But what are the differences between them In this comparison? Well, compare games at all setting levels, video, editing, thermals and battery life to help you decide if its worth paying more for the 2070 Max Q upgrade.. Both of my laptops are essentially the same. Apart from the GPU difference., Both have an Intel i7, 9750H CPU and 16gb of memory in dual channel. Lets start out by looking at the difference in gaming performance well cover thermals battery life and more afterwards.. Both laptops were tested with the same version of Windows. Nvidia drivers and BIOS so should be as apples to apples as possible.. Both were also tested in performance mode for best results and by default both had the same small undervolt to the CPU. Control was tested walking through the start of the game. In all upcoming graphs. Ive got the GTX 1660 Ti results shown by the red bars and the RTX 2070 Max Q results shown by the purple, bars and Ive also tested all games with all setting presets. In this game. There wasnt much difference in terms of average FPS at high settings. The 2070 Max Q was just 7.8 faster. However, there was a much larger 23 improvement to 1 low. Shadow of the Tomb Raider was tested with the games built in benchmark tool. At the lower setting presets. There was less of a difference between the two, presumably as were more CPU bound. At higher settings, though the 2070 Max Q is further ahead with a 16 lead at max.

Settings. Battlefield V was tested in campaign mode and there was a lower 8.8 improvement to average frame rate at ultra settings in this game.. The 1 low performance in this title is usually a bit all over the place and at lower settings. The difference closes. Borderlands 3 was tested with the built in benchmark, and this game saw one of the biggest differences between the two laptops. At max settings. The 2070 max q scored 21 higher average frame rate than the 1660 Ti. Just for comparison at very low settings. The difference drops to less than 5. Apex Legends was tested with all settings at minimum or maximum as it doesnt have built in setting presets. At minimum settings. The results were much the same as the 144 FPS frame cap was hit. At max settings. The 2070 Max Q was 11 ahead in average FPS. However, despite this, the 1660 Ti was still perfectly playable at this level. Metro Exodus was tested with the games built in benchmark. With the extreme setting preset the 2070 Max Q was 18 ahead of the GTX 1660 Ti. However, with the RTX settings theres a much larger 111 improvement as expected, GTX graphics, just dont do as well when it comes to ray tracing.. Fortnite was tested using the replay feature, with the exact same replay used on each machine on the same day.. The results here were interesting and not what I expected. There was basically zero difference at max settings in terms of average FPS, with more of a difference to 1 low noted.

Ghost Recon Breakpoint was tested using the games built in benchmark tool.. This time there was a larger 14 improvement to average FPS at max settings with the RTX 2070 Max Q in use with similar changes noted at the lower setting presets. Dota 2 was tested playing in the middle lane.. This game is typically a CPU dependent game with not much change regardless of the GPU you use, which is why I was interested in testing. It out. Sure enough at lower settings, theres almost no difference and even at ultra, the 2070 max q was only 3.8 faster than the 1660 Ti. Rainbow. Six Siege was tested with the games built in benchmark, and this game saw one of the larger differences out of all 16 games tested. At ultra settings. The 2070 Max Q was 17.6 ahead. In average, FPS CSGO was tested with the Ulletical FPS benchmark and is an example of another title that tends to perform better based on the CPU power.. Interestingly, the 1 low was better on the 2070 Max Q at lower settings. Then there was no difference at max. Settings. At max the 2070 max q was just 9 ahead. In average, FPS. Assassins Creed Odyssey was tested. Using the games benchmark tool. At max settings there was a below average 7 increase to average FPS.. Interestingly, the difference was higher at low settings with a 10 increase from the 2070 Max Q. PUBG was tested with the replay feature using the same replay on each machine.

At ultra settings. There was a massive difference with the 2070 Max Q 27 ahead of the 1660 Ti.. This was the largest difference seen out of all 16 games tested here, however, the change was lower at the other setting presets with just a 2 change at very low.. F1 2019 was tested with the built in benchmark, and this title saw an above average improvement with the 2070 Max Q, with a 15.7 increase. At high settings and below, though there was a much larger difference, then at ultra low the 2070 max q was a massive 49 ahead. The Witcher 3 tends to be a GPU bound game, so it makes sense that there was an above average 20 higher average frame rate with the ultra setting preset on the 2070 max q. Far Cry. New Dawn was tested using the games benchmark tool and there was only a small 5.6 improvement to average frame rate at ultra settings with a slightly bigger 8.7 gap at low settings. On average. Over all 16 of these games tested theres only a 12.7 higher average frame rate with the RTX 2070 Max Q. This was lower than I was expecting. In the past. Ive shown that the RTX 2060 is around 14 ahead of the 1660 Ti and Ive also shown that the RTX 2070 Max Q is around 6 ahead of the RTX 2060.. The lower results do make sense, though, when we consider that this laptop limits, the GPU temperature to 75 degrees Celsius.

. This prevents it from running at higher power limits, thereby restricting performance.. With that in mind, lets check out the thermals next.. Both laptops have the same cooling solution inside theyre, essentially the same just with different GPU. Testing was completed with an ambient room temperature of 21 degrees Celsius, so results should be comparable. With the version of the BIOS Im using 0048. Both have the same limit of 90 degrees Celsius for the CPU and 75 degrees for the GPU.. Again, both CPUs are undervolted by default, but Ive also pushed this further to see how it can help. Stress tests were done with the Aida64 CPU stress test and Heaven GPU benchmark, at the same time to fully load the system, while game tests were done with Watch Dogs 2, as it uses a good combination of CPU and GPU. In all stress tests, regardless of whether or not additional undervolting was done with a cooling pad in use, thermal limits were still being hit. In gaming, the extra undervolt and cooling pad were able to remove Thermal throttling on the CPU, more so on the 1660 Ti model. Presumably, as the 2070 Max Q runs a bit hotter, however, the GPU was still thermal throttling, regardless of test.. These are the clock speeds for the same tests, just shown. With the stress tests running with stock performance settings. The CPU speeds are about the same. Differences in GPU. Speed are expected, theyre different GPUs. After all, I was more interested to see if the CPU would throttle more as a result, but this doesnt seem to be the case.

. This was seen again even with the cooling pad and additional undervolt. Both CPUs were around the 3.9GHz mark. While gaming, the clock speeds of the CPU, are similar between 1660 Ti and 2070 Max Q. So it seems like the GPU difference, isnt negatively, affecting CPU performance.. These are the average TDP values for each test.. We can see the 2070 Max Q is using more power to achieve its higher speeds, despite both being capped to 75 degrees Celsius. In these combined workloads, neither GPU is able to hit its 80 watt cap due to the thermal constraints. Ive. Also measured total system power draw from the wall with The Witcher 3, which, if you recall, was able to get a larger 20 improvement with the 2070 Max Q.. To do this, the 2070 Max Q laptop was using around 9 more power.. As for the areas where youll be putting your hands, the 2070 Max Q machine did appear to be a little warmer, which was interesting, given both machines were running the same workloads and that the internals were capped to the same limits. Fan. Noise was otherwise the same. Ive also got some 3DMark benchmarks to compare. As these synthetic tests are more GPU heavy were seeing much better results. With the 2070 Max Q., There was a large 38 increase to the graphics score in firestrike, for example, and the port royal score was 200 higher, as that test incorporates ray tracing. Ive also tested exporting the same 4K video project with Adobe Premiere.

Interestingly, the 1660 Ti machine was a little quicker, though it wasnt by much.. The results were consistent, as these are averages from 5 exports on each machine.. The Intel GPU seemed to be pegged at 100, most of the time, even with CUDA selected, the Nvidia GPU wasnt utilized anywhere near as much, which I suspect is why I didnt see big improvements from the 2070 Max Q, so that could vary by projects. I was just exporting one of my laptop reviews.. Both laptops have the same large 6 cell 94 watt hour battery.. They were both tested, the same with the screen at 50 brightness background, apps, disabled and all RGB lighting off.. The results dont make sense to me. In the watching YouTube test. The 2070 Max Q machine was only able to hit 3 hours, but the 1660 Ti system passed 7 hours in the same test. I tested the 2070 Max Q machine again same result and I even tried a Windows reset incase. There was something strange going on, but no change again. The gaming results make a bit more sense. Wed expect the 2070 Max Q to burn through power a bit quicker but yeah. Take my out of gaming results with a grain of salt, because this much difference shouldnt be happening with Optimus.. Now, for the final difference, the price. Here in Australia, if you want to get the Vapor 15 from Aftershock, were looking at 780 AUD extra or 34 more money.

In the US. The MAG 15 from Eluktronics, which is the same Intel designed chassis, seems to go for 1600 USD for the 1660 Ti model or 1900 USD for the lowest 2070 Max Q model, which is 18.7 more money. In Europe. The XMG Fusion 15 again same laptop, is 465 more for the 2070 Max Q or 21.5 more money.. In all of these cases. Personally, I find the extra cost hard to justify for the 2070 Max Q., Although results do depend on the specific game youre playing as we saw earlier on average, there was less than a 13 improvement out of the 16 titles that Ive tested at stock.. The 1660 Ti is offering much better value and, in most cases, is still a great match up with the 144Hz screen.. It is, of course, worth considering that the 2070 Max Q also has 2gb more VRAM, which could be more beneficial in future, and I need to mention that you cant upgrade the GPU after buying. Generally. For this reason, I recommend buying the best GPU you can afford, but, as we dont seem to be getting full performance here, its harder to justify., You could also argue that if you want to use ray tracing, you need the 2070 Max Q and while thats true Personally, I think ray tracing still has a long way to go before Id look at spending more money to get it.. There are still very few games that support it and the ones that do perform significantly worse with it enabled.

By the time we have enough games implementing it well, well, probably be past this 1st gen RTX hardware., Basically for most people, I dont think its worth paying More for the 2070 Max Q. The 1660 Ti offers fair levels of performance for the majority of users..