Nvidia’s RTX 4080 laptop GPU already offers a nice performance improvement over last gen
30 series, but is it worth spending even more money to get an RTX 4090 laptop?
I’ve compared both GPUs in 25 games at 4K, 1440p and 1080p resolutions to find out if
the 4090 is worth it!
But first, this part of the video has been sponsored by Gigabyte.
Gigabyte's high-end Aorus gaming laptops have been redesigned this year, while budget conscious
gamers are covered by the updated G5.
These laptops are more powerful than ever with Nvidia's latest GeForce RTX 40 series
graphics, allowing you to enhance your gaming experience and get smoother gameplay with
DLSS 3 frame generation in the latest titles.
And Gigabyte have got content creators covered with their newly updated Aero 16 and brand
new Aero 14 for ultimate portability.
Check out the sponsored link below to find out more.
The higher tier RTX 4090 laptop GPU has 31% more CUDA, tensor and ray tracing cores compared
to the lower tier RTX 4080.
The 4090 has 4 gigs of extra VRAM with a bigger memory bus and more memory bandwidth.
Both GPUs max out at 150 watts, but the 4080 can also run with less power in thinner and
lighter designs.
The 4080 can reach higher boost clock speeds too, as it has fewer cores to power within
the same maximum power limit.
Both of these laptops can run their GPUs at 150 watts, plus an extra 25 watts with Nvidia’s
dynamic boost, so 175 watts in total.
So we’re comparing full powered RTX 4080 and RTX 4090 laptops here.
More power equals more performance.
This graph shows the 3DMark Time Spy graphics score from each GPU at different power levels.
With the same power limit, the 4090 was always outperforming the 4080, as expected, but at
times it was close.
A 4080 laptop at 100 watts was slightly ahead of a 4090 at 90 watts, for example.
But then with the 4080 at full power, the 4090 was reaching a similar score at 130 watts.
I’m using XMG’s Neo 16 laptop to do this testing, so we’ve got the exact same CPU,
RAM, SSD and cooling for a perfectly fair comparison.
They’ve both got the same sized batteries too, and with an actual game running the 4080
laptop lasted 20% longer with both on battery power.
The 4090 laptop was actually using a little less power when measuring both at the wall
with the charger connected in two different games at 4K max settings.
It’s not a big difference, but the 4090’s AD103 die is clearly more power efficient,
both because the 4090 delivers more FPS, while also requiring less power in these specific
games.
The 4090 was also running a little cooler too, which I suspect is for a couple of reasons.
The first is that the larger AD103 die the 4090 uses is physically larger, so there’s
more surface area for cooler contact.
The 4080 has fewer cores in its smaller AD104 die, but it’s able to reach higher clock
speeds, which resulted in higher GPU hot spot temps for the 4080.
Alright with that in mind, let’s move into our 25 game comparison, starting with Cyberpunk
2077.
I’ve got the 1080p results down the bottom, 1440p in the middle, and 4K up the top, with
the 4080 results underneath the 4090 results.
There’s not that big of a performance difference in this game, with the 4090 laptop just 6%
faster at 1080p, 12% faster at 1440p, and 18% faster at 4K, though with these FPS results
you’d definitely want to turn on DLSS or FSR.
Apex Legends on the other hand had some of the biggest differences between the two GPUs,
with the 4090 reaching a 30% higher average FPS at 1440p, and 35% higher at 1080p.
The 4090 laptop was hitting the 300 FPS frame cap in this game at 1080p too.
It’s not all gains for the 4090 laptop though.
In Microsoft Flight Simulator it was actually a little worse at both 1080p and 1440p resolutions.
At first I was wondering if the CPU in the 4090 laptop just wasn’t performing right,
but when I compare these 4090 results from XMG’s Neo 16, well the average FPS numbers
are basically the same as MSI’s Titan GT77, another 4090 laptop I’ve tested.
It’s a similar deal in Far Cry 6, though not quite as big of a difference.
This is generally a more CPU heavy game, and the 4080 machine was a little faster at 1080p,
but then the 4090 takes over at higher resolutions.
Other games like Dying Light 2 had nice improvements with the 4090.
At 1080p the 4090 was 26% faster than the 4080, though the gap was lower at 1440p and
4K, with the 4090 22% ahead.
Other games like God of War hit higher average frame rates with the 4090, but for whatever
reason the dips in performance, as measured by the 1% lows, were better on the 4080.
I’m not sure if this is because the 4080 was able to reach higher clock speeds, or
if there really is some problem between my CPUs.
Hogwarts Legacy was almost always better with the 4090, but the differences were small.
At 1080p the 4090 was just a couple of FPS faster, such a small change that you likely
wouldn’t be able to tell the difference when playing.
The higher 4K resolution was 13% faster with the 4090 though, which in this case is just
6 FPS.
The Witcher 3 was tested with the next gen update and the ray tracing preset enabled.
This was another where the 1% lows were actually better on the 4080 at 1080p and 1440p, though
the 4090 had the win in average FPS, but again, not by a massive margin.
4K wasn’t particularly playable on either, but you could of course use features like
DLSS and frame generation to improve that.
A Plague Tale Requiem was yet another game where the 4080 had fewer dips as per the 1%
lows at 1080p and 1440p, but the 4090 was otherwise in the lead.
Control is a GPU heavy game which we used earlier when comparing thermals, but yet again
the 4080’s 1% lows were ahead at 1080p and 1440p.
The 4090 had one of its best leads at 1440p in terms of average FPS though, coming in
at 28% ahead of the 4080.
Alright after 10 games I think you’ve got the general idea.
We’ll just skip through the rest of the 15 games tested on screen now rather than
waste your time having me talk through every single one, so feel free to pause the video
if you want a closer look at any of the results.
I think it’s important to test a wide selection of games so that we can get an accurate picture
of the average performance differences to make the fairest possible conclusion.
As I always say, more data equals more better.
Let’s look at those average differences next.
On average over all 25 games tested, at 1080p the higher tier RTX 4090 laptop GPU was just
9% faster compared to the lower tier RTX 4080 laptop GPU.
This graph shows how much faster each game was on the 4090.
A couple of the CPU heavier games were actually slightly better on the 4080, while only four
titles were more than 10% faster with the 4090.
If we step up to the higher 1440p resolution where we’re more GPU bound, the RTX 4090
now has a slightly higher 11% lead over the 4080.
Now 11 of the 25 games had at least a 10% gain on the 4090, because more pixels need
more GPU power to run, so the 4090 starts stretching its legs.
This continues at the higher 4K resolution, which is why the 4090 was now 15% faster on
average, with 22 of the 25 games now 10% faster on the 4090.
Here’s how frame rates look if we instead take the average of all 25 games.
I think this better allows us to visually see the overall differences as a quick summary.
The 4080 laptop was still definitely very capable, averaging about 70 FPS at 4K without
features like DLSS, FSR, or frame generation at max settings.
So the 4090 performs better in most, but not all cases, which took me by surprise.
From what I can tell, this 4090 is performing as it should, as the results are very similar
to other full powered 4090 laptops that I’ve tested.
So then, is it worth paying more for an RTX 4090 laptop?
Or should you save some cash and get the RTX 4080?
Prices of both will change over time, so check those links below the video for updates and
current sales.
And if any 4080 or 4090 laptops do go on sale, we’ll be sure to add them to our gaminglaptop.deals
website, so check that out to get the best deal on your next gaming laptop!
We update it every day with all of the latest sales.
At the time of recording, in Europe the exact XMG Neo 16 that I’ve tested here with RTX
4080 graphics will set you back 3265 Euro, while the higher end RTX 4090 configuration
is an extra 637 Euro, or almost 20% more money.
Eluktronics in the US sell the same laptop chassis for $2922 USD with the specs that
I’ve tested for the 4080, and it’s a $500 upgrade to go for the 4090, or 17% more money.
Just for another US example, Lenovo’s Legion Pro 7 with similar specs is $2670 USD for
the 4080, and it’s a $500 upgrade to get the 4090, or almost 19% more money, so cheaper
overall as there’s no liquid cooler, but a similar increase in terms of a percentage.
The 4080 ends up slightly better from a cost per frame perspective, but not by much.
The 4090 costs $500 more in this example, or 17% more money, while best case offering
15% more performance in a 25 game average at 4K, or 9% more FPS at 1080p.
That’s not too bad, considering normally at the top end of a product stack you start
paying more money for smaller gains.
But in this case at least, the 4090 doesn’t actually cost that much extra relative to
its performance gains.
Granted, the performance gains with the 4090 weren’t that much bigger than the 4080 in
many cases, but for $500 extra to get the 4090 when you’re spending almost $3000 on
a gaming laptop, I don’t think that it’s an unreasonable extra cost if you really want
to get the best mobile experience.
Not to mention the extra 4 gigs of VRAM!
Which may be beneficial before too long with the way new games are going.
Hardware Unboxed recently showed us that 8 gigs of VRAM just isn’t enough for a high
end gaming experience, and while 12 gigs is certainly better, more is always ideal.
I actually had Steve on the channel recently to talk about how much VRAM future games are
going to need, and if gaming laptops have enough, so check that discussion out next
over here.
You definitely want to make sure that you’ve got enough VRAM in your next gaming laptop!