TDP for Nvidia GTX 10X0 cards?

I've seen various people on these forums posting TDP numbers for the Pascal laptop GPUs (e.g. 70W for the 1050 Ti), but looking around the web, I can't find a reliable source. Where are people getting these values from?

 

It's mostly guesses based on desktop cards. But honestly, the TDPs are highly configurable - for example, the 1080 in the RBP is cut-down so much that performance is about the same as a 1070.

Generally, I am fairly certain that the baseline TDP of the 1060 is about 100W and varies with a delta of 20W or so - same can be said about the 1050 starting at 50W and 1050 Ti at 70W. Though I still have no idea how much those 2 vary. 1070 and 1080 I am not verse on, however.

 

The 1060, 1070, and 1080 should be close to their Maxwell counterparts.

For the most part the 1060 should be around 100, the 1070 120, and the 1080 150-200. These will vary, but since the machines that carried them just about stayed the same that is what I would expect. They probably go a little over since many machines got slightly beefier coolers.

 

The lowest 1060 power draw I've seen reports of was 82W (not sure how that was measured but it's what I am going off of) - I expect the upper limits of OCing to be around 110-115W. As for the rest - I've not seen nor done any testing.

 

I would expect the 80W to be from a Blade or something similar.

 

Think it actually was - either that or the Aero 14. One of the 2 had it at 80-85W

 

see Pascal review on Notebookcheck: http://www.notebookcheck.com/Nvidia...-im-grossen-Benchmark-Vergleich.171219.0.html

quote:

1080N = exact same TDP as 980N (that puts it into the area of 150 - 200W, depending on laptop model)
1070N = couple of watts more than 980M (980M was around 120-125W, so would be smth like 125-130W)
1060N = 970M slightly less TDP

 

Thanks everyone. So basically, there's no fixed TDP for any of them -- both power consumption and performance will vary from machine to machine depending on the implementation. I guess it makes sense to squeeze as much out of a card as possible, but it's pretty annoying when selecting a laptop...

 

I guess why is it annoying? It doesn't really matter as long as the laptop can cool it.

 

Because one has to do more research to understand the performance. It was always the case to some extent (at least ever since Intel introduced Turbo Boost and the thin-and-light craze led to throttling), but it's more widespread and more significant now.

 

Because of things like this, where the 1070N almost throttles to base clocks. It's clearly power limited, only being 63 degrees on average. The CPU is holding its clocks too, and the util is basically 99% flat. Hell the CPU is some magical 41c and I'm convinced the notebook is in a freezer.

Prema also said all MXM 1070Ns are set for about 115W (they peak near 118W) and won't pass that without some magic.

In this case I can see why he feels it's annoying having to check each notebook, especially since many notebook users (check any razer forum) will stupidly gladly tell you that their notebook has zero issues whatsoever on the face of the earth, and if you picked it up out of their hands and forced it to do the same crap you know it has a fault for, they'll insist you broke it manually.

 

Interesting, my 1070 in my P650RS hold its turbo clock without issue. 1650+MHz most of the time. Was I just lucky?

 

Couldn't tell you. Have you cracked 115-120W via HWiNFO with it? If not, then the card simply isn't stressed enough. Since they're selling them with 4K (stresses cards more) it can be different per notebook.

Also, most annoyingly, it means that the unlocked overclocking they have is mostly pointless. I mean sure you can hit +300MHz without a custom vBIOS now, but... it doesn't mean much if you're TDP limited like that guy.