MAX Q

So, I don't understand... will the new q chips be faster than the current 60, 70 & 80 chips? I guess all that I'm reading about is performance per mm of chassis. IDK how this related to actual performance since the q chips will need less wattage to run at max performance it seems. And since they aren't a new design and still Pascal, I guess I just don't get the difference in GPU's, only that they will be able to shove a big mac into a water bottle.

 

take a look at the razer blade pro gtx 1080 as a max-q

it's a 1080, that performs slower than a gimped 1070 on an alienware 17 (115w)


so you're buying a next tier product with a slim design premium, that performs worse than a previous tier product which has already been gimped

ain't that right @Razer Customer Support @RazerCS
huh, HUH?

 

Max-Q is marketing jargon. They are the same 60, 70, 80 chips with a purposefully lowered TDP and lowered clock boost. They are then stuffed in thin ultrabooks and sold at a premium. Its all so they can say "this 15" laptop has a GTX 1080 in it" when it is barley on the level of a GTX 1070 (and it most likely will still throttle even more because ultrabooks cant cool even a 1070)

Overall they are scamming customers with fancy graphs, charts, and "ultrathin" GTX 1070 and 1080 notebooks that perform like a GPU class below, but demand full Top end GPU price.

Biggest problem here is that, while release statements say Max-Q on the press release, they do not in the spec sheets. Many customers won't know there is a difference.

 

couldn't have said it better myself

+rep

 

I'm holding my breath until I see the numbers. Evidenced-based approach or bust!

That being said, physics has a nasty habit of being real.

 

It seems interesting, I personally would like to see laptop manufacturers do a thinner more portable range like the Max-Q designs I've seen so far, alongside a thicker full power range of laptops with full TDP. They should have to show the percentage performance difference between a regular GPU and the ultrabook version in all marketing, so people aren't surprised that one is hotter and weaker despite having the same hardware. Apparently Max-Q specs say the laptop fans must be under 40 dB under full load too, so I'm looking forward to seeing what cooling solutions these thin chassis will have.

 

So this is that refresh that was being talked about MONTHS ago of lower TDP versions of their cards, nice.

 

The Max-Q GPUs are basically taking 2 steps back and bringing the "M" mobile GPUs.
1080 Max-Q is a 1080M that performs slightly under a 1070
1070 Max-Q is a 1070M that performs slightly above the 1060
1060 Max-Q is a 1060M that performs around an OCed 1050 Ti

At least how I understand it

 

and max-q laptop cost more than the normal machines that outperform them

 

I'd like to see some specs soon before stating that the GPUs will be worse than the class below. Also I doubt it'll be that bad, a full power 1060 can and will fit in a thin laptop without any real problems eg aero 15. So theres no reason to make it run like a 1050? If they can keep the majority of a chips performance while at a lower TDP this can only be a good thing. Also I doubt every single gaming laptop will adopt this design so people shouldn't worry, there will still be plenty of non Max-Q machines so if it's not your thing no problem. However many people (myself included) would trade some performance for a thin and light gaming laptop that can be carried all day. As long as it's not at an inexcusable price premium

 

*sarcasm*
But....but...but... they are advertising 'stronger' 'performance' from these newly redone cards... all the while reducing power draw... How could there possibly be reduced performance?
/MindBlown

*edit*
My friends Alienware 17r4 before it was swapped out says hello, it's 1070 hit 115 watts easily on many games and hard throttled because it would spike to 130 watts and freeze briefly.

 

Max Q is the last step to the Full BGA / Power Limited / Overpriced path laptop manufacturers took.

We agreed to buy those form factor... Why would they stop taking our money ?

For after sale overheating/throttling issue there are laptop forums to deal with for free !

 

Maybe NVidia needs more money to bring out Volta, that's why they are introducing lower clocked GPU that perform only at 60% capacity in order to maximize power savings. I wonder what NVidia is trying to achieve, even with thicker chassis its difficult to output heat in regions with high ambient temperature MAX Q will be MAX TT ( Thermal Throttling)

 

Thanks to you now i have my eyes cleared

 

Nvidia's office, a marketing guy enters the engineers' open space:

Marketing guy : "Guys we're in deep S...t, Vega's right on the corner and we still have a lot of Pascal in Stock ! "
Engineer 1: "Told you guys that the fake out of stock rumors for December would'nt work twice."
Marketing guy : "..."
Engineer 2 : "Ok, you know what ? We will lower even more Pascal's power limit with a special slim factor VBios. So you can sell Pascal GPU again like it being a brand new powerfull and yet efficient technology with a better Q factor."
Marketing guy : "Thanks guys, you saved my life ! Max power and better Q factor ... Max Q ! Sounds nice."
Engineer 1: "You've got no shame. Get out of here you peace of S..t !!"

 

That's how you understand it, but it won't be this horrible.
It is speculated these MAX-Q cards will perform at around 85-90% the mobile GPUs seen in thick laptops with a much lower TDP. The GTX 1080 in the RBP is "not" a MAX-Q GPU, or at least; it was there before the term was even invented. It probably wasn't tweaked to run on a thin laptop, and that's why it performs worse than a thick GTX 1070.
Time will tell, though. Hopefully this new tech doesn't cripple GPUs a lot.

Sent from my SM-N900 using Tapatalk

 

Still though. A mobile dGPU is already 10% slower than a desktop counterpart. This brings that to a further 20-25% deficiency. We're back to the old days of a 1080 being 25-30% faster (depending on the boost clock) than a 1080M

 

The old days were a 980m being about as good as a desktop 770 and nowhere near a desktop 980. Additionally not every laptop will be a Max Q one, so if you want a more powerful laptop just get one instead? Its not as if manufacturers are only going to make these new thin ones from now on

 

Remember - ONLY in thin machines. Those who're looking for thin, light, somewhat more power-efficient and quiet, should totally compromise another 10-15% in raw performance. I find that absolutely okay, provided it actually performs as advertized and no pesky lies are said.

Sent from my SM-N900 using Tapatalk

 

Want to go back and check? - 980M was pulling ahead of a 780 and matching a stock 780 Ti. Feel free to look at Digital Foundry

That's what worries me - companies rarely tell the truth in marketing materials. I don't want to end up with people complaining that their 1600$ GS series 1060s are being beaten by someone's 7567 and OCed 1050 Ti

 

Apologies, you are correct, it was closer to the 780 than the 770, however Futuremark etc have the 780 ahead of the 980m, and I recall my 980m laptop not getting the same fps as a 780 desktop. In hindsight that may have had more to do with CPU etc but either way, my second point about the 980 desktop being leagues ahead of the 980m is still true.

However, about going backwards to 1080m, there are still going to be laptops with full 1060/70/80 gpu's, they just won't be the thin max Q designs

 

I hope, for everyone's sake, that you are correct. If these new GPUs are seen by OEMs as a quick and dirty cash grab, we're all just going one stop forward and 3 steps backwards.

 

On nVidia's own page, before they broke it, they claimed that the 1080 Max-Q is 1.7X the regular 1060. From benching my own laptops, I think a single 1080 is at least 2x a 1060 when comparing Firestrike Graphics scores (and that's with overclocking the Blade). Going from 2x to 1.7x is terrible, especially when I see that the new Acer with the 1080 Max Q is *starting* at $2999. I'm all for thin and light but for $3K I'd get a Tornado F5 or even the new Aero 15 for $1899 with the slick screen and 1060 (which works fine at 1080p gaming). And I'd have to believe that 1.7x is under best of conditions.

https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/products/10series/laptops/max-q/

 

That's why it's called 1080MQ - it's a 1080M and acts as all previous "M" cards. I imagine the reason for these cards to even exist is that OEMs want to be able to say they have a 1080 in a small machine like they could with the 980M (Aorus and such)

 

1080 laptop mobile https://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-1080-Laptop.171212.0.html

1080 laptop MaxQ https://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-1080-Max-Q-GPU-Benchmarks-and-Specs.224730.0.html

180 watts vs 110 watts (61% of original)
1733 vs 1468mhz core (84% of original card)
So it will not be able to clock anywhere near as high, let alone overclock as high for as long, but will definitely run cooler. Assuming the same hardware aside the gpu on a very demanding game that pushes TDP hard, unless they increased power efficiency somewhat... the gimped card will be more than 16% behind.

 

So if Max-Q just a marketing gimmick, we better buy thin laptop with 1060 non-max-q ???

 

Hard to tell; it all depends on thermals and battery life. #'s we don't have now. I suspect, on the lower end a GTX 1060 Max-Q will be superior to GTX 1050ti and GTX 1060 (for the thin and light market considering good thermals and good battery)

However, on the higher end, battery, performance, and thermal trad-offs will dwindle. 1070 and 1080 Max-Q will not offer anything worth their price

 

Ah... I had a feeling what my buddy said about these chips was right and from your posts above, say basically what he said so that's pretty neat.

Yeah, I'd bet they'd perform better in thin laptops vs the non q cards solely due to heat causing thermal throttling. But not the same as the non q cards in thicker cases.

 

Speaking of Max-Q cards, will the new low end MX150 be Max-Q as well? Or will we see two MX150's? XD

Sent from my SM-N900 using Tapatalk

 

1369 on the 1070 max q (90 watt) / 1645 on the regular 1070 (120watt)

The 1060 (both norm and maxq) are much closer according to this site, but my point stands. If you play a game on a current big laptop vs the new thinner one with the only diff being MaxQ, unless power efficiency is increased by a whopping 30 to 50% depending on the card, the normal card will drastically outperform. And on games that don't hit TDP on the bigger card, you can overclock for more fps, further pushing the normal card ahead.

 

Not really, it is the same chip as the GT 1030 Desktop card. It already is a low powered GPU. Only GTX cards are getting Max-Q variants

 

Are there any benches of Max-Q cards ? odd to me that notebookcheck has mentioned max-q for some time now.

 

It is a little odd, but if you look at the 1060 to 1080 mobile card entries, they all did state a Lower Powered, Lower Performance chip will be released in mid 2017... And their specs on things have been pretty dead on in the past.

 

Seems kind of like a kick in the balls for people who like Gaming laptops. We waited years to get laptops with full on desktop cards ( or close enough ) and now were going to go backwards and drop the performance again? My R4 is already half as thick as my R1 and the performance is night and day, at least in the GPU department.

 

I think you'll still get your full fat laptops. This seems more like they're targeting the same demographic that wants thinner and thinner phones, the ability to hold them during a phone-call be damned, or the type who thinks gaming laptops look childish but won't admit that they play WoW on their MacBooks when their significant other isn't looking.

Yeah its a kick in the balls but not likely a kick in your specific balls.

If however in a few years we can get nothing but "max q" machines, then consider my balls very very kicked. After all, I only possess approximate knowledge of everything. ;P Because if we take the cell phone, sci-fi movie, and prophetic CEO analogies ad infinitum we'll end up with this:

http://futuristicnews.com/minimalistic-transparent-tablet-concept/

much sooner than we'll have the horsepower to power it properly. But hey, thinness sells and Intel will happily sell you dual-core "i7s". Enjoy your "1080s" you fat haters...you asked for this!

Lol.

 

When the Government introduces new taxes, yuo will never get rid of it. Same for this ****y!!

 

nvidia should focus on bridging the performance gap, they were on the right direction, now they sway off again creating further performance gap. come on, focus on cramming GTX1080ti in a laptop platform!

 

that is what nvidia is famous for..

 

I have to agree with everyone in this thread and hope that alienware does not follow this trend. I doubt they will seeing as they don't mind being thicker/heavier to provide better cooling.

I did read that the max-q chips were somewhat binned so they are using better silicon so help with throttling and heat. If they are downclocked and undervolted though it wouldn't really matter.

 

AW was listed as one of the partners for Max-Q. I hope it means more choice and not less however.

 

Rut roe... On the flip side, maybe they will bring back the AW11... that would be awesome.

 

If Alienware adopts this then all the power to them, we just have to hope they don't replace ALL of their laptops with the Max Q designs and rather have two different options. Maybe keep the 17's at full power and the 15's at Max Q or something like that.

EDIT: I see that the Alienware Facebook page has an add saying that max Q is coming to models "like the Alienware 15" so my guess is they will do just what I said above. The 17 will have the full power options and smaller models will have the Max Q designs. Time will tell.

 

Or worse binned. Aka the max-Q crap run at lower clock speed as determined. And Alienware will most likely follow the bandwagoon as you can see. Info from Nvidia

 

I could see it as a way to get a 1080 in the 15 without having to do much work. Also they could jump the 13 to the 1070 but again, if the numbers don't add up then why pay the premium.

 

I just now see the add on their FaceBook but don't get the benefit.... the pic has the current 15 R3 chassis so I don't know what the point is what so ever. Looking at the speculations (which are usually correct as people once mentioned), what would the point of having a 1080 MQ in the same chassis as the 1070 normal card?

The 15 R3 is 25mm tall... ISN'T THE WHOLE POINT OF THE MAX Q CHIPS TO BE IN CHASSIS 20MM AND BELOW? Sorry for the caps, but this is the oddest thing I've seen any notebook manufacturer do.

http://imgur.com/0Iiucik

 

Presumably they are not ready to release an updated picture yet. I imagine the designs will change they just don't want to show it off yet.

 

Maybe the 1080MQ won't be as underpowered as everyone here seems to expect. If so there's definitely a point in having it as well as the 1070 in the same chassis. If it brings a significant performance upgrade I don't see why they wouldn't put it in. But time will tell, maybe they're releasing a different chassis soon, maybe not. We'll have to wait and see.

Also I believe the 1070 laptop has a decent bit less performance than the desktop in order to fit it into a 240w psu, whereas the 1060 and 1080 in the current AW models are closer to their desktop equivalents. Because of this a 1080mq 15R3 may be something people want

Also if the MQ chips are clocked differently depending on individual laptop chassis size, the 15r3 may end up being more powerful than other 1080mq laptops that are thinner, due to its superior cooling

 

Guys guys ... almost everything we've been getting so far (with the exception of a very few) has all been Max-Q's (technically) LOL.... ie... gimped.

They should rename the new gimped set of chips to Maxipad-Q.

That would be more proper.

I'd rather have a full non-gimped 1070 over a gimped 1080 and so would most of you...

Look at the hideous Razer Blade Pro with the so called gtx 1080. Good grief.... getting 'skooled' by a GTX 1070... *cough* maybe in the fine prints it does say Maxipad-Q for the Razer.

On the flip side, if the new MaxQ can run better than the hedious GTX 1050(ti) in smaller laptops like the xps 15 and keep much cooler without throttling then it can have a place in its respected segment.

.

 

God damn it. I want full 1070 on AW 15 and not MAX Q.

 

It already has a full 1070?