Nevermind, at least for the non-native Cyberpunk x64 version, the FPS per Watt did not improve (see the tables)..:

Quote from: notebookcheck.net/Nvidia-RTX-Spark-Analysis-Finally-an-answer-to-Apple-s-M5-Pro-M5-Max.1422820.0.htmlThe numbers are still solid and the N1X is just slightly worse compared to systems with the GeForce RTX 5060/5070.

RTX Spark is reviewed (notebookcheck.net/Nvidia-RTX-Spark-Analysis-Finally-an-answer-to-Apple-s-M5-Pro-M5-Max.1422820.0.html) and we can compare now:

Quote from: yee on May 30, 2026, 08:07:27

Quote from: opckieran on April 26, 2026, 00:21:56There's NO WAY this performs close to a desktop 5060 with essentially half the power budget.

[..]
Based on the memory bandwidth alone, I'd agree with you. But maybe due to it being based on TSMC' 3nm node variant, a bit more of performance can be squeezed out.

But between "between an RTX 5070 and RTX 5070 Ti laptop", would be very surprising, if N1X' memory bandwidth is at 273 GB/s.

3dmark.com/search: Steel Nomad:

• Strix Halo Radeon 8060S iGPU (256 GB/s): "Average score: 2032" (= 7.94 points per GB/s).
• RTX Spark N1X 5120-core iGPU (301 GB/s): "Average score: 2764" (= 9.18 points per GB/s).
• RTX Spark N1X 6144-core iGPU (301 GB/s) (45-80 Watt): "Average score: 2941" (= 9.77 (+37.6%) points per GB/s) and "3134 Points" according to .1422820.0.html (= 10.4 (+46.5%) points per GB/s) (= 39 points/Watt).
• desktop 5060 (448 GB/s) (145 Watt TDP): "Average score: 3179" (= 7.1 points per GB/s) (= 21.9 points/Watt).
• 5070 Laptop (384 GB/s) (50-100 Watt TDP): "Average score: 3009" (= 7.84 points per GB/s).
• 5070 Ti Laptop (672 GB/s): "Average score: 3864" (= 5.75 points per GB/s).

(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_RTX_50_series, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_RTX_Spark)

In terms of pure performance, not performance per Watt, the 5060 desktop is just 1.4% (3179/3134) to 8% (3179/2941) faster..pretty close, but not

Quotebetween an RTX 5070 and RTX 5070 Ti laptop

as is stated in this news and more like on par with a 5070 Laptop.

And in terms of performance per Watt:
39 points/Watt/21.9 points/Watt = +78% (the TDP value was used, and assuming 3dmark utilizes a GPU more or less to its fullest, this should be good enough to being correct). An increase of 78% is excellent, but not unsurprising, because from power scaling (= automatic undervolting) or manual undervolting it's known that the power efficiency increases when the TDP Watt value is reduced to about -50% (below -50% the power efficiency (aka FPS per Watt) worsens again).

Quote from: notebookcheck.net/Nvidia-RTX-Spark-Analysis-Finally-an-answer-to-Apple-s-M5-Pro-M5-Max.1422820.0.htmlThe RTX Spark N1X has a maximum TDP of 80 Watts for mobile applications, while desktop systems can consume up to 120 Watts.

The TDP is already reduced from 120 to 80 Watt (-33%). If it's further reduced, the score/Watt may increase from 78% to 100%, but then the performance will decrease to above the +1.4% (to maybe -1x to -2x%).

Assuming those 5070 Laptop laptops that use 100W and have a score of ~3100 (average is "3009", "median: 3030" (.934942.0.html)), then it scores 31 points/Watt (3100points/100W). This leads to the Spark achieving 25.8% (39/31) more FPS per Watt, despite the 5070 Laptop being already an undervolted GB206-300 chip (that is also used in a 5060 Ti (180 W) btw.).

All in all and if no mistakes were made, a good, full node/one generational, improvement (= +25-33% perf/Watt) in raw compute. The one full node jump to TSMC's 3 nm (does probably the most lifting) + 273 -> 301 GB/s (+10%) did it indeed.

The only issue is the price and while 25% more FPS per Watt is a good minimum generational improvement, it will never amortize itself: +25% more power efficient means you save approx. 15-30 bucks per year, depending on where you live, if used for 8 hours every day (15 = 0.025kW (25W=100W-25%)*8hours per day*365days*0.2kWh).