For anyone who knows.
Basically, it seems to me like the technology in mobile GPUs is crazier than desktop/laptop GPUs. Desktop GPUs obviously can do things better graphically, but not by enough that it seems to need to be 100x bigger than a mobile GPU. And top end mobile GPUs actually perform quite admirably when it comes to graphics and power.
So, considering that, why are desktop GPUs so huge and power hungry in comparison to mobile GPUs?
It’s a little amusing how many respondents thought mobile GPUs meant laptop GPUs despite it being clear in your post.
There are several factors at play from mobile GPUs being ARM based, having unified memory and some laws of physics meaning more size and power has diminishing returns.
Phone GPUs based are generally comparable to budget desktop GPUs on a per generation comparison.
Despite this mobile games tend to look amazing compared to what you would expect out of a PC game on low end hardware.
Part of this is optimisation, part of it is more efficient graphics libraries targeting a much lower range of hardware. Similar to how lower spec consoles often have great looking games, targeting only one hardware layout can allow for crazy optimisations.
See the PS3 era games for examples of really pushing hardware to its absolute limits for graphics.
Sadly my answer isn’t as technically detailed as Id like but it’s a complex topic when you really delve into it.
I appreciate the well thought out response!
To the best of my knowledge ARM company is not involved in making GPUs, and ARM CPUs don’t influence performance of GPUs. Board and system architecture might though, such as unified memory, which could be part of the memory controller and physically Co exist with the CPU?
ARM makes GPUs, which are primarily used in phones, and this isn’t hard to lookup.
The ARM instruction set which is an alternative to x86 is also another matter.