Folks with Nvidia-based gaming laptops can now use a new tool called NvpwrControl to unlock additional performance from their assuredly power-limited mobile GPU, as long as they're willing to accept the risks of cranking their GPU power limit by as much as 40 watts. The tool, spotted by VideoCardz, is available for download on GitHub, and it is labeled as 'experimental', so you'll want to be very sure you're willing to damage the reliability, if not the lifespan, of your fancy discrete GPU gaming laptop before using it.

If you've ever had a gaming laptop, you will know that the GPU model name can be deeply misleading. Whether it's NVIDIA using wildly different GPU configurations, AMD using confusing suffixes that don't exist in desktop GPUs, or Intel naming integrated graphics like a discrete GPU, all three vendors do things to keep the user guessing why their new gaming laptop isn't as fast as expected based on the name alone.

In Nvidia's case, the GPU models (aside from the RTX 30 Series) don't match at all between laptop and desktop, but even with the smaller size of the laptop GPUs, the chips are still sharply limited in performance by their stringent power limits. These limits top out at 150W, with an extra jolt, usually 25W, available from Dynamic Boost if the CPU isn't heavily loaded. This is, frankly put, not enough power for even the mobile GeForce RTX 5070 Ti to stretch its legs, to say nothing of the GeForce RTX 5080 Laptop or GeForce RTX 5090 Laptop. In high-intensity gaming situations, these GPUs can score pretty similarly due to having the same power limit.

That's what makes this tool attractive. By cranking the power limit, you can give these power-limited GPUs a performance boost. The developer doesn't provide any benchmarks, but I can say from experience that testing power limit adjustments on a power-limited GPU can give nearly linear performance gains, meaning that increasing the power limit from a stock 140W all the way up to 180W could potentially give a GPU performance uplift in the neighborhood of 25% or more, although it is impossible to verify this without testing.

There are quite a few caveats to this utility, though. For one thing, even the author describes it as 'experimental ', and for another thing, it's clearly AI-generated in the largest part. The developer is called "LevinAI", after all, and there are the hallmarks of generative AI all over the GitHub repository. Still, there are a few reports on both GitHub and Reddit suggesting that users have been testing it, and the developer claims that it works on his GeForce RTX 5070 Ti laptop, posting the proof below.

Other notable qualifiers include that it only supports Blackwell GPUs for now, and it only enables power controls when it can recognize the power policy layout and OEM baseline. If your GPU already ships with a wacky power configuration, this tool may not work for you. It's also not verified to work on every brand of laptop nor every model of GeForce RTX 50-series GPU, so we absolutely wouldn't try this unless you're willing to replace your Blackwell-based laptop.

The partially AI-generated project description (likely chosen as the author's native language appears to be Russian) explains that the developer investigated numerous layers of the software stack on top of the GPU to see where the power limit could be modified. The controls that NVIDIA exposes generally won't let the user raise the power limit above the value set by the OEM for fear of potentially damaging the hardware, since the power delivery and cooling mechanisms were likely not designed with the higher power draw and thermal output in mind.

The solution he found was apparently to modify a low-level NVIDIA power policy that isn't normally exposed to end-users. He says, "One of the important findings was that the power-management chain contains internal policy values that are not exposed through the normal consumer power-limit controls. This is the path that eventually led to a working experimental implementation." However, due to the method employed, the tool does require the user to disable Windows driver signature verification, which is yet another 'gotcha' of the mod.

As amusing as it is to see that the developer left his AI assistant's instructions for constructing his GitHub repository (which he didn't follow), it's a reminder both of the reliability concerns around "vibe"-coded software in production as well as of the incredible potential of AI software development. Since we spotted the story on this utility, the developer has already bumped the version from 1.5.0 to 1.8.0 with a new release on GitHub, suggesting that the pace of improvements is extremely rapid.

A few users on Reddit, where the author posted the above screenshot, lambasted the developer for taking ownership of what they claim is "100% AI generated work" and also for not structuring his code repository correctly (since all of the source is packed in a ZIP file, not properly viewable on GitHub). However, the majority of other users seem enthusiastic about his work, and several have already posted proof that it seems to work, with huge gains in 3DMark and other benchmarks.

Micron this week introduced its first 512GB DDR5-9200 memory module that is designed for servers used for applications that demand a lot of memory. The new modules — which are currently being validated by AMD and Intel with their next-generation server platforms — will enable server makers to build machines with up to 12TB of fast memory. What remains to be seen is the price of such modules and servers.

To build its 512GB DDR5 RDIMM, Micron uses advanced packaging that stacks multiple DRAM dies vertically and connects them using through-silicon vias (TSVs). The company does not disclose which memory devices and how many of them it uses, but claims that a single 512GB RDIMM consumes over 60% less operating power than four 128GB modules — based on 16.0W for one 512GB module compared with the 44.2W total for four 128GB modules — which suggests that we are dealing with fairly advanced ICs.

Micron's 512GB module is not the industry's first 512GB DDR5 RDIMM — that achievement belongs to Samsung — but it is certainly the industry's first 512GB module certified to operate with a 9200 MT/s data transfer rate with standard 1.1V voltage (which implies on usage of Micron's 16Gb DDR5-9200 devices made on its 1γ (1-gamma) fabrication process that uses EUV lithography and consumes 20% less power than predecessors, though we are speculating).

Truth to be told, 512GB DDR5 memory modules are rather niche products, which is perhaps why Samsung's 512GB RDIMMs formally introduced in 2021 have not become widespread even after AMD and Intel introduced processors with over 100 cores. Micron positions its 512GB DDR5 RDIMM primarily for servers running analytics, in-memory databases, simulations, virtualization, agentic AI, and other workloads demanding high-core-count processors and plenty of memory. As processors with 200 or more cores emerge, 512GB modules may become more relevant as 12TB of memory in a server running two 256-core CPUs means 24GB per core, which no longer looks particularly excessive for applications like in-memory databases, analytics, or caching.

Micron claims that in memory-constrained Spark Support Vector Machine (SVM) analytics workloads, systems featuring 512GB memory modules can provide up to 1.4 times the performance of configurations equipped with 256GB DDR5 modules, though the company does not disclose how much memory in total these systems use. Micron also says the higher-capacity memory can increase throughput and concurrency for memory-intensive database and caching applications such as RocksDB and Redis.

AMD and Intel are working with Micron to qualify the new modules for their upcoming server platforms. Micron plans to begin volume production of its 512GB DDR5 RDIMMs sometime in the second half of 2027 and intends to align the schedule with customer requirements.

One of the more pressing questions about Micron's 512GB DDR5-9200 memory modules is their price. A 256GB DDR5-6400 RDIMM currently retails for around $19,000. Given the unique proposition that 512GB modules have for memory-constrained applications, such modules can cost significantly more than 256GB memory sticks, which will not help their broad adoption.