Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
1080 Max-Q vs 1080 Mobile
Price now
230$
Games supported
98%
- Interface PCIe 3.0 x16
- Core clock speed 1607
- Max video memory 8 GB GDDR5X
- Memory type GDDR5
- Memory clock speed 10 Gbps
- Maximum resolution
- Interface PCIe 3.0 x16
- Core clock speed 1101 - 1290
- Max video memory 8 GB
- Memory type GDDR5X
- Memory clock speed 10000
- Maximum resolution
Price now
1008$
Games supported
94%
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 98 | 153 |
| Value for money | 100.00 | 15.45 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | N17E-G3 | N17E-G3 Max-Q |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 16 August 2016 (6 years old) | 30 May 2017 (6 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499.99 | no data |
| Current price | $230 (0.5x MSRP) | $1008 |
Value for money
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2560 | 2560 |
| CUDA cores | 2560 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1607 MHz | 1101 - 1290 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1733 MHz | 1278 - 1468 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 90 - 110 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 94 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 283.4 | 234.9 |
| Floating-point performance | 9,068 gflops | 7,516 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 1080 Mobile and GeForce GTX 1080 Max-Q compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | large | large |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| SLI options | + | no data |
Memory
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated VRAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5X |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 10 GB/s | 10000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 320 GB/s | 320.3 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | DP 1.42, HDMI 2.0b, DL-DVI | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| G-SYNC support | + | + |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GPU Boost | 3.0 | no data |
| VR Ready | + | + |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 6.1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
1080 Mobile outperforms 1080 Max-Q by 37% in our combined benchmark results.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Benchmark coverage: 16%
1080 Mobile outperforms 1080 Max-Q by 24% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 16%
1080 Mobile outperforms 1080 Max-Q by 21% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
3DMark Fire Strike Score
Benchmark coverage: 13%
1080 Mobile outperforms 1080 Max-Q by 21% in 3DMark Fire Strike Score.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
1080 Mobile outperforms 1080 Max-Q by 11% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature seemingly made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
1080 Mobile outperforms 1080 Max-Q by 18% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 8%
1080 Mobile outperforms 1080 Max-Q by 5% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.
Unigine Heaven 3.0
This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
1080 Mobile outperforms 1080 Max-Q by 14% in Unigine Heaven 3.0.
SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase
Benchmark coverage: 2%
1080 Mobile outperforms 1080 Max-Q by 7% in SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase.
SPECviewperf 12 - Maya
This part of SPECviewperf 12 workstation benchmark uses Autodesk Maya 13 engine to render a superhero energy plant static scene consisting of more than 700 thousand polygons, in six different modes.
Benchmark coverage: 2%
1080 Mobile outperforms 1080 Max-Q by 22% in SPECviewperf 12 - Maya.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 113
+11.9%
| 101
−11.9%
|
| 1440p | 71
+6%
| 67
−6%
|
| 4K | 53
+6%
| 50
−6%
|
Performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+30.6%
|
45−50
−30.6%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 59
−32.2%
|
78
+32.2%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 78
+73.3%
|
45−50
−73.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 115
−15.7%
|
133
+15.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 133
+87.3%
|
70−75
−87.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+30.6%
|
45−50
−30.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 91
+0%
|
91
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 89
+6%
|
84
−6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 108
−14.8%
|
124
+14.8%
|
| Hitman 3 | 110−120
+40.2%
|
80−85
−40.2%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 84
+44.8%
|
55−60
−44.8%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 91
+112%
|
40−45
−112%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 84
−10.7%
|
93
+10.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 77
+16.7%
|
66
−16.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 52
−36.5%
|
71
+36.5%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 68
+51.1%
|
45−50
−51.1%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 112
−8%
|
121
+8%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 110
+54.9%
|
70−75
−54.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+30.6%
|
45−50
−30.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 80−85
−6%
|
89
+6%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 85
+4.9%
|
81
−4.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 106
−15.1%
|
122
+15.1%
|
| Hitman 3 | 110−120
+40.2%
|
80−85
−40.2%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 68
+119%
|
31
−119%
|
| Metro Exodus | 73
+14.1%
|
64
−14.1%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 51
+219%
|
16
−219%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 42
−97.6%
|
83
+97.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 80−85
+37.7%
|
60−65
−37.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 68
+15.3%
|
59
−15.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 65−70
+20.4%
|
54
−20.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 59
+31.1%
|
45−50
−31.1%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 102
−5.9%
|
108
+5.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+30.6%
|
45−50
−30.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 80−85
−1.2%
|
85
+1.2%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 77
+16.7%
|
65−70
−16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+5.7%
|
106
−5.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 80−85
+37.7%
|
60−65
−37.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 51
+6.3%
|
48
−6.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 74
+76.2%
|
40−45
−76.2%
|
| Hitman 3 | 65−70
+44.4%
|
45−50
−44.4%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 49
+36.1%
|
35−40
−36.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 44
+18.9%
|
37
−18.9%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 32
+60%
|
20−22
−60%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 62
+77.1%
|
35−40
−77.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 28
+16.7%
|
24
−16.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 42
−2.4%
|
43
+2.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 46
+84%
|
24−27
−84%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 86
+4.9%
|
82
−4.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+50%
|
18−20
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 74
+12.1%
|
66
−12.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 74
+10.4%
|
67
−10.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 87
+3.6%
|
84
−3.6%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 37
+85%
|
20−22
−85%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 40
+90.5%
|
21−24
−90.5%
|
| Hitman 3 | 35−40
+44%
|
24−27
−44%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 28
+55.6%
|
18−20
−55.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27
+17.4%
|
23
−17.4%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 20
+42.9%
|
14−16
−42.9%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 27−30
+3.7%
|
27
−3.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+55.6%
|
27−30
−55.6%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 24−27
−8.3%
|
26
+8.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 27
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 52
+15.6%
|
45
−15.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
+17.6%
|
34
−17.6%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 45
+80%
|
24−27
−80%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
−10%
|
55
+10%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 21
+90.9%
|
10−12
−90.9%
|
This is how GTX 1080 Mobile and GTX 1080 Max-Q compete in popular games:
1080p resolution:
- GTX 1080 Mobile is 11.9% faster than GTX 1080 Max-Q
1440p resolution:
- GTX 1080 Mobile is 6% faster than GTX 1080 Max-Q
4K resolution:
- GTX 1080 Mobile is 6% faster than GTX 1080 Max-Q
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1080 Mobile is 219% faster than the GTX 1080 Max-Q.
- in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1080 Max-Q is 97.6% faster than the GTX 1080 Mobile.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1080 Mobile is ahead in 53 tests (78%)
- GTX 1080 Max-Q is ahead in 14 tests (21%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (1%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 35.45 | 25.94 |
| Recency | 16 August 2016 | 30 May 2017 |
| Memory bandwidth | 320 | 320.3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 90 Watt |
Based on the results of synthetic and gaming tests, our recommendation leans towards the GeForce GTX 1080 Mobile due to its superior performance when compared to the GeForce GTX 1080 Max-Q graphics card.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
