Steam telepítése
belépés
|
nyelv
简体中文 (egyszerűsített kínai)
繁體中文 (hagyományos kínai)
日本語 (japán)
한국어 (koreai)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bolgár)
Čeština (cseh)
Dansk (dán)
Deutsch (német)
English (angol)
Español - España (spanyolországi spanyol)
Español - Latinoamérica (latin-amerikai spanyol)
Ελληνικά (görög)
Français (francia)
Italiano (olasz)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonéz)
Nederlands (holland)
Norsk (norvég)
Polski (lengyel)
Português (portugáliai portugál)
Português - Brasil (brazíliai portugál)
Română (román)
Русский (orosz)
Suomi (finn)
Svenska (svéd)
Türkçe (török)
Tiếng Việt (vietnámi)
Українська (ukrán)
Fordítási probléma jelentése
they are not downclocked because of the heat they are downclocked because of the power usage...
But downclocking is one thing the early M versions where also cut down (loss of CUDA-Cores) while the GTX 10 Series is not. So if you would clock them to desktop frequencies you wouldnt have a difference.
Max-Q (ultra thin) version is severely undervolted and underclocked. A GTX 1080 Max-Q is only 5% better than mobile GTX 1070 and is still weaker than desktop GTX 1070. It's understandable because it's undervolted to the point of consuming only 90w vs desktop GTX 1070 150w.
basically your graphic power is: CUDA-Cores * Clock speed
Since GTX 10 (like GTX 1050 mobile) the chip isnt cut down anymore. means it doesnt lose any computingpower. But to save power as laptops intend to run on a battery that should provide enough power for more then just 5 minutes the frequency is lowered.
If you wouldnt run on the batterie and change the clockrate to the normal desktop clock rates you would have only a marginal difference (less then 5%).