New Clevos with Max-Q?

I'm stealing this BTW.

 

And I expect this comparison also telling the whole truth. You run equally fast with the smaller shoes Or would they hinder you performing max, if you try running as fast as with normal shoe size?

 

They should say it that way, because I've been saying they should be re-labeled or more clearly explained, while what I hear back is that they shouldn't exist.

 

Pretty sure that if you gave size 10 shoes to a size 8 athelete they would be slower..... ;-)

 

I think they could have been done *far* better, and I hate that the only way to get ODMs to care about proper cooling seems to be making Nvidia force them, but I have no problems with pushing the envelope in size or noise reduction once things work. In their current state they should have both a rename and a price reduction, though. Nvidia should not be allowed to essentially return to selling M gpus at the new full cost just because the package is smaller.

Sent from my OnePlus 1 using a coconut

 

I expect they will choose correct size if they want run fastest possible and win. Aka they pay same price for better performance As @Meaker@Sager's very good comparison.

 

Maybe I am just de-sensitised because I would look at a benchmark or go to a reseller that sells me the best machine for me *shrug*

 

If you'd google "Razer Blade late 2016" review, and watch a bunch of the videos, not anybody has a SINGLE problem with the machine.

The average notebook user, even the average user who wants a strong gaming PC, does not google "benchmarks".

This is the thing I think people don't get. The research is there for them to see, I'm not going to say no. But this involves sifting through multiple people shouting praise for things they quite honestly don't understand (would you like a screenshot of someone telling me his Razer Blade Stealth ran at 100c most of the time on the processor and how he felt this was not an issue whatsoever?) on usually many different forums, and the places the majority recommend to get information from are silly. /r/SuggestALaptop doesn't even acknowledge that Clevo exists, and it's usually where /r/pcmasterrace tells people to go, and /r/GamingLaptops might as well not count. Linus Tech Tips forums might as well be working directly for Razer, ask @PendragonInc @Dackzy @don_svetlio. Try asking about a laptop on overclock.net, I'll wait for you to come back and describe how often in 10 pages someone gave you useful advice instead of telling you laptops are trash for gaming. Ask @Mr. Fox how it took him literally beating all their desktop 1080 SLI benchmark scores before they actually even acknowledged a laptop existed, and I'm not even talking about "laptop overclocking", I'm talking about "a laptop that functions and is suitable for gaming".

If you're an average user and you google about some laptop or other, you're going to get videos like Dave2D's where every laptop is great and none of them have any problems aside from maybe the speakers could be louder, or Linus who waits 9 months after reviewing a Blade before he'll mention anything about the fact that his thermal throttles... in unrelated videos (want proof of that too? I have it). THIS is the mainstream media. Every laptop is great, none have a lick of problems, and you're fine. Then one of two things happen. A user buys a laptop that was supposed to be fantastic and regarded with rave reviews all around the internet, and gets something that simply isn't performing as it should and he/she doesn't notice, or will notice and then it's a hunt to try and salvage the $2000 they dropped on a computer that doesn't really work as promised.

I need people to be told, up-front, what they're buying. Re-name the cards to xxxxMQ or something. It's done and dusted, they can't go back and replace 1080MQs with 1070Ns that have been tuned for maximum efficiency; the current units are already on-sale. But at point-of-sale they can see "oh, this isn't a plain 1080, it's a 1080MQ, what's that?" and search specifically what the differences are. Pointed searches like that are usually much more information-granting, and if a consumer still ignores that level of information, or doesn't care to bother searching, then it's on their end beyond that point. I don't expect Best Buy to position an employee at every laptop and say "are you sure you know what you're getting?" or anything to that effect; that's silly.

I see and deal with a lot of very average people on twitch and twitter and in the gaming community among my circle of friends. Every now and then someone brings a buddy to me and says "hey, can you help him out/give some advice/etc". Alternately I'm part of some large Plebcord (discord) servers and I meet people who want some help too. I'm pretty well in-tune with how the average joe with a $1000-$2500 budget thinks, and there needs to be some change somewhere.

As for the price reduction, that's because I think they've hit a new level of scum. They dropped the price of the 1080s from $600-$700 to $500 baseline; all the AIB cards suddenly plummeted. Mobile cards remained the same. This alone is bad enough, but now I just can't swallow the fact that they think it's ok to sell a card named "1080" for the price of a Titan Xp with the performance of a stock 1070, OR LESS (remember that the reviewed 1080MQs are the higher power limit ones with higher clockspeeds; there are slower ones). That tipped the limit for me.

And I'd like to, once again, re-iterate: I don't care about the fact that they exist, or that there's such small notebooks with such relatively improved performance, especially ones that run so quietly (in relatively cool ambient scenarios; don't bring one into my room it'll burn up in flames). My problems start and end with the marketing and price with respect to the current direction taken to provide this, as Nvidia says, "Platform solution". Further to this when you know they officially stated that they don't bin the cards. These are the everyday cards that everyone already has.

 

The shoe analogy is based on what's right for the person using them. When you're talking performance / labeling you would need a slightly different analogy. If you've got three bikes where two share an engine with different tunes, but the lower tune shares a performance level with a lower displacement engine but at a significant efficiency increase and weight reduction, what do you base the label on? That's where my problem is. A bike company would call them a 600RR, a 1000R and a 1000RR, where what NVidia is doing is basically the same as calling them a 600, a 1000S and a 1000.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself @D2 Ultima , nice post man

As for LTT forums - they have improved a bit, Dackzy, Pendragon, Galm and a few others tend to keep the laptop segment clean but it took a whole year of pointing out the issues in every single thread for people to take note. Sadly, we have those types of people here too. I won't be handing out names but today someone was recommending the Dell 7559 and ThinkPad P50 for the same use case as "equivalent" which, to me at least, is absurd. It's because people look at a spec sheet and don't bother to research further. They "assume" everything is good because the omniscient OEM cannot make mistakes.

EDIT: Just to add an example. A few years backwhen I bought a Y50 specifically asking on LTT for any issues I can expect, nobody told me about the hinge issues that were literally the bane of that model's existence. It was the reason I got rid of it in favor of the GL502

 

Hei! I am doing my best to promote Clevo on /r/SuggestALaptop !

 

I know some people are, I just meant that if you use their search helper thing, or any automated "find the best machine for me", they leave out Clevos and business class machines too.

 

Try LTT forums

Tho to be fair, Clevo are not perfect either. Nobody is. It's all about picking your poison.

 

Yeah, nobody is, but the vast majority of machines for certain price points have the best in them from clevos this generation. You could make the arguement for say GS63VRs or Dell's 1050 line (though that VRM overheating fiasco...) depending on the use-case of the user. I've recommended Aorus X5S V6 multiple times over P650HS units before because someone would've made better use of it, etc.

But limited selections like that usually end up with everyone getting a GL502VS and about 1/5 of the users who know how to look paying for it later.

 

I think they would ban me from their forum. But I've see the Zephyrus review on Linus Tips and I was not happy, such lack of professionalism. I suspect their forum won't be any different.

Thing is, is very hard to collect and centralise all information around the internet and some information surfaces only after a few months of usage. I am trying my best with noteb.com and I am planning on opening up the database to others so that information can be better centralised (sort of wikipedia style). But so far I realised I need to rework some of the stuff on the website (regional availability for example).

I take a lot of interest in the information I get here, but when I go to for instance /r/SuggestALaptop things get messy. Defending that information is hard. For instance I try to tell people to avoid Razer and I have been bashed for it, people claim the Stealth is fine for instance. I've also seen people recommending that damn Acer E 15 too many times.

 

I am actually working on a sort of a quiz to try and fix that. The problem with the business machines is that they are more expensive for the specs they offer, which is normal, they are better build and more reliable, but people always ask "best spec for money" ... best spec for money it is, get your Pavilion 15 .

 

I made a thread about clevo on LTT.
I think that people could make a better decision with a big knowledge about all possibilities
https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/802163-clevo-custom-laptops-and-world-clevo-resellers/
and a similar thread on Tomshardware (deleted by mod)

I'm searching infos about prema partners atm. do you have infos about that?

 

BRAZIL



——————————————————————————————————————————————–

INDIA



——————————————————————————————————————————————–

POLAND



——————————————————————————————————————————————–

PORTUGAL (EXCLUSIVO)



——————————————————————————————————————————————–

UNITED STATES



——————————————————————————————————————————————–

UNITED STATES



——————————————————————————————————————————————–

UNITED STATES



——————————————————————————————————————————————–

UNITED STATES



——————————————————————————————————————————————–

​

 

Thanks for these useful Infos!

 

Wait...the M GPU’s cost was more than any of the new Pascal GPU’s. For example, the nVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 outperforms the nVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M...for a LOT less money.

 

Well that's architectural, right? Every gen sans rebrands usually did this. 780M was $860 or so. 980M was actually cheaper at $720 (suspect because it was under a 970 in specs and that card was only $329 as opposed to the $500 680 or $480 770 4GB that the 780M was used for), while a $450 970M blew a 780M out of the water while being about 30c cooler. 1060N is the same thing, really. It replaced the 970M and is a bit better (it's really notebook dependent, honestly) than a 980M in general, while being around $500 from most OEMs.

The 980N though, the first full cored *AND* full speed, with unlocked overclocking slider card was $1200, as opposed to the $550 desktop card. But it did its job essentially, and had more vRAM. In this case though the 1080MQ to the 1080/1080N is what a 780M was to a 680/770 4GB (but with full speed RAM). But is $1200 still, and not listed in a way that tells it's got lowered performance by a mile. It's crossed my limit of "well can't help that".

I understand business. I really do. But geez there should be a limit on taking advantage of consumers, especially when it stems from a state of no competition. But that's me having morals and why I will never be a successful businessman

Sent from my OnePlus 1 using a coconut

 

Sometimes it is hard to get a clear line of sight on that. The type of customer willing to settle for 1060 is not generally an overclocker... more of a low-budget gamer, and that is the target market. As a consequence, when you are looking for examples of the best each GPU has to offer you end up seeing stock examples of 1060 to compare against heavily overclocked 980M. When you start overclocking them, it seems like it takes a 1070 to beat a 980M. Although, I don't know how a stock 1060 compares with a stock 980M. And, I don't know how a 1060 with an insane overclock compares against the highest overclock possible with a 980M because it seems that 1060 owners are not out there creating those examples for us. It's just (apparently) not their cup of tea. So, we might have to rely on a resource like NotebookCheck, which also is not ideal. But, that is better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

1060 vs 980M (single GPU)
http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/10867787/fs/12418753#

980M vs 1070 (single GPU)
http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/12418753/fs/13057141#

When we rely on NotebookCheck, we can see that is true of stock performance based on their measurements. Stock 1060 does whip stock 980M.

Stock 1080 spanks them all and sends them to bed early with no dinner... lights out, no TV and no video games.

https://www.notebookcheck.com/Mobile-Grafikkarten-Benchmarkliste.735.0.html



It is really all about using the right tool for the job. If you want something inexpensive that does OK for playing games, 1060 is probably the budget-minded shopper's way to fly. If you want something that you can overclock the crap out of and have it begging for more, probably needs to be at least a 1070. If you want to actually win at benchmarks, have the best and most powerful option available (to date), then nothing less than 1080 will get the job done. But, it's going to cost you a LOT more than a 980M GPU did... and those 980M cards were already insanely overpriced. There is no way to acquire 1080 for a reasonable price (that I know of) except pre-installed in a new laptop. I am not aware of any place one can be purchased for a reasonable price as a standalone part. Even a 1070 is severely overpriced as a standalone part.

 

Well, I was only trying to make the point that MQs will still outperform the old 'M' series, and they are cheaper than the 'M' equivalent...so it is hard to say that:

 

Oh, in general I'm not usually considering the older cards for this (though a 1060MQ likely will not even match a 980M). What I meant was that we already have an existing precedent for the 10-series notebook cards, in terms of their performance. It's same-generation, not cross-generation, that my issue is with.

To put it into perspective, what if there was a 980N last gen that performed just like a 980M and commanded full price but was only used for notebooks like the Aorus X5S V5, except that they could put a 980M in there to do the same job at lower cost (which is what that notebook sold with afaik; which is why I make the example).

I just want consumers to know what they're getting

Sent from my OnePlus 1 using a coconut

 

Right, and that was a valid point. The only part of it that doesn't hold up well is that it is an apples vs oranges comparison. If you are trying to squeeze a bit more life from an aging 980M powered system, 1060 is a way to do that without breaking the bank. It will also be a bit more powerful and it might not cost more than resale value of the second-hand notebook with a haggard 980M. Nothing in the world wrong with that if you're trying to make something you like go another round and run better than it used to. That will most definitely do the trick, and probably for less money than a new machine.

However, people that bought 980M on purpose, being it was the best of the best at the time, are often not going to be interested in buying bottom-of-the-barrel/lowest common denominator Max-Q garbage, and probably not even a "real" 1060. And, chances are even fairly good that they are going to turn their noses up at 1070 (I know I would). When you compare last generation GPUs with current, staying within each class/performance tier, (no mix and match based on actual performance,) Pascal's ludicrous notebook GPU prices make calling them retarded seem like a compliment. I'd expect to pay no more for a third-place 1060 in 2017 than I would have paid for a third-place 960M in 2015. Point being, when we compare the prices of today's mobile GPUs to last generation, (talking standalone service/upgrade part prices,) we're getting screwed... real bad.

 

Well said @Mr. Fox and @D2 Ultima.

Like I mentioned earlier, the price/performance ratio for notebooks is still lousy. One saving grace is that notebook prices haven't been affected by the recent mining GPU shortage, unlike in desktops. Neither has notebook RAM, if I remember correctly. But that gives manufacturers no excuse to price a GTX 1070 MXM at $700.

 

I thought they already did that with the 980N (ie the "980 Notebook"). There were multiple TDP variants of it and some of the lower performing ones could be caught by a overclocked 980M.

The pricing may not be affected for 6 months or so since laptops probably don't move as many units as GPUs on their own. Particularly since nvidia themselves have confirmed that there's no binning any more. The cores have gotta go somewhere and unless Nvidia step up production the shortage will eventually hit notebooks if the numbers stay as they are.

I'm glad I managed to by my various 1060s before the mining craze (basically got them while the RX cards were flying out and before people realised the NV cards were largely immune to the DAG changes in Ethereum). Prices have gotten ridiculous now. I've considered selling one and grabbing an Oculus as they're currently running a sale for the headset+controller kit for $399 USD ($449USD with postage to AU).

 

No, not so. The cards were 150-200W across the board except for the 130W MSI models in the GT80, but those still were OCable and you needed a breakneck 980M OC to get close to one of those OC'd as far as I know. The problem in the MSI was that they limited the laptop's actual power intake, so you never saw much out of them.

Besides, as far as I know, such breakneck OCs out of 980Ms needed hard mods on the cards, extra VRMs. I can't count those as it's too custom; vBIOS mods were a lot more widely available for example.

Sent from my OnePlus 1 using a coconut

 

According to NBC, Clevo at the very least have 2 980 Notebook variants. The 180W one on a mostly standard MXM card and the 200W one on the oversized card. Most notably, the standard card is a 4+1 VRM and the oversized card is 6+1.

 

Yes, and the GT72VR had a 150W version and the GT80 had 130W versions.

Sent from my OnePlus 1 using a coconut

 

Yup, in terms of QC and durability, Maxwell was a downgrade from Kepler. Those 780M cards were very durable and held up to some pretty crazy abuse. 980M offered higher clocks and more vRAM, but that's really about it. They were unnecessarily fragile and inconsistent quality. Mine were not worth a darn without hard modding to correct NVIDIA's intentional engineering defects. They were not as crappy as 7970M in terms of being failure prone, but they were closer to that than any other NVIDIA GPU I had owned since the 8800M days.

 

Indeed. So my point was there were different versions of the "980N" and for the most part, they were all charged AND marketed as the same thing despite having different capabilities.

That being said, I suspect the difference was less noticeable on stock settings and more an indicator of how they could overclock. But you combine that with how Pascal cards are basically running as fast as they can go without manual overclocking, then the result is the same.

 

To my knowledge, except the 130W ones in the GT80 (as I don't remember their performance on single card) all the cards had about the same stock performance. The GT80 cards I cannot remember if they were $1200 apiece. Do you?

Sent from my OnePlus 1 using a coconut

 

If you mean the 180W 980 like what I tested in the Sky X9 for a little while, yes... those where priced every bit as asinine as 1080 as a standalone part purchse. It was around $1,200 which is roughly the same as what the 200W 980 price was, give or take ~$150. Maybe since they got away with it on the 980, they decided it would be OK to come back and rape us a second time.

 

to be fair to nvidia tho, the 980Ms are cut downs from the 970, so by default they are probably inferior in qualities while the 780M is a full GK104 that has to run at lower voltages. if you think from a yield perspective, part of the reason that 980M has 1 more SMM disabled compared to 970 is probably because they can salvage more chips this way. so they are more of intentional inferior quality rather than engineered defects...

 

What is the realistic breakdown of price for each parts of a stock clevo DM3, KM1 LAPTOP including chassis, motherboard, heatsink, fan etc. if you bought on a res-seller? Lets say the default price is 2658$, how will it be divided?

I always have this delusion that I'm payed only 1500$ for a sli 1080. In my mind, 1000k for the two units then 100$ for the bridge and 400$ for design & interest since its for small form factor.

 

Maxwell had a huge range of power consumption, designing a VRM that could cope with maximum overclocked load would have hurt efficiency at stock so i can see why they did what they did.

The extra VRM pads were probably insurance against AMD releasing a decent card and needing to raise clocks.

 

I am not sure of the price of most of the parts. That information is extraordinarily hard to come by for Clevo, and getting service parts is also unnecessarily difficult. It used to be super easy to get replacement parts and part prices on Alienware system back in the day when they still sold good products. My M18xR2 was build entirely from new and used service parts acquired from Dell Spare Parts and eBay. Good luck doing that with a Clevo, or probably any other brand.

You're probably right about the insurance against threats from competitors. NGREEDIA does the same kind of manipulation and artificial metering of performance with firmware and drivers. Adding the missing VRMs and stronger resistors turned my 980M cards from fragile GPUs that didn't overclock worth a damn into durable and far more powerful GPUs that overclocked like crazy. Before the hardware mods, they could not take full advantage of the goodness enabled by the PremaMod firmware tweaks.

 

Way beyond spec for the engineer though and as I said at stock it made it more power hungry.

 

Wasn't that back when Alienware was using Clevo for barebones?

 

No, not at all. Back in those days they were just Clevos with some nice paint jobs to make them extra fancy looking.

After Dell took over they switched from Clevo to Compal and immediately took Alienware to the top of the notebook performance food chain. Their machines were built like a brick house, with highly effective cooling systems and no idiotic firmware performance limitations. They were built like a cross between a Sherman tank and a Swiss watch on steriods.

Unfortunately, those glory days only lasted about 5 years. Until the release of Haswell and the BGA turdbooks that followed, Alienware (M17xR2, M18xR1 and M18xR2) destroyed anything comparable in a Clevo in both performance and build quality. In 2012, things started going south. Dell decided it would be cute to gimp the performance of the Alienware 18 (Viking). They castrated the power handling capabilities of the 18 so that my custom built dual 330W AC adapter that worked flawlessly on the M18xR1/R2 worked the same as a single 330W by capping the power max it could use. After that things went totally tits up. Until then, my M18xR2 with a 3920XM and 780M SLI was beating the stuffing out of the P570WM even with a HEDT Extreme CPU until @Prema magic stepped in to correct their firmware cancer problems. Clevo has never produced anything made as well as the M17xR2, M18xR1, M18xR2 or Alienware 18 in terms of build quality. But, those days are gone for good and Alienware is merely a legend in their own mind now. Clevo P8 series FTW... it destroys everything else in today's world and yesterday's world in terms of performance.

I wish Clevo would release a P870 with a full anodized aluminum alloy chassis like those magnificent old Alienware dual-GPU monsterbooks. That would take the P870 from amazing to ludicrous awesomeness. I wouldn't want them to change anything else about the look and feel of it, just move from ABS plastic to aluminum or magnesium alloy.

 

A full aluminum big Clevo sounds awesome, but only IMO if there will be a standard easily upgradable MXM GPU to go with it.

 

Without a socketed unlocked desktop CPU and MXM mounted GPUs it would never be viewed as an acceptable product to me. BGA would immediately remove it from my list of viable purchase options regardless of how the chassis is built. 100% unacceptable, do not pass Go and do not collect $200, end of the line, caput, sayonara, hasta la vista, buh-bye if it uses BGA filth.

 

I don't think they'd drop the socketed CPU, that's what sells so many. And having a socketed GPU allows multiple configurations shipped form the factory. The problem is down the road, when even if MXM is still the standard (and I have no idea why it wouldn't be) if you could still plug a new card in, update firmware and have it work, or whether you'd just have a system with new hardware it can't use.

 

Yeah, that would suck and we've already seen an example of that going from DM-G to DM3 GPU form factors. Hopefully, they would never stoop that low again. I'm probably done with laptops for good now anyway, but if they made another GPU form factor change to screw up upgrades and having a supply of service/repair parts that would be the final nail in the notebook coffin for me. I'd buy a sub-$500 Dell Inspiron or Acer from Walmart and move to back to desktop monstrosities immediately. I might do that anyway though. I'm getting fed up with the abundance of stupidity in notebook engineering. Max-Q is just one of many unfortunate symptoms of the sewer the industry is headed for at warp speed.

 

I would keep my Clevo P870 as long it will work and same time build a proper desktop rig as before. My older Clevo is from 2010 and still work as new and it will work next year, Maybe 2019 osv. Why should I need buying a sub-$500 Turd before I really need one or have to? Not me Fox. My P870 will still be my portable. + my smartphone!!

 

I'm a 2 laptop kind of guy, big beastie when I intend to setup and then little guy for moving around a lot.

 

Just to be clear, I am not saying otherwise. I agree with you. I am only saying that I would buy a sub-$500 turdbook and go back to desktop before I would buy any expensive BGA gamer turdbook regardless of how fancy or well built the chassis might be. If I did not need to buy a sub-$500 turdbook just to have a portable computer, I would not because BGA filth is a waste of money at any price. The limit to my willingness to compromise on this garbage is $500. That's all I am saying.

The EVOC 16L-G-1080 / Eurocom Tornado F5 is truly the perfect solution to that for me. If it were soldered filth, I'd have nothing to do with it. Going any smaller than this little beast, it may as well just be a cheap Android tablet because it's borderline too small to be taken seriously as a legitmate computer. It's right on the edge of acceptable smallness, but runs like a big boy computer, which is why it is so awesome.

 

But if Clevo go BGA... Still 2 laptop kind of guy? Can't be this as all you will only get two Turds!!

I'm sure we have same thoughts about this, but I would emphasize this absolutely crystal clear.

FYI. Dell's first OC tool in history for laptops. This "high functionality" app is for their new BGA models... What a progess since the Glory days!!

 

You're not the only one who dreams of that day! But the problem is cost at the point of sale end. Lots (ok maybe all, but you get my point) of companies which sell Clevo chassis don't have the same brand power that Alienware did and so they simply wouldn't be able to sell the more expensive chassis, especially with the a-brands pushing the prices down and down.