Comments by "Mikko Rantalainen" (@MikkoRantalainen) on "" video.

I think they should bring the "M" suffix back when the mobile part isn't just undervolted and underclocked identical part. Calling this RTX 3080M and having performance between RTX 3070 and RTX 3080 would have been great. Calling this RTX 3080 while having totally different hardware than RTX 3080 is just lying. If they had RTX 3080M and RTX 3080 it would be obvious to everybody that those are NOT the same hardware.
227
@Valcore123 My point is that if it is not the same part do not call it using identical name. If Nvidia had RTX 3080 and RTX 3080M, I wouldn't complain about the naming. However, when they currently have RTX 3080 and RTX 3080 and the latter is actually closer to RTX 3070 I do have a problem. And note that they used to have the "M" suffix for the mobile parts so this misdirection must be intentional!
9
@Valcore123 It's not only about clocks and wattage. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_30_series for details. For example, "RTX 3080" on laptop has 6144 cores and "RTX 3080" on desktop has 8704 cores. On the other hand, "RTX 3070" on desktop has 6144 cores!
2
@Valcore123 Misleading advertising is illegal at least here in Finland. Advertising may be required even for a solid product because there's a difference between making a new product known vs lying about the features of new product. The former is obviously okay, the latter depends on jurisdiction. And latter should probably be considered morally wrong everywhere.
1
@kennythawsh Mobile "RTX 3080" is practically same as undervolted "RTX 3070" on desktop. Calling mobile "RTX 3080" as "RTX 3080M" or "RTX 3070" would have been honest. I think the M suffix would have been best because it's not exactly identical to desktop 3070 either but much closer to it than desktop 3080 part.
1
@jimpiunti The problem with labeling different hardware identically when they perform "at the same level" is that you can play with the benchmarks too much. I guess you can find some benchmark where 2080 and 3080 ti get the same results (e.g. actually limited by CPU). Those GPUs are not at the same level, though.
1
@TabalugaDragon Yeah, that's technically true if you consider undervolting literally. However, in real world you have to reduce clocks to be able to undervolt any meaningful amount because the chip cannot work equally fast with lower voltages (this is caused by transistor switching time being dependant on the voltage - the lower the voltage, the slower the transistor). The power limits force the chip to reduce both clocks and voltage because the voltage cannot be reduced alone without making the chip unstable. However, the undervolting is the only way to reduce power use unless you can magically reduce current somehow without adjusting voltage. (For most circuits, the resistance over the circuit is constant and power usage is voltage squared divided by resistance.)
1
@TabalugaDragon Yeah, I agree that many chips can be undervolted without lowering the clock. However, you should always consider yourself lucky when that succeeds. Manufacturers are trying to bin their chips so that better quality chips are sold as more expensive parts. It's not called silicon lottery for no reason.
1
@TabalugaDragon Manufacturers do not put those higher voltages for fun. They know that using too high voltage increases power usage and noise needed cool things down. However, they only have limited amount of bins to put the chips and maybe you don't run the software that's the most demanding for the chip so it can deal with slightly less voltage than it could handle in the worst case for that chip. The problem with silicon chips is that you cannot run them borderline the working voltage and back off once you start seeing problems. Once the chip miscalculates because of having too little voltage, it may hang and the user has to hit reset button for the whole rig. If you as a user are willing to optimize the voltage for your specific workload and chips, you can often find that you can undervolt parts quite a bit. If all of CPU, GPU and RAM actually needed spec voltages to run at the spec speed, you should consider yourself really unlucky.
1
@TabalugaDragon If you undervolt your GPU, sure, usually nothing bad happens if you have already saved all changes before the hang. However, if you use your computer as a general purpose machine, undervolting your CPU to the limit may end up trashing your filesystem. Hopefully you had up to date backups. For a pure gaming rig where you don't have any data, sure, undervolting is the way to go.
1
@TabalugaDragon Yes, it totally depends on your system workload. If the system doesn't need to update any data for the top level folders because of your background tasks, the changes of losing lots of files is really small. If you have something running in the background doing changes to the filesystem and the CPU gets unstable, all bets are off. If CPU makes even a single bit error while updating the tree data for filesystem structure, you can potentially lose huge amount of files at once.
1
@TabalugaDragon I wouldn't claim one in million but I agree that the probability is not that high. I would guess more like 0.1% per hard reboot. It really boils down to how much risk you're willing to take. No hardware is perfectly stable no matter if you use spec clocks and voltage, though, so it's always probability game.
1
@TabalugaDragon Yeah, for laptops you usually have to replace the motherboard in case of hardware failure. And unless you run something like Framework laptop, it's not usually cost effective to replace the motherboard only. And the fact that your system has been stable is great but it's a statistics with sample size of 1. Manufacturers select clocks and voltage so that they get approximately 1-3% warranty cases. If your hardware can cope with significantly lower voltage and/or higher clocks, consider yourself lucky.
1
@TabalugaDragon Okay, how big is the sample size for the statistics you think of? If you consider chips included in carefully selected review products, you'll end up with seriously different statistics compared to actual products purchased from random store. I'm saying that if you buy 1000 "identical" CPUs, you'll find out that you cannot seriously undervolt majority of those without issues. If you have a good source of trustworthy statistics with a big sample size (at least 1000 identical parts included in the statistics), please, share a link. I'd be happy to be pointed wrong.
1