That's because they are in fact lesser cards. A 3080 Max-Q won't even perform on-par with a desktop 3060 Ti, and hardware-wise is pretty much a massively-underclocked 3070, using a far smaller chip than the desktop 3080. It's a "3080" in name only, and even with the Max-Q branding was arguably something of a scam, tricking people into thinking they are getting something comparable to the enthusiast desktop part, when in reality the desktop part gets around 50% more performance. Without the Max-Q branding, if they are just calling it a 3080 with no indication that it is something else entirely, then that's even more of a scam. At least give it some form of different naming or numbering scheme. Call it an RTX 3080M or something that makes it more clear that it's different hardware from the desktop part....and that Max-Q could make some people think it's a lesser GPU without considering the efficiency the technology brings.
Completely agree with you. The MAX Q variants are less powerful than their mobile counterparts. E.g Mobile GTX1660ti > RTX 2060 Max Q. Putting it on to the consumer to figure this out, who may not have any idea of how much a 60w/80w TDP part will perform. It's just bad form IMO.I agree. This is a dishonest marketing strategy and Nvidia needs to be sued for this. Folks, lets try our best to raise awareness for this. OEMs are in this too. They didn't sold enough Turing Max-Q variants because if you check Notebookcheck.net, you'll see that a Mobile RTX 2080 Super Max-Q performs like a GTX 1660 while the Max-P variant performs very well. We really, really need to raise awareness in regards to this. A lot of novice PC gamers will be tricked into purchasing expensive laptops with Max-Q variant. This is a deliberate attempt to trick consumers!