MAX Q

There is no such thing as a "Max-Q" chip. It's just a design they came up with for optimal cooling to (hopefully) reduce thermal throttling and possibly fit a 1070 on 15" notebooks without throttling (not likely).

 

You'll likely see that from Clevo, MSI, and likely ASUS, but I'm iffy on others.

 

why spend money on optimal cooling when you can reduce the card tdp and throttle it from the start?

 

Or sell 1070s and 1080s that couldn't make the cut at normal voltages and clocks?

Wait they wouldn't do this, would they?

 

Don't give them ideas.

 

They already know how to do it

 

Ill just go back to building SFF desktops. Im not interested in supporting even larger margins for less product lifespan.

 

Lets see what AMD offers. Support the little guy if it gets better

 

Honestly the only thing I find BGA acceptable in is in small portable laptops like my little alienware 13 and I only bought it cos it was relatively cheap and has good performance for its size and I can use the amp to power it with one of the 1080 TIs from my desktop. In something like an alienware 17 the cost to value ratio plumets to the point that its better to invest in a REAL DTR like a clevo.

 

Noooooo my innocence!!!!!!!!!!! *cough cough*

Honestly wouldn't be surprised if the max-q chips can't physically get to normal clocks and voltages. Seems like a brilliant way to sell undesirable silicon...not that I would do such a thing...but working at a computer store that I don't own would tie my hands somewhat...

The whole thing smells underhanded to me. Case in point: All the "PC review sites" that make no mention of reduced clock speeds and just simply rave "ZOMG 1080 in impossibly thin chassis".

 

Who knows, i'd like to see some 1700's 4Ghz running in some clevos but who knows.

 

That's not really surprising, there is a relationship between reviewers and manufacturers, and they aren't going to completely crap on one. But I'm sure when they're more established in the wild one or two will flip a little and others will damn with faint praise.

 

Sorry, might be a bit late, but isn't it kind of strange that they chose 3dmark11 for the gtx 1080 max q. We all know that cpu affects the score, but maybe the gap between the max q and the full-blown notebook 1080s would be higher if they have shown a firestrike run. Based on the 17k 3dmark11 P score, the gpu score could be between 24-26k.

 

Yoo can see 1070 vs 1080 Max-Q. Both tested with 7700HQ. This is Apples vs. Apples. Of course not optimized driver, but still

 

Wow, that's far worse than I thought. I thought the 1070 OC wouldn't quite reach the 1080 Max-Q at stock, but a 1% improvement over a stock 1070 is ludicrous - I mean, that's the definition of *no difference at all*.

What's the URL link for that one?

I found another notebookcheck review / measurement that put the 1080 Max-Q at 4% higher than a stock 1070, that's still laughable.

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

 

Huh... those results are quite lackluster...

 

You're welcome

 

Was this from a simulated card? Taking a 1080 and clocking it lower? Or was it just extrapolation based on data we have now? Exactly 17,000 points is a really really round number. EDIT: Nevermind source posted above.

Perhaps if these results are close to the real thing then maybe its a situation where 1080 max Q = 1070 full fat but at temperatures low enough to fit where at 1070 wouldn't because if this were not the case then not buying the 1070 normal is completely contrary to logic. Otherwise they'd be completely banking on people thinking 1080 is a bigger number than 1070 which admittedly is a part of the strategy regardless.

If this were the strategy I think calling it a 1070 Slim, or something like that would be less confusing even if the underlying chip were indeed a 1080 but they'd miss out on the bigger number is better marketing. eh. It's why I'm not in marketing I guess.

 

Name the cards with M as before aka 1080M(no different than what Nvidia pushed out before. Aka lower clocks and lower power vs. desktops). And price these lower than the today's working cards. If not, pure scam!! But....

 

I'd prefer they were more up front about it, because I'd rather people know what they're buying than come back later mad because of what they bought, and even consumers without apathy rarely know what to research when looking for a system.

 

Thats a complete joke.......

Indeed this could be called a scam.

 

I'm interested in MAX Q if and only if, I can OC the GPU to the max unlike standard NV 10 series GPU with more current leakage and technical jargon stuff. Otherwise my current 980m is best.

 

What they've done already is made the underlying chip irrelevant with their naming schemes. I think its more upfront if they labeled it according to its performance which in this case is pretty much a 1070. Because now we're running the risk of diluting the xx80 labels the way the Intel called everything under the sun "i7" regardless of TDP. Intel needs i9 to differentiate what used to actually deserve the i7 moniker now and if we keep going down this path Nvidia will need xx90 chip names.

We have i3 and i5 chips that are faster than some i7 chips but the average person asking me for computer help thinks the i7 in a MacBook is better than an i5 in a desktop. Do we really need to wonder if a 1070 is faster than a 1080 going forwards? That was Intel's job lol.

I can't look at a spec sheet anymore and know where a processor and GPU's relative performance is anymore without resorting to benchmarks. And note where benchmarks were needed for pegging the exact performance of a chip now I need them just to know relative performance!

Each time marketing exceeds the needs for informative and descriptive naming a baby seal dies. Each time obfuscation becomes more profitable the more the marketing guys grab each other's butts. When Apple successfully advertised Macs without using full processor names Microsoft found it profitable too. How many times have you gone to a computer store and had the associate tell you "Well this one has an i7." Well probably none cause you guys aren't freakin idiots.

 

Does anyone know hot the 160watt 1080N runs? Also what kind of OC's are folks seeing out of the 980m? I know the 1070N is 35% faster than the 980m and the 160watt 1080N is about 40+% percent faster and is faster than 2x 980Ms in SLI.

 

I actually feel a little bad when talking to a floor sales associate in most of those places. Though there are some shining exceptions and I'm always tempted to get something just to make sure the good ones get some commission.

I do get the need to group naming schemes, but I think I'd do it differently at the very least to highlight performance differences between mobile and desktop.

 

Can a Gaming Laptop be Thin & Quiet? Explaining NVIDIA Max-Q

 

Here is your problem:
the 1080 GTX as it is can hit its current limit of 180 watts during high demand games such as Prey EASILY at 1440p and 4K. That means that the MaxQ 1080 will MORE than hit its limit of 110 watts way faster and suffer from power throttling extremely fast. It is essentially the same chip, just gutted/crippled on various aspects to make it perform quieter and cooler.

Your 980M is probably the best thing to stick with unless you want to upgrade to a 1080 and have a decent performance jump, altho the 980M should be a beast of an overclocker as well.

 

The thing is most of the sales floor guys work to be one of the good ones but what higher level marketing at companies like Intel and now Nvidia have done is made it easier for your average sales rep to look like an idiot.

This doesn't make it better for anyone. Products get returned when the customer finds out the truth, they think the sales rep was a deceptive devil, and commission is revoked once the product is back on the shelves, now at a lower clearance price.

It's vicious.

The sales guys shouldn't only be there to point out performance differences. There's way more important concerns that they can be dealing with than just helping customers decipher names.

Hey at least car sales guys get 0-60 numbers but I hear things aren't much clearer.

 

1070 is a good deal faster than a 980m too. Also it depends if you're planning to play anything at 4K, I doubt maxQ notebooks are designed with 4K gaming in mind. I wouldn't even recommend a desktop 1070 for 4K unless you're playing non demanding titles

 

This is incorrect according to Nvidia

 

That's just promotional bs. I wanna see them run GTA V max settings 4K on one of those laptops. I have no doubt the laptop could do it on skyrim, but even 1080 desktops struggle with 4K on newer titles

 

lol on the up to 70% more gaming performance, their point of comparison is the 880m right?

 

Promotional or not... A Hell lots of people would think this is real

At least from what I have seen Wonder Why Nvidia don't used former 980m/980 in this comparison

 

True, but a lot of people also think plugging a PS4 into a 4K TV means the game is running at 4K so..

 

Nvidia will have to wait and watch if MAX Q will game @4K for six or eight hours straight w/o throttling. Else we've MAX T( MAX Throttling) 10 series GPUs.

 

Oh salespeople are definitely getting the shaft here, it's hard enough for me to keep up and I don't have to put up with all the other BS that they do. There's enough missing or vague information out there that I'd hate to be trying to explain it to anyone who is in that large area between "I want something that can do X and I don't care what brand it is" and "I did my own research and I know what I want already" since a lot of them have read just enough to make them think they know way more than they do.

 

That's not a real fair assessment though...I can't even run GTA V at max everything on my 1080Ti, to be honest though, I don't need to. AA can be turned off on pretty much any game to boost FPS. Aliasing is pretty unnoticeable at these resolutions.

 

"have up to 70% more gaming performance". I love how they don't say that that's comparative to the thickness of the laptop.

 

(Max-Q) ASUS Zephyrus - What's Inside the Thin Gaming Beast?

 

It just boggles the mind how Nvidia weedles it's way around trying to present Max-Q in best light from all angles at the same time, even though those are all mutually exclusive - you can't have them all at the same time - features.

The quiet mode with whisper mode frame limiting to 30-40 FPS, while the monitor is 120hz with G-sync at 120 FPS.

I am assuming these benchmark numbers weren't run with Quiet or Whisper, or even Max-Q mode's enabled - it's mentioned you can disable all of it to run at full potential of the GPU / CPU - which has to be a turbine jet engine sounding thermal and power throttling mess in that tiny chassis:

Notice how not one game was able to reach 120 FPS even on a 1080. We need full 1080 / 1070 / 1060 laptop results tested at the same settings for comparison - strangely not provided - the #1 comparison everyone wants.

Notice how it says "*with* Max-Q Design", but it doesn't say *using* or *enabled* Max-Q design, I am assuming these numbers being fairly high are with all the Max-Q controls disabled. Otherwise why not show results with both Max-Q enabled and disabled in the same laptop.

This whole Max-Q thing is going to be a great litmus test for reviewers to see who is reporting straight - finding the Emperor has no clothes, vs. the reviewers that report on how fine the Emperor's new cloths look

 

So now instead of having gruesome and tiring discussions with family and friends on why is a normal i5 is much faster than a ULV i7 even though one has 5 in the name and the other has 7, I have to do it for GPUs as well.

You have got to be kidding me.

 

LOL... The Division on Notebookcheck.net Ultra at 1080p, 99fps average. a whole 14 fps higher than the Max Q design. Performance is 15% worse than the native card itself.

 

Go ahead and buy one, and let us know how it works

What I'd like to know is if that is the performance with Max-Q and Quiet / Whisper modes enabled? Or, which modes needed disabling to allow for best score?

Given the small chassis and lack of mass for cooling compared to the large frame laptops with higher scores, I'd assume that the scores Nvidia are releasing are with all the "be nice" modes disabled.

I would assume to get that high score the fan's would have to be at full speed and the CPU and GPU are kept on the edge of thermal throttling - just before.

But, the only way to find out is to get one - so please do come back and let us know how it works out

 

Yeah, I will follow up the thread and watching you push out a lot of different bench scores when you get your Joke

 

@Papusan I think you meant to direct that at @cskx2001 ....

 

Oh' Dang Sorry bruh

 

The nvidia pic said all benchmarks were performed in 1080p, however the extreme preset in Heaven is 1600x900 ;-)

 

Nice catch

 

On the flip side it's going to really help us know who the really credible publications are.