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!
