But they aren't being starved as they don't need it to begin with, Gaming laptops can happily run the latest games - so I don't see what the problem is - bar you won't get as good resolution or as good texture quality depedning on laptop spec!!!
But they
are being starved - otherwise the 9600m GT would be as good as one of my 9600 GTs (pre SLI). Which it isn't. And my 2.8GHz Core2Duo laptop would be faster than my Pentium D 3.0GHz. Which it isn't.
What is it you're failing to understand? If people
could make chips that ran on nothing in the first place (a la 9800m GTX), then they wouldn't make the desktop version hotter, more power hungry and bigger in the first place.
Benchmark proofing is the 9800m GTX is only hitting 10,000 3DMarks in 3DMark06, where my 8800GTX standard hits 14,000 and the 9800GTX hits 15,000.
The laptop versions of these chips DO NOT meet the performance levels of their desktop counterparts. They cannot. It's an impossibility.
And as for the guy who keeps telling us that a Cackbook Pro can play games, go back to playing Solitaire, and maybe have a quick go on something like Command and Conquer on low settings.
As for still being able to play modern games, my watercooled 8800GTX overclocked (running about 16,000 3DMarks) can only just manage Crysis on medium settings at 2x AA, so how the hell do you think any laptop chip will come close? More than anything they just don't have the memory required for that sort of crap - my GTX's memory bus is maxed out swapping textures around, with my 8GB RAM at 90% and quad core processor equally nailed...
It's scary how much someone learns from 'their mate down the pub who played this wicked shoot-em-up on this guy from works new laptop'.