat, which is not good.

An "quiet" doesn't mean "no sound".. it just means you have to have to listen closely to hear it. And yes, of course when under laod it makes more sound.. but not LOUD, as you describe. It's well bellow a person talking/mouse clicks, in my system.

 

My house's AC was just on, and I couldn't hear my PC over it.
Now I'm listening, and my mouse click is significantly louder than my PC.
I can't even hear it unless I sit still and try to hear it, and it's less than 3 feet away.

 

I wonder if there will be a day when a laptop can fully replace a desktop in performance, probably will never happen due to all the size a desktop has to fit larger, more powerful components and for cooling.

I wouldn't mind taking along extra things to boost a laptop's performance into a desktop, such as an enclosure for a desktop GPU to plug into the notebook. I also wouldn't mind having a 2" thick notebook either. I wouldn't even mind the removal of the battery altogether to fit more components.

The portablity of a laptop is wonderful but so is the raw performance of a desktop.

 

Ok, I have read the threads and I am confused... Are you all saying that a desktop with the following specs is always faster than a laptop with the exact same specs? Example, Desktop with p8600(2.4 Core 2 duo proc or similar), 4 gig ddr3 ram @ 1066, hd3870 xfire, vista 64 vs a laptop like the m17 with exactly the same specs? I understand the laptop maybe throttled by a small margin to keep temps down but 20 percent slower seems a bit much...?

Thanks,

SXO792

 

Well yes steven, you can overclock a desktop way higher and this means everything from memory, cpu, GPU which you can´t with a notebook. Some notebooks you can overclock both CPU and GPU but nowhere the levels of desktop CPU´s and GPU´s.

Fact is a notebook will never replace any highend desktop, even the best SLI notebooks out there don´t stand a chance against todays GPU´s in the desktop world nor CPU´s.

This is why I have both a notebook, well in fact two notebooks and a gaming desktop which I can upgrade easily. I mean I can´t get a GTX 260 in any notebook today and this is the real GTX 260, not the hrrmm 9800GTX aka 128 shaders in todays 280m GTX.

 

Well first off, you can't really have desktop hardware in a laptop (well, some high end laptops will take a desktop CPU [like 2], but for the most part...). A P8600 could never be in a desktop, so that's the first part of it.
Assuming you had an E8400 (3.0GHz - desktop) vs an X9000 (OC'd to 3.0 - laptop). Seems even, right? Well, the E8400 will still have an edge by a slight margin because of other factors. An E8400 costs 170 brand new in box, an X9000 costs 350+ dollars for an OEM or ES on ebay...
So that all aside, how about taking a look at the GPUs? You already know you can get a 3870 in a laptop or a desktop. You know you can crossfire in a laptop or a desktop. That should be about the same, right? Again no though - a 3870 is a laptop is not the same hardware as a 3870 in a desktop - they're just the same name. A general rule of them is to expect a mobile version of a card to be approximately 30% slower than the desktop equivalent.
Memory performs about the same, but the impact memory has on performance (save for quantity of memory) is minimal. So yeah, 4GB in a desktop, 4GB in a laptop, not much difference in that area alone. Same for hard drives.

 

Obviously desktops are going to be able to have higher performance it goes without saying, but having said that if I look at Magnus72's sig for example and see the 3dmark06 scores for his desktop and laptop are relatively similar you have to realise that some of today's best gaming laptops are comparable to mid range desktops. My M1730 can perform close to many of my mate's gaming Pc's, not super gaming Pc's but definately respectable spec's. Ohh and Iam not making the mistake of thinking 3dmark06 score's neccesarily relate to game performance, but it does give an indication.

 

Yes, 3D Mark gives some hint, though I know if I buy an X9000 I will get around 14000+ in 3D Mark 06 with my XPS M1730 since I get 11000+ now. However my M1730 with 8800m GTX in SLI is nowhere near my desktop GTX 260, it has way higher bandwidth and the GT200 core doesn´t take a large hit like the G92 core, aka our 8800m GTX and 9800m GT SLI configs when AA is activated.

So all my 3D mark score relies on is my CPU at 3.4 GHz and my memory. But in games it, all games that is it destroys my XPS M1730. For instance just look at Arma 2, while it runs pretty good on my XPS M1730 it runs double the framerate with my desktop with GTX 260. That GPU is leaps ahead of any GTX 280m GPU and I have the older one with 192 SP´s. My 8800m GTX in SLI has the same amount of shaders when running in SLI but they perform nowhere near my GTX 260.

 

Laptops will never be able to complete with desktops. No matter how good the technology gets, desktops space for cooling and extra power will always win. Having said that, what gaming laptops can do now in my opinion is truly amasing although we all know it could be a lot better. In the future it will be much better though.

 

And we're not simply looking at available performance.
Yes, a 2000+ dollar laptop will beat out most desktops.
But a 2000 dollar laptop will game about equal to a 1000 dollar desktop. That's a pretty big difference.

 

Notebooks will never be able to compete with desktops in performance, but perhaps one day the two will get so powerful that difference between them will become negligible, like playing a game fully maxed out at 80fps versus 120fps. The difference is considerable, but I won't notice it.

 

wat would be a notebook that has similar performance as my desktop in sig???

 

I would say there are quite a few possibilities.

As for what has been said, I do agree in actual gaming performance there is a clear difference. Just think that in some cases it isnt quite as extreme as people might think. And very valid point with regards to price and performance, my mates Pc's I was mentioning certainly where considerably cheaper than my laptop.

 

then which mobile gpus in sli is equivalent to my desktop gpu???

 

Actually, you'd probably be able to get somewhere near your HD4770's performance with a mobile HD4850 or a GTX280M. The Mobility HD4850 is slightly less powerful than the desktop HD4830 and the GTX280M ranges around the desktop 9800 GT/GTX(which should be around the same level as your HD4770).

 

Magnus72, what does your m1730 run ARMA 2 in? I am curious to see other benchmarks for Arma 2. I really like the first arma. Thanks!


"For instance just look at Arma 2, while it runs pretty good on my XPS M1730 it runs double the framerate with my desktop with GTX 260."

 

That's because of your CPU. 2.4ghz is pretty weak for Arma 2, which stresses the CPU quite a bit with its draw distance. It's not exactly optmized well.

Sli GTX 280M is in the area of a GTX 260 core 216 when Sli is well optiomized for. You can put CF 4850 or 4870, and Sli 9800M GTX or GTX 260M in there as well.

One of those cards would compare to the above person's 4770.

 

Does anyone know how much the performance gap between desktops and laptops, especially in gaming, has changed over the years? I believe just ten years ago, laptops could not even run games that desktops could but now, laptops can run pretty much all games as a desktop, of course not at the same graphical settings but still an improvement.

In the future, do you guys see the gap closing or growing wider? At least with desktop replacement laptops, I would like to see the gap get closer and closer.

 

Considering that back in the days.. 10 years ago, video cards were not even programmable and doesn't even have the power to draw Aero (I am talking about high-end gaming GPU's) I am saying that gap is the same. It looks like it's closing as we are in area were people can't afford fancy computer and opt to high-end gaming console which cost about the same as just a video card. Therefor there was a big slowdown in gaming graphic and complexity increase (more polygons per objects, real clouds, etc..).

This is why Nvidia change focus on their card, I believe, to offer technologies like CUDA (or the equivalent from ATI), to show more value to the GPU. While still new today (therefor not very useful), it has, I believe, a great future as our dear CPU sucks at doing many things that our GPU's do with great ease.
Already Win7 will take advantage of this, with the coming up Nvidia (and ATi later on) drivers: http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/08/25/nvidia-releases-windows-7-direct-compute-dr/1

So in gaming, it comes closer, but in raw power... the gap is the same or even extended.

 

As usual, I agree with GoodBytes. I believe the gap has grown in the past 10 years, and I believe it will continue to grow for several more years. Eventually it will start closing off and even farther down the line it will be negligible... but not for a few more years. As it is now, desktops are progressing insanely quickly, and laptops are lagging increasing generations behind.

 

Yes the CPU is pretty weak, not that weak actually since I game at 1920x1200 that means not so CPU limited like in lower resolutions

This is how Arma 2 runs on my XPS M1730. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkdRjOZsMXM Now this is a quite extreme resolution too, but the game is playable with FPS ranging from 26-50 fps depending on scenario.

However there is more games my desktop is the clear winner, Crysis, Stalker, GTA IV just to name a few. I love laptops but desktops always wins, as one said earlier a $3000 laptop i.e Alienware M17x gets destroyed by a well built $1000 desktop that says something. It doesn´t matter that you have two notebook GPU´s in SLI when the architecture is old compared to the GT200 cores. Next CPU up for my desktop is a Core I7.

HEP problem is that it always takes time to shrink that GPU for the notebooks when it´s first release for the desktops. Notebooks always comes in second hand. It´s on the desktop side they are making progress and testing out new architecture. This is why I don´t think notebooks will ever catch up. See the GT300 cores and ATI´s new cores is around the corner and we don´t have yet any GT200 core GPU´s for the notebooks only the measly old 92b cores aka 280m GTX, 260m GTX etc which we know have problems with antialiasing compared to GTX 260, GTX 280, GTX 275, GTX 295.

 

When GT300 rolls around, I assure you the mobile to desktop gap will be considerably smaller. It doesn't help that the only game to truly push the hardware is now 2 years old. And there doesn't seem to be any games on the horizon trying to take that title, besides maybe Rage. Without advancement in the software, there's no need to advance the hardware...

Nvidia set themselves up for this G92 conundrum. Because 40nm wasn't going to be an easy transition, and GT200 was never designed with a mobility spec in mind, it took way too much time and we're still using the rehashed G92b.

 

It will be interesting to see how the new GT300s perform. And I believe no setup currently can actually play Crysis at 2560x1600 at max settings with 60FPS avg (which seems to be the gamer's standard for complete GPU competence.)

And the GT300 is touted to be a dramatic step up from the GT200, more so than from the 9000s up to the GT200, and not to mention nvidia is finally moving up to DDR5 as well.

The other thing is that the GTX 260M/280M was released in march/april of 2009, and the desktop version was out in june of 2008, so there was almost year of lag in-between. The GT300 is rumored to come out in Q4 of 2009 and although I'm not sure how long nvidia runs their mobile GPU product cycle, but we'll see if the GTX 280M is the last of the line and if that's the case and the newest/flagship GT300 comes out the gap will be even further than now.

But I tend to agree with Magnus72 in that the deskop simply has alot of physical headroom (bigger cards, ability for tri SLI, quad sli) to work with and cutting edge development will probably always come to the desktop first and it seems to me that the gap will stay about the same or even increase since down-sizing more powerful architecture seems to me will become more difficult as the high-end desktop components become even more advanced and what not.

 

Actually, The Geforce GTX 260 doesn't fly with at 1900x1200 screen resolution.. it's too close of the 30fps. The 275 helps, but not by much (the rest is way to expensive). I believe the GT300 series will allow such power.

And again, games today don't push the desktop PC, because they are mostly design for console. I believe once our recession is fully covered, it will shift back to PC gaming.

Crysis is not a game to consider in "pushing" a PC.. I mean yea it does, but not because it's better, but rather that there is no optimization what's so ever, put into the game. If you look at Crysis 2, it suddenly runs fine on any gaming system without a big drop in visuals.

 

Depends which games GoodBytes, my XPS M1730 flies with most games, only a very few I can´t run at 1920x1200 and my GTX 260 is faster than my 8800m GTX SLI solution. Crysis runs very good on my XPS M1730 which I have recorded and put on youtube.

However I can´t run 1920x1200 on my desktop anyway, I have my max res at 1440x900 on my Samsung Syncmaster TFT.

However laptops today are very fast indeed, just look at the M17x or Sager with 9800m GTX in SLI. My XPS M1730 is very fast too and will only be faster when I get a X9000 CPU. I tweak my systems a lot with constant updates and reg edits and so forth.

 

I think there's no doubt that gaming notebooks are becoming quite powerful. The higher end gaming notebooks are actually on par with potent gaming desktops.

The only thing is that the gaming notebook market is more niche than the gaming desktop market(which is already pretty niche itself). Many people could own a desktop with a high end graphics card(something witha 256bit or higher bus), but notebooks which posses these same high end GPUs are 1 among 100.

 

It's true most of us on this forum are among the chosen few. Lol.

 

The most powerful desktop GPUs are far more powerful than the most powerful laptop GPUs. Whether this is because of one company incorrectly naming a GPU in comparison with its core, or another not using the same components in the desktop variant, the fact is, the most powerful desktop GPUs destroy the most powerful mobile GPUs.

One example is the current GTX 285 vs the GTX 280m. The GTX 280m is comparable to the desktop 9800GTX, which can not hold a candle to the GTX 285.

 

I agree NAS Ghost, the gap is huge between desktop GPU´s, CPU´s and notebook GPU´s and CPU´s.

 

Definitely the gap closed a bit in comparison with 10 years ago: now laptops can have dedicated graphic cards. But beyond that I can't see the gap narrowing anymore, not at least with the current process of cards development: develop a desktop version ('big') and then shrink it to fit laptops ('small').

If the case of the 280m is correct (compared to a 9800GTX), then it means the gap has increased. That's it because the 8800m versions were not that crippled in comparison with their desktop counterpart in relation to this new generation of cards.

 

Its correct solely due to the fact that the GTX 280m is based off of the G92b core, rather than the GT200, which I referred to in the first part of my post. If the GTX 280m was based off of the GT200 core, then it would have better performance. The same holds true for the HD 4870m since it uses GDDR3 memory over GDDR5.