This tiny box contains Nvidia RTX 3080 graphics,
it’s the XG Mobile from ASUS, their external graphics or eGPU solution,
but how well does it compare against a desktop 3080 in a traditional Thunderbolt eGPU setup?
I’ve compared both in games and applications to show you what the differences are.
Despite both of these being listed as 3080 graphics, there are some pretty big differences
to be aware of. The XG Mobile is actually using the laptop 3080, which has different
specs compared to the desktop card. The desktop card has more CUDA cores, higher clock speeds,
higher power limits and faster memory, however the XG Mobile has more VRAM at 16 gig.
But the XG Mobile has an ace up its sleeve - it connects to the ASUS Flow X13 laptop with
8 lanes of PCIe 3.0 connectivity, and this provides the GPU with 63gbps of bandwidth,
the rest is dedicated to the other ports like USB,
while Thunderbolt 3 or 4 on the other hand is limited to 4 PCIe lanes at 40gbps.
Bandwidth is a pretty big deal when it comes to external GPU setups,
as more bandwidth means more data can transfer between the GPU and laptop,
and this is often one of the biggest bottlenecks in an eGPU setup. So despite the desktop 3080
graphics card technically being more powerful than the laptop 3080, the lack of bandwidth
in the thunderbolt setup could bottleneck it, and that’s exactly what we’re going to test.
Additionally, when using an eGPU with the laptop’s screen, we’re sending the display signal back
from the GPU to the laptop, so this will take up more bandwidth compared to attaching an external
monitor to the graphics, and I will be testing this too. The integrated graphics of the laptop
then adds additional overhead on top of this, as it needs to process the frames from the game to
show on the display. Another potential bottleneck that can be avoided with an external screen.
The laptop that I’m testing the XG mobile with is the Flow X13, because this is the
only laptop that currently supports it, there’s no other options yet. ASUS hope to increase
support in the future, but for now this is the only laptop that we can test this with.
Now for the Thunderbolt setup I originally wanted to use a Dell XPS 13 laptop,
because it’s an Intel based 13” machine so I thought it would be pretty fair to compare against
the 13” Ryzen laptop over here, but for some reason the eGPU performance was absolute garbage.
I’m not sure why as I’ve tested older XPS 13 machines in the past and they were perfectly fine.
Anyway I ended up using the Intel NUC M15, which in my case is the Vision 15 from Schenker,
the same guys that sell the XMG gaming laptops. It is a larger 15” notebook,
but it’s still fairly thin and uses Intel 11th gen so I think it’s going to be a
pretty fair comparison either way, and 11th gen does mean that it’s got Thunderbolt 4,
so 4 PCIe lanes and 40gbps of bandwidth. Now despite only having a 4 core processor,
I think this is still one of the best case options you can get on the Intel side for an eGPU setup.
As I’ve shown in this video over here, this 4 core processor is capable of beating even
6 core processors with higher TDPs, so basically just to summarise all that,
I think this is a pretty good setup for a Thunderbolt eGPU system.
Now the X13 has an 8 core Ryzen processor, so there’s a clear difference between the CPUs.
It’s just not possible to compare with the same processor because the XG mobile only works with
the X13 and that’s a Ryzen based machine, so unfortunately there’s just no way to compare both
of these external GPUs with the same processor. So instead of thinking in terms of CPU differences,
think of the whole setup overall. But to try and minimize CPU differences I am focusing
on higher setting levels in games, plus I’ve also tested 1080p, 1440p and 4K resolutions,
and at those higher resolutions we should be seeing more of what the GPUs can do.
Now we also need to talk about the size differences of these setups.
You can clearly see that the XG Mobile is way more portable. Normal Thunderbolt eGPUs
like this are something you would leave at home and then dock with when you get back,
but the XG mobile on the other hand can easily fit in a bag and come with you.
By default, the XG Mobile applies the following overclocks applied to the GPU core and memory.
Unfortunately I realised this after I tested spent a day or two testing this setup without
an overclock, so my Thunderbolt results are all at stock with the founders edition of the 3080.
Honestly I think this is preferable anyway, we’re comparing stock to stock without manual
user tweaks, but it is worth noting that most desktop 3080s that you buy will have an overclock
out of the box anyway. Don’t worry though, we will check out some overclocking later.
Otherwise the latest Nvidia drivers were used at the time
of testing and same version on both setups.
So with that in mind, let’s start out by comparing both setups in 13 different games,
then after that we’ll check out price differences as well as content creator workloads.
Cyberpunk 2077 was tested in little China with the street kid life path. These are the results
with ray tracing off, we’ll look at ray tracing on in the next graph. I’ve got the results with
1080p with the laptop’s screen in use down the bottom, followed by external screen results above
at 1080p, then 1440p and 4K above that. In this game the XG Mobile with laptop GPU was ahead at
1080p regardless of whether we’re using the laptop screen or an external monitor, but then at higher
resolutions like 1440p and 4K the Thunderbolt enclosure with desktop 3080 was doing better.
I’ve also tested with the RT Ultra preset and set DLSS to quality mode. The XG Mobile
makes a bit of a comeback here, and is now performing better at 1440p.
The Thunderbolt setup was still ahead at 4K though, but it’s just a couple of FPS
and with these frame rates you’ll likely want to run with lower settings anyway.
Red Dead Redemption 2 was tested with the games benchmark tool. With the high setting preset,
the XG mobile with Ryzen processor in the X13 was reaching 37% higher average frame
rate at 1080p with the laptop’s screen. It was still ahead with the external screen,
though the gap narrows in a bit to a 17% lead with the laptop GPU now. The results
are essentially the same with both running at 4K though, just slightly above 60 FPS.
Microsoft Flight Simulator was tested in the Sydney landing challenge. This time
the Thunderbolt setup with desktop GPU was a little ahead at 1080p with the laptop’s screen,
though it’s only a 1 FPS difference which is kind of margin of error stuff. With an external
screen though, regardless of the resolution in use the XG Mobile with higher bandwidth
was outperforming the more powerful desktop graphics card in the Thunderbolt enclosure.
I’ve tested Control with and without ray tracing, let’s start with ray tracing off results.
This game had one of the biggest differences out of all 13 titles tested. At 1080p,
even the 1% lows from the XG Mobile configuration were ahead of the average FPS from the Thunderbolt
setup. In terms of average FPS we’re looking at a 74% higher average frame rate at 1080p
with the XG Mobile and external screen. With the laptop screen, the XG Mobile is 64% ahead,
so it seems like this game is really seeing a benefit from the additional PCIe bandwidth,
or it could be due to the CPU differences. At 4K where we’re much more GPU bound though,
the Thunderbolt plus desktop GPU was now 28% ahead of the XG Mobile.
With ray tracing set to high, the Thunderbolt and desktop GPU are now ahead in average FPS at 1440p,
however the 1% low isn’t quite able to match the X13 and XG Mobile. At 4K the
Thunderbolt setup was now 33% ahead of the XG Mobile, but with these low frame rates you’ll
either be using lower settings anyway, or otherwise enable DLSS to boost performance.
With DLSS now enabled, interestingly the performance doesn’t change too much with
the Intel Thunderbolt setup. There were way better gains on offer from the XG Mobile and X13 setup,
I’m not exactly sure why, either DLSS likes the extra bandwidth available, or the higher
performing Ryzen processor. Despite the gains at lower resolutions, the thunderbolt eGPU system
was still ahead at 4K, though only in average FPS, 1% lows were ahead with the XG Mobile.
Let’s take a look at some esports titles to see how these go. Fortnite was ahead
on the XG Mobile at 1080p. The 1% lows were pretty close together with the laptop screen,
however the extra bandwidth when using the external screen put the 1% low a fair bit
higher. The 1% low still had an edge on the XG mobile at 1440p,
but the average frame rate was now better from the thunderbolt system,
then at 4K the thunderbolt and desktop GPU were 38% ahead of the XG mobile and X13 in average FPS.
CS:GO is a game that I’ve shown to be bottlenecked severely by integrated graphics in the past due to
its crazy high frame rate, and we’re seeing this here too. There’s quite a big jump in
average frame rate with either setup moving from the laptop’s display to the external monitor
connected to the eGPU, however the XG Mobile still had an edge. Like many of the other games tested,
the thunderbolt and desktop GPU was ahead at 4K, though it was only a small gap here.
Rainbow Six Siege was tested with the games benchmark using Vulkan. This game also hits
high frame rates, so it also sees a pretty big benefit by using an external monitor
with both setups. The XG Mobile was 19% ahead of the thunderbolt and desktop GPU at 1080p,
then only 3% ahead at 1440p, so basically no change. Again like most other titles tested,
4K was now doing better with the more powerful desktop GPU as those higher specs can get to work.
Battlefield 5 was tested in campaign mode walking through the same part of the game
in all configurations. There’s not too much to say here that hasn’t
already been said. For the most part the XG Mobile was doing better at 1080p and 1440p,
however at 4K the desktop GPU is able to claw its way in front, at least for the average frame rate.
Assassin’s Creed Valhalla was tested with the game's benchmark. In this one the XG mobile
was ahead in all instances. Although the gap was much smaller at the highest 4K resolution
this is one of only 4 games where the desktop GPU couldn’t pull off a win.
Watch Dogs Legion was also tested with the games benchmark. This was another
of the few titles where the XG mobile was ahead in all cases,
and although the average FPS difference at 4K was just 1 frame, there’s a much larger
improvement in the 1% lows with the XG mobile, which was 70% higher in this regard - in fact the
1% lows with the thunderbolt setup were much lower comparatively regardless of the resolution in use.
The Witcher 3 saw similar behaviour at 4K, where the 1%
lows were far below the thunderbolt setup. At 1440p the 1% low from the XG Mobile is
close to the average frame rate of the thunderbolt setup, so fairly big gains,
though both are still running fine here even with the highest ultra setting preset.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider was tested with the game's benchmark. At 1080p the XG mobile was
seeing a larger boost to performance with an external monitor connected to the eGPU,
likely due to the additional bandwidth that becomes available. 4K is still running
quite well here with max settings, the XG mobile was close to 60 FPS,
however the Thunderbolt laptop with desktop GPU was now 15% ahead.
Death Stranding was tested walking around, 4K was extremely close together in this one,
margin of error in average FPS with a bit more edge in 1% lows to the XG mobile. Otherwise at
all other lower resolutions the XG mobile was significantly ahead, even its 1% lows
were beating the average FPS from the desktop graphics in the Thunderbolt eGPU enclosure.
Here are the differences in all 13 games tested at 1080p with the laptop screen in use.
On average, the XG mobile with laptop 3080 graphics is performing around 38%
better than the desktop 3080 in the Thunderbolt eGPU enclosure. Now at 1080p we’re more likely
to run into CPU bottlenecks compared to the higher resolutions, and again the processors
are fairly different between the two laptops so it’s definitely a factor. There’s not really
anything I can do about that though, as there aren’t yet any AMD laptops with Thunderbolt.
If we instead look at the differences with an external screen plugged into the eGPU,
then the lead of the XG Mobile lowers a bit to 32% ahead of the Thunderbolt
enclosure plus desktop GPU on average. This is still a fairly big difference,
but as games are able to hit higher frame rates at lower resolutions it makes sense for the XG
Mobile setup to do better due to the increased bandwidth between the graphics and the laptop.
Stepping up to 1440p and the XG Mobile’s lead lowers further to around 15%
on average, and this time there are a few games that are now favouring
the Thunderbolt setup with more powerful GPU. As higher resolutions can better put
the GPU to work, we’re starting to see the more powerful desktop graphics fight back.
This is then further illustrated at 4K, where the Thunderbolt enclosure with desktop 3080 is
now performing better in most games, putting the XG mobile around 2% slower on average
in these 13 games. With lower frame rates, presumably less data is being sent between
the laptop and GPU over the wire, so the bandwidth difference matters less and the desktop 3080 can
put its higher specs to work. It’s also worth remembering the XG Mobile has more VRAM with
16 gig compared to the 10 in the desktop 3080, though the memory in the desktop one is faster.
These are the average frame rates over all 13 games combined together to give
an overall sense of the differences. The XG Mobile was ahead at 1080p and 1440p,
but the Thunderbolt eGPU with desktop graphics was better at 4K.
Now let’s the consider price differences. You find updated prices to everything in
this video down in the description, as prices will change over time.
At the time of recording, the X13 laptop only is $1500 USD, but to get it with the RTX 3080
XG Mobile it’s $2800 total. The Thunderbolt system can of course have much more variance,
as there are plenty of Intel laptops with Thunderbolt that could be used. The NUC
M15 seems to be around $1500 in the US maxed out, so a similar price,
but there are definitely cheaper options with thunderbolt too. The Schenker Vision
15 I’m using is 1500 Euro. The desktop RTX 3080 graphics card has a $700 MSRP, but good
luck finding one in stock for that price. The Thunderbolt enclosure I’m using is around $300,
so all up the Thunderbolt setup is a few hundred dollars less, though realistically
probably a similar amount if we take into consideration RTX 3080 supply at the moment.
Here’s how cost per frame looks once we take price into consideration. Despite costing more money,
at 1080p with the laptop screen only the XG Mobile setup is offering better value because
the performance is higher. The gap closes in a bit once we include a $300 external monitor,
but the XG mobile setup is still offering better value in terms of gaming performance.
At 1440p the results are extremely close together, you could argue the Thunderbolt
system would end up being a bit worse though, as I’m assuming a $700 MSRP for the 3080 which isn’t
realistic at the moment, but at the same time I also can’t find useful pricing to use - sorry,
it is what it is. At 4K the Thunderbolt system is offering better value as it’s both cheaper,
but also performing better in most cases at this resolution.
Although 4K was playable in many of the games tested at high settings on both setups,
1440p was running much better, especially if you’re running a high refresh rate monitor. In
terms of value and performance, the XG mobile and X13 had the win in most cases at 1440p,
despite costing a little more, but if you are targeting a 4K setup the a desktop graphics card
in a thunderbolt setup could be the way to go as it both performs better while being cheaper.
Now I did say we’d check out some overclocked results. I’ve retested
a game with the desktop 3080 set to the same overclocks that the XG mobile has by default.
In Shadow of the Tomb Raider we’re able to gain a few extra frames with the overclocked desktop
3080 shown in red. Based on what we’re seeing here though, I don’t think this is enough to change the
conclusion even if I spent a day redoing all games. The desktop 3080 is still better at 4K,
while the XG mobile is still ahead at lower resolutions, same as before. The margins will
of course change a little, shifting towards the thunderbolt setup, but to be fair, as much as I’m
sure the enthusiasts will hate me, I don’t think the majority of people are manually overclocking.
While I’m here upsetting people, it may surprise you to hear that it’s not all just about gaming.
I’ve also compared both in content creator workloads to see what the differences are.
V-Ray basically offloads the workload to the GPU, so despite the limits of Thunderbolt,
the desktop GPU is able to perform better, both for the CUDA test and the ray tracing test.
It’s a similar deal in Blender, again the desktop graphics is able to do better here as it’s using
a more powerful GPU and we can actually take advantage of it by offloading the work to the GPU,
there’s less constant back and forth between the GPU and the laptop compared to the games.
Adobe Premiere was performing much better on the XG Mobile,
but this test does typically depend more on the processor, and remember the ASUS
Flow X13 has that 8 core Ryzen processor, while the Intel laptop is a quad core.
DaVinci Resolve generally depends more on the GPU, however the processor is still a
contributing factor, and again it appears that the 8 core Ryzen chip in the X13 is putting it ahead.
SPECviewperf is primarily a GPU heavy test, but depending on the specific test
the results could go one way or the other, so it could be that some tests have more
back and forth between the laptop and GPU, or the processor differences may also be playing a part.
Here’s what total system power draw looks like in a pure GPU workload. As expected, the desktop
GPU setup in the Thunderbolt enclosure was drawing more power from the wall, 33% more total wattage
in this case, though some of this will be the difference between the laptops as well.
I found it interesting that despite being so much smaller and less powerful in terms
of specs, the XG mobile could perform better. Sure it’s not for everyone,
but I think this is a welcome addition to the eGPU space. Just look at the size of it!
I just want there to be a standard for external PCIe that everyone actually used.
Alienware of course has their graphics amplifier which works on a similar principle,
though that thing is much larger than the XG mobile.
Where the XG mobile really shines is in portability. Prior to this,
an eGPU was something you’d leave at home and just dock with, but now you
can take it with you quite easily, this thing fits in a bag no problem,
and as it fully powers the X13 too, you don’t even need to bring a power brick with you.
With the Thunderbolt setup you can just put in a new GPU later, but for the XG mobile
you have to swap the whole unit and trust that ASUS will provide newer models in future. The
cable of the XG mobile is also more bulky and shorter compared to a Type-C thunderbolt cable,
so I’d give the thunderbolt setup an edge there too, and as it fully powers the X13 laptop too,
you don’t even need to bring a power brick with you, anyway definitely pretty cool I think. You
can check how the X13 performs in different games in different games without the eGPU in
this video over here, otherwise if you’re new to the channel then get subscribed for
the full review of the X13. There’s a lot about this laptop that we need to discuss.