Xajel :
Bro we're talking about mobile parts, NV 10th mobile series consume much less wattage than their desktop parts, NV never released the actual mobile TDP number as they said that it varies in each OEM configuration, so basically it's an adjustable TDP which can suit the OEM designs/needs...
Some websites suggested TDP is 75W and some says 80W, we don't know actually but it's a little less or near 970M... but personally I believe it sits between 960M and 970M and leans more toward 970M... so we can say something like 965M. which was not as popular as either of 960M and 970M coz it's the newest one and it has very close TDP as 970M with performance gap a little more than the TDP.
960M was the most popular mGPU duo to TDP and performance...
Any way, most laptops that actually had the 960M didn't actually upgrade to any 10th series mGPU.. but those with 970M upgraded to 1060 and 1070 like the Razer blade.
So looking that 1060M actually have a very close TDP to both 965M and 970M, I only thought that MS decided to go for 965M instead of 1060M is duo quantity or even cost as NV wants to clear it's inventory...
indeed 1050Ti has more performance than 965M but they just released them and I think NV needs more time to create enough inventory for a mobile pinned version. the point is, the desktop part have a 75W TDP and so the mobile part might come with lower TDP... and looking how NV managed to lower the TDP of the rest of other 10 series mGPU compared to the desktop parts then a mobile 1050Ti might actually have much lower TDP than even 960M...
a) You can't compare the 9xxm series to the new 10xx for mobile series - since the new series uses equivalent GPU specs to the desktop series, and not an entirely separate hierarchy as before. The 1060 is as such in no way comparable to the 960m (in fact, a comparison to the 970m is far more apt, especially as the 50% higher clocks would at the very least nullify power consumption gains from the production process move). Just as the 980m is not a parallel to the 1080 for mobile - the 980 (non-m) for mobile is (which was a 165w card, just like the desktop version (see
Notebookcheck.net)). After all, the 1060 desktop is a 120w card. There is
no way the laptop version is below 80w without seriously gimping performance.
b) "personally I believe it sits between 960m and 970m." Well, sure. Personally, I believe GPUs are made of fairy dust and consume no power at all. Unrealistic beliefs like that speak of hopeful fanboyism, not actual understanding of how chip production works. Sure, the best possible binned 1060 might run below 80w with careful tuning. That doesn't mean they will ever come close to mass production at this low power consumption. That's not how mass production works.
c) Sure, there might be a ~50-60w 1050 (Ti?) for mobile, with better binning and lower clocks. But this card was, as stated previously, launched
this tuesday. Sure, OEMs have known of it for a while, but nowhere near long enough ago to actually integrate them into a product. Nowhere close. Not to mention that
there is no mobile version announced yet. It took Nvidia a good few months to get mobile Pascal 1060-80 out the door - there's little reason to think the 1050 will be any different.
d) the Razer Blade used to have a 970m. Now it has a 1060 - not a 1070. The Blade
Pro comes with a 1070 (or 1080), but that's a 17" machine and not comparable to the 14" Blade in terms of cooling capabilities. The 1060 replaced the 970m. The 1070 replaced the 980m. The 1080 replaced the 980 (non-m) notebook. Is that hard to grasp?
e) the 965m is by now a very mature chip, which means production is likely highly optimized for power usage. Pascal is on the other hand brand new, and not optimized for anything. It's far more likely that Microsoft has ordered specially-binned <50w 965ms than that they have engineered ~70w of cooling capacity into that thin base. And as such, highly unlikely that they could fit a 1060 in there, no matter how much you might want that to be possible.