Originally Posted by Mad Pistol
You actually get more in desktop Nvidia cards. I have yet to see a desktop Kepler or Maxwell card not boost to well above their advertised "boost" clock. If anything, Nvidia is being conservative about their clock speeds. What you get is actually FASTER than what they advertise.
As for mobile GPU's, you are correct. They are always designed for a best case scenario, but since most laptops have subpar cooling solutions, the GPU usually ends up throttling their clocks to make sure the card doesn't cook itself. That's the reason we see such a wide range of performance out of laptop GPU's, even if the GPU sku is the same.
Uhh yeah - that's false.
My 770 would throttle when it hit 71C and the core clock would drop down 50Mhz.
And now I have a 970 FTW and it hits it's TDP and starts throttling back the clocks (throttles down to 1328Mhz from 1414Mhz, which is a considerable amount).
And the whole time, it doesn't even break 73C and 29% Fan - ridiculous.
Why make a better binned card (assumption - based on higher base clocks + price) and then give it the same TDP as the slower cards? I think that's the point that Roach has been trying to make. Yes - no one can "tell" the difference in performance; but some people are OCD enough that it bothers us enough. I paid extra to have a faster card, but it's TDP is limited to the same as the slower ones! Either fix it, or give me my money back!