[Rumor] GTX1080m is going to out - perform Titan X.

ASUS is teasing its new overclockable gaming laptops powered by new GPU, that is supposedly faster than desktop GTX TITAN X. ASUS:

What we can say is that one of the highlights from the lab is an overclockable gaming laptop that will rival even gaming desktops. We were told it is a concept machine and thus they are still in the process of making it even more powerful. The exclusive info about to be revealed is without overclocking but is already faster than any laptop on the planet (not including alternate futures or dimensions). Without overclocking this beast can score almost 21K (Performance) in 3DMark11, edging out even the mighty GTX Titan X in this benchmark!



Friendly reminder, values start at 19800, so chart may be misleading at first glance

I’m assuming that this GPU is not Polaris, but Pascal, and I will explain why later in this post.

It appears that mobile Pascal GP104 will do just as good as its desktop variant. What’s important here, this score was achieved without overclocking. It means that this particular graphics processor beat TITAN X in 3DMark11 out of the box.

There is in fact one graphics processor that achieve almost identical score, and that’s GTX 1080. That said the mobile variant may just as well be the full GP104 silicon with 2560 CUDA cores.

NVIDIA has probably decided to release full silicon for gaming laptops and follow the same path as with ‘GTX 980 for notebooks’, which thanks to custom designed PCB was not limited to strict MXM power requirements.

According to my information the mobile GeForce GTX 1080M will probably not use GDDR5X memory, but GDDR5 instead. This memory would be clocked at 2000 MHz (8 GHz effective), so just like GTX 1070.



Source: ASUS
________________________________________________________________________________________

http://forum.notebookreview.com/forums/sager-and-clevo.1017/create-thread < -- Original source.

 

Yeah this is most likely 980 SLI, not a Pascal machine. The numbers don't add up. If it is Pascal, its very underwhelming.

 

I don't think it is GTX 980 SLI because as far as I know, the only laptop that has dual 980 is MSI GT80 Titan, and the laptop's score for 3Dmark 11 is P18117. (From Gentech PC bench mark)

If that score is based on Desktop GTX 980 SLi, than it is possible, but it seems like physics score is too low for desktop. Yes, maybe some one is using dual GTX980 and i5-6600, but I doubt this is the case.

One of the possibility is that GTX1080m is actually as strong as GTX1070. The other possibility is like GTX980 for laptop, maybe NVidia is preparing GTX1070 version for laptop.

 

Graphics score is what counts the most, not the overall score. If that's Pascal, complete with liquid cooling, then it's very underwhelming considering that 980 SLI can do that on air.

 

The graphics score for MSI GT80 is around 29000, which falls behind to Unknown graphics card. Also, we should also consider that the there is only single gpu for pascal, while you are comparing with SLI. Everyone has different expectation to pascal gpu, so I can't really judge you for that, but I personally think that for 1070, or 1080m, that is a stunning score. Sooner or later. we will see what that graphics card is

 

980M SLI can match the unknown graphics card. Again, little incentive to upgrade for those with 980Ms, ESPECIALLY since that ASUS machine is liquid cooled. It spells out doom and gloom if that's Pascal.

 

Firstly that graph is atrocious, anyone who does something like that should never be allowed near a graphing program again.

Secondly 3dmark 11 is a terrible benchmark for high power cards.

 

How so?

 

That's the first thing I though when I saw it. The graph makes it look like a huge difference between scores, then you realize thats only a 3% difference between top and bottom scores. I see 3% difference between runs sometimes lol.

 

Yeah, the graph is really bad. Makes me think like it is such a huge difference between GTX 980ti and Unknown graphics card.

 

It goes to show the benchmark is not really appropriate for these cards. It's half a decade old now.

 

Why is this attrocious? We've known that laptop GPUs are roughly 20 - 25% slower than desktop GPUs. The 1080 is 20 - 25% faster than a Titan X, therefore it makes sense a 1080m would be equivalent to a Titan X in performance

 

I think it is the way the numbers are depicted that are horribly skewed. The graph could start at 0 points on the left side, and go to 21,000 on the right. Then you would see that these graphics cards are all within a few percent difference of each other. The lines would all be about the same length.

This graph shows the score starting at 19,800 to 21,000. So even though there isn't much difference between the scores on these cards (within 1200 points), it makes it look like the new "GXXX" is 2x as powerful as a 980Ti or 295x, when you just look at the lines as a comparison (since it is a graphical depiction of the scores, you focus more on the lines). It just skews it to make it look like it is so much better than it really is, IMO.

Might as well make a graph comparing this "GXXX" to a 860m, 480m SLI, and an Intel HD3000.

 

Yep using 3dmark 2000.

 

Why would you say that? It's a much better test of overall system performance than Fire Strike. It puts more stress on everything, won't allow a benchmark to complete with semi-stable overclock setting, and doesn't allow machines with wimpy CPUs look like they can be passed off as something special. If you can get an amazing overall score with 3DMark 11 then you're system is ready for just about anything you can throw at it. Almost any level of instability in CPU, GPU core, GPU memory or system memory overclocking will be exposed and in most cases will crash in 3DMark 11.

 

Yeah 3DMark11 will crush an unstable machine in the combined test. RealBench is even better though.

 

That horrible 9500 CPU score is why 3DM11 shouldn't be used with BGAbooks.

 

You've almost got it!!

Turn that around, and...

That horrible 9500 CPU score is why 3dmark11 should be used for Desktop CPU laptops!!



That's why we compare Graphics Scores, not the Total Score. GPU's to GPU's, CPU's to CPU's.

 

The graphics score can be limited by a crappy CPU. That's the issue. Laptops won't touch my 3-way 980 SLI 35K score using windows 8.1 for a longgggg time.

 

Yet, my BGA 2 x 980m SLI scores nicely keep up with the Graphics scores for the P870 2 x 980m SLI, 47w CPU to 95w CPU. Close enough to not matter in games. And, that's running a stock BIOS/vbios, if I had flashed an unlocked BIOS/vbios I could have had 20% higher Graphics scores keeping up with the PremaBios Graphics scores.

The more GPU(s) you are feeding, the higher the need for CPU to feed them, but in a laptop the balance is well engineered by Intel, that's why BGA exists in laptops - tuned and engineered to fit the task for mobile.

We don't have LGA CPU's for phones, tablets, 2in1's, etc.

The laptop is where the line is fuzzy due to the much larger physical size, but the desire for operating time away from power is almost as high for mobile laptops for some owners as it is for mobile phones.

That's why the LGA / BGA argument has no true merit as an absolute.

The balance can tip as needed from Desktop high TDP performance non-mobile use of a laptop, to high performance mobile TDP balanced with long runtime away from power, all the way to the other end, to long running non-demanding TDP performance with extended runtime when away from power.

If the BGA components were socketed, they wouldn't be interchangeable between these differently balanced uses, as all the support components need to match too.

As has already been mentioned, all the LGA laptops I have had went without upgrades, as the next generations replaced all the support chipsets and upgraded the IO with desirable upgrades.

Right now I have an 2 LGA legacy desktops running, but they already have the highest performing CPU's available for those sockets (AM2+, 1366).

I could have upgraded the CPU's in older motherboards, but I replaced those motherboards to get upgraded peripherals, and then stuck in LGA CPU's that could have gone into the replaced motherboards

Socketed, unsocketed, BGA, LGA, they have all been awesome in every device I have had them. I wouldn't want to cut out all the BGA devices and more than I would want to cut out the LGA devices.

Why deny yourself the benefits of both to spite one of them??

 

Mostly referring to lack of cores, tbh. 6 cores or more. Not even Skylake is enough in 3DM. Besides, the 5950HQ will outscore skylake anyway.

 

Yup, and the importance of parallelism will only increase over time.

We should start seeing 4 cores replaced by 6-8 cores on Intel consumer CPU's.

Intel already has 20+ core server CPU's, so there's no longer any need to protect that market by not issuing higher core count consumer CPU's.

EDRAM, the Broadwell 5960HQ advantage, will hopefully reappear outside Broadwell-E in desktop/laptop CPU's.

 

I have a different view on the matter... I believe we have BGA in laptops because they can get away with it because enough people either don't care, simply don't know any better, or they are willing to make sacrifices in areas they do not view as being important. I would argue that BGA notebooks are actually not well engineered at all and they carry far too many compromises for me to consider them acceptable. They are designed around a core principle of being cheap and disposable, in a fixed configuration that requires the end user spend more money when they want a product that delivers more than what they originally purchased, or more expensive to repair when something fails and needs to be replaced. It allows corners to be cut on engineering and manufacturing quality (OEMs don't need to spend as much on cooling systems when CPUs are gimped on TDP).

Laptops are all the rage and I believe it is a thoughtfully premeditated conspiracy to stop people like me from having something that I can make better than it was the way I bought it. I can (and have) start out with a cheap CPU and later find a cheap Extreme mobile or desktop K/X CPU for half what I would pay for it from an OEM factory installed in a new machine. If you want to compare your laptop to a phone, tablet, etc. that is fine. I would prefer to compare mine to a desktop... a desktop that fits in a backpack and goes wherever I want it to go and doesn't cut corners on performance like a BGA turdbook with half enough TDP and hard-coded performance lock-downs does.

Having a laptop that runs as well or better than all but an equally expensive desktop saves me a ton of money because it eliminates any need for supplementing a crippled gaming turdbook with an expensive desktop that can only be used in one place. I have upgraded CPUs and GPUs in literally every laptop I have owned since about 2007 and so have thousands of other enthusiasts. Are we a minority? Yes, but it doesn't make BGA OK. My upgraded laptops always go the distance, usually match or beat the performance of something newer and I get a lot more mileage for my money. Buying a more powerful CPU (unless you start out with the best) and upgrading GPUs is a lot less expensive than buying a new machine and there is a sense of pride in doing so that is never realized when all you do it open a box and press the power button.

So, bottom line... I do not personally find any benefit whatsoever to owning a high performance laptop with BGA CPU or GPU, so I am not missing anything. I consider using BGA and high performance in the same sentence an oxymoron. There are plenty of angles to rationalize why it's acceptable, and I think it is very acceptable on an inexpensive disposable machine that is too cheap to bother upgrading. For the same reasons, BGA makes sense for smartphones and tablets. They usually end up broken, lost, stolen, ruined from falling into a toilet or sink, or being replaced in 12 to 16 months by the latest fad device. What really sucks now is severely limited choices available that present good options for extreme performance notebook enthusiasts. That will never be acceptable to anyone except those that don't know any better or don't care. Those that know better and do care won't accept compromises.

Edit: Here's the part that makes even less good sense to me. If BGA is OK in the minds of more than half the gamers, $500 consoles and cheap crap like the Alienware Alpha, which sells for about the same price, start making a lot more sense financially than a disposable notebook with a price tag that starts more than double and goes up from there. You can buy a console, get a mainstream notebook that does the web surfing, email and business productivity apps for another $500 and still have $250 to $500 left over compared to the price of a decent entry-level BGA gamer turdbook that will no longer be viewed as impressive or satisfying to own in 6 to 12 months.

 

There are lots more people out there using laptops than you and I. And, having been in the realm of hardware and software development for a long time, we both have our own special perspectives.

The profit motive is strong in business, and I don't think leaving profit on the table - selling down cost - down tdp - down performance parts using the same cost base silicon is going to go over well logically, it goes against the profit motive.

Finding a way to place sell those silicon sections into more and more places is a more logical, more likely explanation.

Smaller profit is greater than no profit.

Intel makes more money per sq measure with high performance high TDP solutions, but once those places are satisfied, filled with all the little pieces of silicon that's affordable to those that can afford it, there are still lots of places that need computing that can't afford those high cost solutions.

So, Intel averages down in profit, sells less capable but more affordable silicon to more places than if they didn't come down in price for the same sq measure of "real-estate".

A possible profit motivated conspiracy does fit this scenario though:

Intel could sell all high performance silicon to everyone into every spot that can handle the heat and power requirements, averaging the cost across all the places welcoming that solution.

I wish Intel would do that too. It would help business startups, and help consumers, and probably open up more places for Intels high performance Silicon.

It would be a bell-weather event in computing. And likely profit Intel in the short and long term.

 

All that is fine and dandy, but you're missing the point. Even Intel should be smart enough to know that they need to offer options to customers that require them, but apparently they have either had a brain fart or they no longer have any desire to profit by offering products that discriminating customers require. Yes, I'll still buy the cheap Walmart crap that is available for less than single day's wages and toss it in a dumpster when it stops working. I probably won't even bother checking to see what CPU it has because it won't matter. I'm not sure that is the kind of brand legacy they are looking for.

I understand everything you are saying and it makes sense from a very narrow perspective. But, performance enthusiasts are the wrong audience for this kind of rationalization. You are offering a mantra to appease mainstream consumers. There is no middle ground if you are truly a performance enthusiast. The fact that they have completely eliminated a fully unlocked, unlimited TDP mobile CPU option in what are supposedly "high performance" notebooks absolutely sucks. They cannot offer a high performance silicon option at all when they don't have a mobile platform available that supports it. And, it leaves those that want it and are willing to pay extra for it high and dry.

And, that's just the CPU... having a BGA GPU simply adds another insult to an already severe injury. There is not a good rationale for having an MXM GPU if the CPU is BGA. You have to apply the same thought process and argument in favor of BGA to the whole machine.

If Clevo ever stops selling laptops with socketed desktop CPUs we're screwed, because there is nothing available otherwise that is acceptable. That means nobody will have an opportunity to sell me, and others like me, anything at all in the high performance niche.

 

CPUs get a 5% increase at best per generation at the moment where as GPUs are an order of magnitude greater, you could pair up a 1080 desktop card with a 3610QM and get almost everything out of it at 1440p. This is why I care more about MXM than a BGA CPU.

 

If all you are doing is playing games, yes. Some people care about more than playing games. If all I cared about was playing games I would be playing them on a $500 console or a $500 Alienware Alpha and laughing all the way to the bank. I like playing games, but I don't need to spend a lot of money on hardware to do that. The further down this slippery slope they slide, the less compelling it is to entertain the notion of gaming on a notebook. You end up getting far too little in return for your investment, and wind up in the end with product that doesn't excel at anything.

I want it all, the best of both worlds, not just half of the package. I can't have it all with a BGA CPU.

 

For everyone, enthusiasts too, it all comes down to desirability, cost, and need.

If after careful consideration, weighing all things carefully, most people aren't going to be interested in spending more than they need to spend to get the performance they need.

After careful consideration of the computing we want vs. need, taking in to consideration everything else we want and need, the top echelon computing is too expensive to consider.

That's why I never bought Alienware LGA, or Clevo LGA yet, because I could satisfy my performance needs for as little as 1/2 the cost.

I don't have the actual need to spend 2x as much. If it was the only interest I had, or the only solution for my needs, I would rethink it.

Unlimited money doesn't require unlimited spending, investing yes, spending on personal needs, no.

Vendors need to incorporate LGA into laptops that cost the same as the BGA laptops. The CPU's cost the same. The parts differential isn't warranted in the 2x pricing.

It's profit that's the guilty party, taking whatever they can get by denying access to the rest through pricing it out of their reach. Building differentiation to pay for the costs for developing for a smaller market.

That's where the problem really is. Money.

 

Which is why our high end desktop CPU models exist, there is a small niche of people willing to make the sacrifices for that. However I am not surprised it's fairly rare to see due to the difficulties in designing such systems.

For the discerning gamer like myself who is not happy with 720p 60fps/1080p 30fps and would much prefer 1440p 144fps then a BGA K series CPU is not that big a deal, even with a couple of generations of GPU it's unlikely to get in the way. Even with a non-k CPU I have managed to outscore a lot of desktops.

 

Need and desire are two different things. Nobody actually needs 1080M except for NVIDIA, (so they can make more money selling something new,) but the mere fact that this thread exists is proof that lots of people want it. (It's probably even safe to say many would want it only because it is newer even if it was not any better. That's just how most feeble sheeple think.) Until NVIDIA artificially cripples Maxwell with cancer drivers like they have Kepler and Fermi, nobody actually 'needs' 1080M for playing games if they have 970M or 980M, and if they have either of those in SLI they won't 'need' 1080M for a very long time. When it comes to this stuff it is all about 'wants' and how much you are willing to spend to get what you 'want' and that has nothing to do with needs. When push comes to shove, nobody even needs to play games. They do it because they want to and because they like it. Same can be said for overclocked benching and number-chasing. The only need involved is perceived and it revolves around achieving your wants.

I agree with your comments about money. I have always believed greed is the ultimate driving force behind designing products in a sinister manner that blocks repairs and upgrades, and they are not the least bit bashful about pushing disposable garbage for roughly the same price as the better product. Unfortunately, this dishonorable business practice is not limited to computing technology. Automobiles and home appliances have never been more disposable than they are today. Almost everything made today is designed to fail and engineered to no longer be repairable or rebuildable, and that is as unfortunate as it is immoral. I've never liked anything that is a one-shot wonder. Regardless of the performance capacity of the CPU or GPU currently installed (and there are options available for every budget) anything that uses sockets and slots is a better product than a disposable BGA offering.

 

Well now, everything is related to the GPU for gaming, unless you adore flight simulation and Total war games, having a soldered BGA i7 processor is not a big deal because the CPU is rarely a bottleneck....i7 in laptops are really strong, so strong you can use them for several years without seeing any bottleneck.

Also a soldered GPU doesn't bother me, i realized that upgrading my GPU was more expensive than selling my laptop and adding $$$ to buy a new one. MXM GPU are so freaking expensive it's absurd to even think about upgrading them...

The only setback is repair.. if you plan on buying a BGA gaming laptop, you better take an extra 3 year warranty.

 

I agree with the above poster. Once again, it is regrettable that the attitude here is BGA = disposable; BGA = non-high-performance, BGA = etc etc.

BGA is simply a more... permanent implementation of the CPU/GPU on a motherboard. I once again think it's bloody stupid to put a desktop CPU in a laptop (but Clevo have done it, so... well...) and anything smaller than the P750DM simply won't take it. The socket is huge - it won't fit on small laptops that still can eke out lots of performance.

If the cooling implementation is well-done (like in the Clevo P6 series), and the rest of the laptop is upgradeable, then there's really no argument against BGA. A P650SG could easily last till late 2017, which is very good already.

The only dumb thing that Intel has done recently was to phase out rPGA.

 

Really? LOL. That doesn't make any sense. How is it any more bloody stupid to put a desktop CPU in a laptop (which is not any more demanding than a mobile Extreme CPU) than it is to cripple notebooks with a soldered-on piece of junk that comes in any flavor you want as long as it is vanilla? Is it bloody stupid simply because you don't like it, or don't care, or you're content with less? Or, is it written somewhere in the official rule books that using higher performance unlocked desktop CPUs in notebooks is a cardinal sin by which we are all dubbed Sir Stupid? None of that rationalization is even remotely acceptable if you are an overclocking enthusiast. Low-TDP BGA processors make it virtually impossible to have a decent laptop that does everything you want it to do. Some people hate small laptops with small performance and love massive laptops with massive performance. Having a huge socket is only a problem for those that want a laptop too tiny to have space for it. You won't find very many bonafide overclocking enthusiasts that are willing to sacrifice performance for smallness... at least not as a substitute. There may be some that want one of each machine and use them for different purposes. There should be room at the table for all of us, but there's not. And, it's not our fault Intel has suddenly developed diarrhea of the brain in that all that they offer now is, exclusively, emasculated BGA trash CPUs for notebooks.

 

Let me quote a sarcastic industry CEO regarding the broad introduction of BGA into the mobile computing sector:

 

Well first the 6700HQ BGA is anything but trash or "emasculated"...second, you have still have BOTH choices :
- a big fat TDR with a desktop CPU LGA socket
- a slimmer BGA laptop.

People have the right to choose what suits them best, but no one has the right to phase out BGA or LGA in laptops just because they found it "stupid", I rather have a slim well cooled durable laptop than a big fat TDR, but that's my taste .

Regarding overclocking, I'm sorry but you're wrong : look at this BGA CPU : 6820HK for instance and tell me you can't OC a BGA .

I know it can feel frustrating to lose control on a product, for that I agree on some things you said, but It's not that bad, and computer sales figures are overall, catastrophic, i can understand those kind of low moves...

 

I agree with you 99%. Unfortunately, those in control HAVE ASSUMED the right to phase out LGA in laptops because it is more profitable for them to do so and they don't have to care about anything except their own agenda. They have a monopoly and most consumers are good little boys and girls that drink the Kool-Aid, eat their vegetables, and do whatever mommy and daddy tell them to do without asking questions.

I am all about choices. There are no longer any choices unless you have an OEM (and Clevo is the only one) with the balls to defy the trend and do the right thing for their customers that expect more than BGA can deliver.

Where we disagree is the "not that bad" part. If it is not important to a person, then yes... it's not that bad (whatever that means). If you don't want BGA and don't like it, and the BGA offerings do not meet your expectations in terms of performance capacity it is a tragedy... horrible trainwreck in every way.

Reminds me of Steve Jobs comments that essentially stated his belief that Apple customers are not smart enough to know what they want until Apple tells them what they want. We can add despots like the Kim Jongs, Tojo, Stalin, Mussolini, Castro and Hitler to the list of people with that mentality. Unfortunately, people that think that way actually believe it. That's really sad. Jobs died young, too. That's probably good for all of us, because people that think that way are part of our problem. Now, if we could just get the imbeciles at Micro$loth and Intel to stop thinking that way and actually give the masses what they want we would all be in a better place. Until the masses stop drinking the Kool-Aid and it hurts them badly enough financially they will never pay attention.

 

Yes in case they're phasing out EVERYTHING except BGA yes it's catastrophic, but imo you'll always have OEM like clevos offering LGA : they know that people buy their laptops because they can customize them. Time will tell .

 

We can only hope and pray that they continue to do so indefinitely. As soon as they stop we are all screwed. Hopefully, a few more OEMs will join them. It is very sad they are the only OEM that does, and that's dangerous for all of us.

 

- On the CPU side Clevo is the last and only one offering non-BGA solutions...
- On the GPU side MSI and Clevo are the last to offer MXM cards and NVIDIA has no intention to provide designs to keep it that way...

We shape the future with our purchase decisions and vote with our wallets...

Spoiler

 

Exactly! That's what the controversy is all about. This applies to all areas of life, too. You will end up getting whatever you're willing to tolerate. This is not a good time to be asleep at the wheel. Debating whether BGA being the only thing available is acceptable underscores how dangerously touchy things are right now. Those that are OK with it should consider taking a stand with those that hate it and voting with their wallets for no reason other than principle. We should not have the tail wagging the dog. BGA has been around a long time, and it has always been fine for less expensive laptops. I never cared and it never affected me until that became the only option in a mobile CPU.

 

So I don't think the term "disposable" has been fully defined here.

Mr. Fox is saying BGA = disposable due to the fact that in order to upgrade, you need to literally buy a new system. I agree with that. However, there's more to this.

I'd say BGA = disposable due to the fact that if any component fails, you're forced to replace the entire machine instead of just that component. If your cpu dies, you'll need a whole new cpu, motherboard, and gpu(s) if you also have bga graphics. That's insane! Likewise, if your motherboard dies, instead of just needing to buy a new motherboard, you'll need to buy a cpu and gpu as well. Lunacy! Component failure is actually quite common (just look at all the forum posts about dead cards or dead cpu's or dead motherboards) and forcing someone to replace essentially an entire machine over a single dead component is insane. It turns a $300 repair into a $1500 repair.

I also like having the ability to tweak my hardware. There's always a chance that something might go wrong and I'll fry something. But to me the risk is acceptable because if I fry my motherboard or gpu or cpu or ram or whatever, I'm only out the cost of that component versus the cost of the whole machine. If messing with something on my mxm card meant I'd risk needing to buy an entirely new machine, I'd probably not do the modification due to the insane risk ratio.

BGA crap is disposable because you can't replace dead components.

 

@aarpcard - yup, and that is precisely why they have moved in that direction. They want everyone to have to spend more when disaster strikes (and it will eventually) because it is good for Intel, NVIDIA and their OEM puppets partners. The chances of disaster striking are potentially greater than before because the OEMs are taking advantage of muted TDP to cut corners/reduce costs on cooling system engineering. In spite of having (on average) half the TDP the majority of the thin and light BGA notebooks run as hot or hotter than those with overclocked Extreme mobile and unlocked desktop CPUs.

 

Honestly, if LGA for notebooks and MXM was discontinued in favor of BGA, I'd stop buying gaming laptops - I'd move to the desktop world. I'm at a point where I no longer need a high performance laptop and simply stay with this platform because I find it novel and fascinating. I could easily switch to a desktop without any decrease in my gaming experience and would if I was forced to.

However, the niche elite still make up some percentage of the market-share - even if it is really small. Like you said before small profit is better than no profit. If BGA was my only option, OEM's would receive no profit from me (and probably many others with similar mindsets). Maintaining a MXM and LGA option will gain OEM's some profit.

I don't believe we are screwed, however Clevo may be our only option going forward, which also has it's drawbacks due to lack of competition.

 

A quad core locked to 3ghz is not that great at all. Hell, I will take a 2600k over a 6700hq anytime of the day. At least one of them I can dial in high clockspeed and neglect the 25% IPC advantage skylake has. Literally, 4.5ghz 2600k would destroy a 6700hq. A desktop quadcore from five years ago is better than a mobile quad core now. I will take ANY of the haswell 4xxxMQ i7s over a 6700hq no question asked. I would probably even take a decent i3 6100 that can clock to 4.5+ghz over a 6700hq. All of those CPUs I listed are better(maybe not the i3) and are unlocked(with tweaks).

6820HK cannot hit a good clockspeed for a quad core imo. If it is easily overclockable to 4.5ghz, fine. Otherwise, not interested.

Even for gaming, we are seeing more CPU core usage compared with before. I think CPUs are neglected way too much on normal gaming laptops.

 

I have not had any issues with either a titan-x (at max overclock speeds) or a Nano (beyond fury-x speeds) and a 4870HQ running between 3.5-3.7ghz.

There is a different tweaking style that reaches more of a balance to learn.

 

Everyone seems to have forgotten that it was rPGA/FCPGA/Socket G3 that was phased out on laptops, since I'm the only one here mentioning that term...

@Mr. Fox - I ought to have made my statement clearer. I meant that it's bloody stupid to put large, desktop-oriented, high-TDP LGA CPUs in laptops when that was not the use-case intended by Intel. A 95 W TDP is no joke - it's like putting an extra-extra bright incandescent light bulb in a tiny space and then cooling the heat generated.

I meant that it was bloody stupid to expect manufacturers to be forced to choose between either entirely soldered (which is dumb), or go to high-end desktop components in a laptop (equally dumb), when compromises, namely rPGA, can be made.

Intel could have very well made something like a 6700MQ or a 6820MQ and Clevo could've stuffed either of those in the W230SS (assuming Intel wouldn't change the socket, but they probably would be scumbag and add/remove a few pins just to make cross-architecture upgrades impossible). But nooo, we now have entirely BGA or entirely LGA/MXM. That is dumb, that is bloody stupid.

I still think desktop CPUs in laptops doesn't make sense, but that's just my opinion. I personally have a socketed CPU, but be advised - it's not LGA, it's Socket G3. The latter is easily half the size and CPUs have half the TDP of the former.

Be advised that I'm not defending BGA, since I agree with @aarpcard that it's sheer idiocy to replace an entire motherboard if one component fails.

 

Whats wrong with it? GTX 980m can easily have a 125w tdp. GTX 980 desktop can have 200w tdp.

I am not seeing the problem here. As long as the cooling is up to par, whats the issue here?

Not the use case intended by intel? I am sorry, but thats a bit silly now. Remember, overclocking was originally not use-case intended by intel either. Look what happened once there are enough people doing it that warrants a new market. We get EE CPUs with unlocked multipliers and "K" CPUs.

95w TDP is considered "low" TDP on desktop, is perfectly fine for larger 15/17inch desktops as long as it is designed for it. Now if you are planning to shove an overclocked 5960x(200-300w TDP) in a laptop, that may raises some eyebrows.

 

Wait, so you actually don't want rPGA and have LGA instead?

I don't get the logic - we complain that Intel doesn't give us a choice between BGA and LGA, or that they phased out the 'M' CPUs in favour of the 'H' CPUs, but what I mentioned about Socket G3 is completely ignored, and we're now justifying LGA on laptops?

Here's an example - just two years ago, with Haswell, we could still have socketed 13-14" laptops (like my W230SS) since the socket itself was small. Now, if we want to have something that has a decent level of performance but is still reasonably portable, then we have no choice but to get a BGA laptop (P640RE). Doesn't anyone get that? Or is everyone too used to using massive, 5 kg rocks?

I apologise, but I started pretty small, with a Lenovo T61 - even that had a socketed Intel Core 2 Duo T6200 CPU (which was PGA, not LGA).

Once again - the key point here is Intel's discarding of a perfectly good socket implementation - PGA.

 

Why not both? Good luck getting hexa/octa/deca cores on mobile without LGA though. I am just defending LGA.
If you want core counts greater than 4, LGA is a necessity. I still see the existence of LGA laptops even when majority uses PGA/etc.

Also LGA CPUs are cheaper by far.

 

They've put octa-core CPUs on ARM, I can't see why Intel cannot engineer such CPUs on PGA.