OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation Laptop review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£1,260VRAM:12 GBMemory bus width:192 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):117.5 W

NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation Laptop Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 1 expert reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation Laptop
7.3/10

Overall score

Score
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Score components

40%

7.2

Technical score

25%

7.2

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.8, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 51% of graphics cards
6.3

Value for money

Value for money
6.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
Score components

70%

7.3

Overall score

30%

3.9

Price

â–¼Worse than 90%
7.2

Technical score

Technical score
7.2/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 53% of models
Score components

44%

6.2

Performance

24%

6.5

Memory

12%

9.1

Power

11%

9.7

Features

5%

8.4

Design

4%

9.2

Connectivity

â–²Better than 53%
7.2

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.2/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 69% of models

7.2

Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

8.2

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 review, with a printed score. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 69%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • nvidia-rtx-4000-ada-generation-laptop
nvidia-rtx-4000-ada-generation-laptop
Where to buy
    N/A~ £1,260
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation Laptop

Technical score
Technical score
7.2/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 53% of models
Score components:

44%

6.2

Performance

24%

6.5

Memory

12%

9.1

Power

11%

9.7

Features

5%

8.4

Design

4%

9.2

Connectivity

7.2
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
Score components:

70%

7.3

Overall score

30%

3.9

Price

6.3
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
16,013 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 16,013 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is higher than 54.2% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
10,118 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 10,118 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is higher than 55.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
22,174 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 22,174 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 54.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
8,687 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 8,687 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 66.5% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
33.6 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 33.6 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is higher than that of 65.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
12 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 12 GB of VRAM, which is more than 46% of graphics cards and equal to 16% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR6
This graphics card uses GDDR6 memory, which is newer than on 16.4% of graphics cards and equal to 40.3% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
192 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 192 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 31.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 18.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
432 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 432 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 58.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.7% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
18,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 18,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 51.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 8.9% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
4
This graphics card supports PCIe 4, which is newer than on 22.5% of graphics cards and equal to 50.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12 Ultimate
This graphics card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is more advanced than on 22.8% of graphics cards and equal to 77.2% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
?
DisplayPort version
1.4a
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more advanced than on 19.3% of graphics cards and equal to 46.3% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
1.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 1.4 Gbps, which is slower than on 96.5% of graphics cards and equal to 3.6% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
117.5 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 117.5 W, which is lower than that of 85.2% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
60 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 60 W under peak load, which is lower than 96.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
?
Board power limit
150 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 150 W, which is lower than that of 75.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.9% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
?
Show more
Size
?
Length
?
Height
?
Slot width
?
Weight
528 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 528 g, which is lighter than 89.8% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of Graphics cards.
Show more

NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation Laptop vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 45.3% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (117.5 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    117.5 W vs 215 W
  • 18 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (58 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    58 vs 40
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 18 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (58 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    58 vs 40
  • 28.6% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2,250 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,250 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 88 more AI cores
    This graphics card has more AI cores than the average graphics card (232 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    232 vs 144
  • 48 more TMUs
    This graphics card has more TMUs than the average graphics card (232 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    232 vs 184
  • 16 more ROPs
    This graphics card has more ROPs than the average graphics card (80 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    80 vs 64
  • 18 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (58 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    58 vs 40
  • 18 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (58 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    58 vs 40
  • 88 more AI cores
    This graphics card has more AI cores than the average graphics card (232 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    232 vs 144
  • 48 more TMUs
    This graphics card has more TMUs than the average graphics card (232 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    232 vs 184
  • 16 more ROPs
    This graphics card has more ROPs than the average graphics card (80 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    80 vs 64
  • 48.7% higher FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP32 performance than the average graphics card (33.6 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    33.6 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 28.6% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2,250 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,250 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 2x larger L2 cache
    This graphics card has more L2 cache than the average graphics card (48 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    48 MB vs 24 MB
  • 8x more Infinity Cache
    This graphics card has more Infinity Cache than the average graphics card (32 MB vs 4 MB). The average graphics card has 4 MB Infinity Cache.
    32 MB vs 4 MB
  • Supports virtual GPU
    This graphics card supports virtual GPU features, the average graphics card does not.
  • More NVENC sessions
    This graphics card has more concurrent NVENC sessions than the average graphics card (Unlimited vs 8). The average graphics card has 8 concurrent NVENC sessions.
    Unlimited vs 8
  • 45.3% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (117.5 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    117.5 W vs 215 W
  • 31.8% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (150 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    150 W vs 220 W
  • 72.7% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (60 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    60 W vs 220 W
  • 50% lower idle power draw
    This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (6 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    6 W vs 12 W
  • 47.9% lighter
    This graphics card is lighter than the average graphics card (528 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    528 g vs 1,014 g
  • 33.5% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,665 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,665 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 32.8% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,290 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,290 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.
  • 2.42x more expensive
    NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation Laptop is more expensive than the average graphics card (£1,260 vs £520).
    £1,260 vs £520
  • 17.7% worse value for money
    NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation Laptop has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.3 vs 7.4).
    6.3 vs 7.41
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 2.1a).
    2.1 vs 2.1a
  • 2.42x more expensive
    NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation Laptop is more expensive than the average graphics card (£1,260 vs £520).
    £1,260 vs £520
  • 17.7% worse value for money
    NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation Laptop has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.3 vs 7.4).
    6.3 vs 7.41
  • 33.5% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,665 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,665 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 32.8% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,290 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,290 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 17.4% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (133.2 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    133.2 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 5.3% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (18,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    18,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 3.6% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (432 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    432 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 2.1a).
    2.1 vs 2.1a
  • No HDMI output
    This graphics card does not include HDMI output, the average graphics card does.
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
    2.2 vs 2.3
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • 93.5% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (1.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    1.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (5 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    5 vs 6
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • 9.6 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (45 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    45 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 8 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (75 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    75 °C vs 67 °C
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.6
notebookcheck.biz
✓ explicit
26/10/2024
Lab test · Mobile workstation
Verdict
The Lenovo ThinkPad P16 Gen 2 is a fast 16-inch workstation for buyers willing to accept its bigger, heavier, louder and hotter body.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation Laptop

  • High energy efficiency thanks to the 5nm TSMC process
  • Significant performance leap over the previous generation RTX A4000
  • Equipped with 12GB of ECC (Error-Correcting Code) VRAM, essential for professional stability
  • Supports latest Ada Lovelace features like DLSS 3 and AV1 encoding
  • Exceptional performance for AI inference and real-time rendering tasks

What customers don't like about NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation Laptop

  • Large performance variance between laptops due to wide TGP ranges (60W to 175W)
  • DisplayPort 1.4a outputs may become a bottleneck for future 8K displays
  • High cost premium compared to consumer GeForce equivalents
  • Driver-related stability issues or frame drops reported in some specific gaming scenarios

Verdict

The NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation Laptop GPU is a high-end professional workstation graphics card based on the Ada Lovelace architecture and the AD103 chip, featuring 7,424 CUDA cores, 232 fourth-generation Tensor cores, and 58 third-generation RT cores. It is equipped with 12 GB of GDDR6 ECC VRAM on a 192-bit bus, delivering a memory bandwidth of approximately 432 GB/s and performance up to 33.5 TFLOPS. Main pros include its exceptional suitability for 1440p gaming and intensive professional workloads like CAD or AI inference, support for DLSS 3 and AV1 encoding, and the inclusion of error-correcting code (ECC) memory for stability. Significant cons include a highly variable TGP range (60W to 175W) that can lead to inconsistent performance across different laptop models and potential bottlenecks from its reliance on DisplayPort 1.4a for high-resolution 8K outputs.

Compare NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation Laptop with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation Laptop and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found