New Clevos with Max-Q?

Any Idea what battery life is like? Is this laptop worth it for a traveling college student? It doesn't seem like there are many other laptops that weigh as much and get the same performance. How is the fan noise? Saw a Gen tech review that had it reaching 57db. I thought for the Max Q symbol laptops couldn't go above 40db. Sorry for all the questions. Haven't seen anything on these laptops yet. Super excited. Thanks. Also how does this laptop compare with the Gigabyte Aero 15? Finally getting my laptop and think Alienware is now last on the list

 

Inphtech is a portuguese reseller and they did a review:

https://forum.zwame.pt/threads/inphtech-creative-slim-clevo-p950hr-review-opinioes.995574/

Use google translator so you can read it

 

Those scores I suppose are for the Max-Q GTX 1070 right ?

 

Based on all the data I have so far, it looks like the GTX 1070 and 1060 Max-Q are about 11-13% slower than the non-MAX-Q versions , which is in line with the lower TDP they have.

 

Buuuut, once they OC they reach the Max-Q performance, the 1070 OC matches the Max-Q 1080, and the 1060 OC reaches *near* the Max-Q 1070 performance.

So, there still isn't a performance reason to pick a Max-Q over the next model down straight full GPU.

Worse, even though the Max-Q GPU matches the performance of the GPU below it OC'd, the Max-Q model costs a lot more.

 

yep

 

and that's why i have the non-max-q 1070...cos we modded the TDP and I can now outperform the desktop 1070 easily.

 

Yes but when you start clocking the chips power goes up a lot, you can never compare stock and overclocked performance like that.

 

you could compare it better by modding the TDP down on the non-max-q to match and see how that goes.

 

They are coming overclocked as stock now, that's the response that has been brought about by Max-Q, the builders are upping the performance of the full performance GPU's, out of the box

So, it is comparable. Stock for stock.

You can undervolt to reduce power / thermals as well, mod the fan profiles, reduce the load on CPU / GPU with G-sync and FPS limiters.

All the stuff that should have been done instead of Max-Q

 

That would be as pointless as Max-Q - emulating Max-Q to reduce performance. Bad idea.

Instead, OC the GPU one level under the Max-Q GPU, put in custom fan profiles for quiet and high performance operation, undervolt the CPU and GPU to tune for each part to get the best performance with the least heat output.

All the things that should have been done instead of Max-Q - make what we have work better, don't gut a high end GPU to work like a GPU one level down. That's waste of performance and potential, all the way around.

 

You are seeing people overclock 1060 cards to 1070 max-q levels and able to under volt at the same time?

You can undervolt the max-q chips as well.

Anything you do to a lower chip to match a higher chip you can do with that higher chip to get the same result usually.

 

i mean can you take a non-max-q card and downclock it and reduce the TDP to match the max-q spec to be 100% fair comparison?

 

If you downclock a chip to match the max-q spec then it will perform exactly the same.

The idea is to have the chip in a chassis that can't run it at full power.

 

Bingo, turn that around and get the same benefits for performance from the lower cost GPU.

Why cripple a top GPU instead of tuning the GPU below it for the same effect.

That's been my point all along, Max-Q is a ploy to get people to pay more, as much as a full performance GPU, for a crippled GPU.

Nvidia and the vendors could have come up with the same performance from similar tuning efforts using full performance 1060's, 1070's, and 1080's, but they couldn't have charged a premium cost.

By selling a "1080" at "1080" prices, with OC 1070 level performance, they could unload expensive GPU's at the lower performance levels.

Thereby bringing up their profits for 1070 level performance to 1080 prices, etc.

Let's just stop here, we've done this a dozen times, and you never seem to get the point, so let's just not do this any more, ok?

 

No, that's silly, you take a 1070 and do the Max-Q thing to it, you don't have a 1070 any more, you have an OC'd 1060.

It's a different process to take a full 1070 to tune it for quiet operation at full performance, some undervolt yes, but mostly better cooling and software tuning.

We won't know until someone does it, but since there's a higher profit in detuning a 1080 to perform like a 1070, than giving a full 1070 a thin and quiet mode, it's likely not going to happen any time soon.

Whisper Mode from Nvidia is now out, give that a try. Along with manual undervolting, OC'ing, and custom fan curves, you should be able to give your full sized GPU laptop a much larger range of quiet and high performance modes - way outside the range of a Max-Q laptop.

 

my TDP'd 1070 bests the desktop 1070 by 800-900 points in FS standard.

 

When the desktop 1070 is overclocked fully?

@hmscott You need to read up on frequency/performance bell curve with different silicon sizes and with frequencies to really get why using a lower clocked larger chip especially in a generation with ramped up frequencies.

You are assuming in all cases with a smaller chip you can have your cake and eat it too.

A 1060 frame per frame consumes more power than a 1070 for that same performance.

 

stock clocks and matching tdp.

 

Well yes it has more units enabled.

 

that's what i'm attributing it to - the extra 128 CUDA cores.

it's probably the only good thing nvidia has done

 

Very unlikely. A desktop card might get close. I say "might" because you would would have to exceed 2100mhz AND run a huge memory offset to get there.

My own desktop 1060 clocks to 2088mhz core, nearly 9ghz memory AND most importantly bounces of the extended 112% power limiter to only get 14300 GPU points. Still short of the 1070MQ at a much higher power budget. I highly doubt a mobile 1060 chip even in MXM form would get close.

 

Yes, I know, that's why I said "reaches" not "matches" as with the 1070 vs 1080 Max-Q.

The 1060 is 15% under the Max-Q 1070, which is 15% under the full 1070.

14k vs 15k performance reduces the difference to 5%-7%, barely enough to worry about.

A 1060 laptop costs from $999 whereas a 1070 costs at the lowest I've seen around $1700.

IDK what a 1070 Max-Q costs, I haven't really been interested in keeping up with the Max-Q laptops. I'm expecting them to go away sooner than later.

I'm assuming the 1070 Max-Q's follow the same pattern as the 1080 Max-Q's, demanding a price closer to the full GPU in name/number vs the GPU they are closer to in performance. Overpriced.

If the Max-Q laptops readjust pricing to match their performance, rather than attaching overwhelming extra value to their anorexic frames, then they are relevant, otherwise I can't recommend them.

 

Indeed the 1070N can be OC'ed to beat the 1080MQ....but the 1060N can't beat the 1070MQ...even OC'ed...to much of a difference...doesn't come close even...same for 1060MQ over the 1050Ti.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

you don't even need to overclock it, just bump the TDP up and it still beats it with stock clocks.

Also, just putting this out there but Max-Q is such a dumb name. I think it's meant to sound cool to the unsuspecting consumer but to use savvy people, it's dumb.

 

Unfortunately Alienware made the stupid mistake of putting Max-Q in their regular Alienware 15, where an OC'd nVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 would outperform it for a lot less money. That is Alienware's stupid mistake, not NVIDIA's. Other companies, like ASUS, Clevo and MSI were smart enough to put Max-Q in their slim and light laptops where they belong.

The point is, you can't just look at benchmark performance. If you do, you just won't get it. You have to look at power consumption, temps, and noise as well.

This horse is being beaten to death...the bashing just has to stop at some point when people realize that Max-Q was developed for thin and light laptops, so that they could draw less power, run cooler and run quieter...PERIOD. If this is not your cup of tea...fine...but just because it doesn't suit your needs, it suits plenty of other's needs, and wants. For example, the ASUS Zephyrus, EVOC High Performance Systems P950HR and MSI Stealth Pro are in very high demand, they sell out as fast as we can get our hands on them....even before we can get our hands on them!
So there is simply no reason to bash Max-Q and call it funny names

 

I'd look into a max-q laptop if I wasn't such a tech snob.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

No worries, the Max-Q was not developed for tech snobs. It is kind of like asking an LGA enthusiast to like BGA laptops...nope...won't work

 

Get real... "Reaches" and "Matches" are the same thing. One does not "reach" the finish line without finishing the race. You're trying to make it out like you can buy a 1060 equipped notebook and get there with overclocking which just cannot be done. My desktop card reaching that score was pulling near 140W and the benefit of super low temperatures to do it which you cannot expect in a laptop.

This link is literally the fastest submitted 3DMark Firestrike score for a 1060 Notebook:
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/10867787

13597 GPU score. The core clock of 1898 doesn't seem like much but the memory is running at 9.3ghz which is insane and probably not sustainable.
We're talking about a 10% difference now between a "stock" 1070MQ and the absolute balls to the wall 1060OC which nobody in their right mind would or could run on a day-to-day basis.

Here's some Australian pricing (not comparing different chassis/brands where other factors come into play:
P950HP (1060): $2249
P950HR (1070MQ): $2669
Price difference = 18%

Sager has them listed as:
NP8950: $1499
NP8952: $1799 (currently on sale for $1699)
Price difference = 20% or 13% on current sale

So..if you grab the Sager NP8952 on sale right now you actually get more performance per dollar.

TL;DR I get it, you think the 1070MQ is a waste of money and it DOES cost a lot more than some budget 1060 machines. Compared to alternative models the perf/$ isn't as good.
But let the facts represent themselves. If you skew the facts or misrepresent them by stating things like "the 1060 OC'd reaches a 1070MQ", it's just as deceptive as Nvidia's own marketing if not more so. At least I can trust Nvidia marketing to be skewed and sneaky because their motivations are easy (ie money) but at least they're somewhat limited by advertising laws in most 1st world countries. People on forums have no such limitations so it's a good idea to keep your facts straight.

 

Yep, wrong market demographic. if i literally wanted to game on the go then it might be appealing but then if i was travelling i would rather do siteseeing than sit in a hotel and game.

OR

if i needed a bit of grunt in a laptop to do video editing (if ever) and photoshop work that i can carry without the heavy weight.

 

You left out how much a full 1070 model costs. What is the price difference between a full 1070 and a Max-Q 1070, and what is the performance lost?

If the 1070 performs 15% better than the 1070 Max-Q, both stock, then the 1070 OC should way outperform the 1070 Max-Q - performing as well as the 1080 Max-Q. What is that performance difference?

I don't think the full 1070 is going to cost that much more than a Max-Q 1070, which was my point in the first place - the number in the name pushes the Max-Q 1070 price into the full 1070 range.

I hadn't seen any results from Max-Q 1060 or Max-Q 1070, and it's nice to hear that the neutered Max-Q 1070 can outperform an OC'd 1060, evenly straddling the space between a real 1060 and a real 1070

I didn't misquote or skew any facts, as I didn't have any facts until you told me, now that they are available and published.

It was an estimate I made just like I made it for the Max-Q 1080, where I was correct in my estimate before the actual test results were available. With the Max-Q 1070 it looks like there is a greater range of performance difference that can't be made up with OC.

Like I said I lost interest when the Max-Q 1080 only performed as well as an OC'd 1070, I didn't keep up with the newly published info for long after that.

I apologize for misconstruing that confirmation of my estimate from the Max-Q 1080 down to the Max-Q 1070.

Thanks for taking the time to set me straight.

I honestly still don't see the need for them, Max-Q design detuning perfectly good GPU's that could perform so much better than they are being allowed to perform.

It's a waste of potential that goes against my own goals in providing higher performance with whatever resources I have been given.

I think that although the performance might have been at different points when using the full performance GPU's, engineering design could accomplish perfectly viable thinner laptops with 1060's, 1070's, and 1080's without wasting potential performance, or creating a whole new Max-Q 1/2 way performance level range of GPU's.

Neutering performance to attain a thinness design goal, using a higher cost part - keeping the price high, is an inherently misguided way to go, and would have never occurred to me if I had not seen Nvidia do this.

I still think this is more marketing motivated, to extract more money from customers at the same performance point than previously possible.

With the model range you described, again it would be nice to see the full 1070 model cost in each to fill out the range, and place the Max-Q model within the price range just as you showed it in the performance range.

Given there are fully configured laptops at $1700 1070's and $1000 1060's, those prices do seem a bit high to begin with.

Thanks again for taking the time to get the facts out there

 

Alienware made a great point with their comparing the Max-Q 1080 directly with a OC'd 1070, it wasn't at all stupid on their part, it was brilliant how they demonstrated just out how silly the whole Max-Q idea was.

There's no point to forcing a high dollar high performance 1080 part into a neutered role when it's possible to do a similar design with a 1070, and charge less for the result.

Alienware pointed out that the "Emperor has No Clothes", which was priceless, thanks for bringing that up again to remind everyone of the point Alienware made so well.

And, my point, as well as others - including Alienware - is that you can design the same result using the appropriate part, instead of gouging the customer by saddling it with a more expensive GPU.

They might not meet the same performance points exactly, but a quiet thin laptop could be made with the 1060, 1070, and 1080 using the same effort in design for the hardware and tuning with the software.

Of course they are in demand, people with too much money and no engineering sense see a 1080 or now a 1070 in a thinner laptop, way overpriced to increase it's perceived "value", and they are all over it.

I never said it was a bad marketing idea to extract the most money from customers, as it certainly is that

The problem is there are a lot of people that wish they could afford that form factor, and that is being denied to them because these designs are overpriced, and out of their reach.

I don't think I actually called them funny names, I felt "Max-Q" was funny enough on it's own. Who would put "Max" anything in the name of a design that neutered the performance of the GPU to attain a design goal.

Again, I had lost interest in Max-Q since the Max-Q 1080 models came out at the same performance as a full 1070 OC'd.

I came back mainly to see if Sagar would do the same thing with Max-Q that Alienware did, hoping that the high performance motivated companies would stick together to stop these abominations (ok, there's a name) from proliferating.

Still not sure if that's not what is actually happening, I'd need to see the 1070 price in those lines and read up on the new model specs to be sure.

If the full performance 1070 models cost the same or less than the Max-Q models, then it's the same as with Alienware, charging more for the same or less performance.

Maybe @Stooj can bring me / us up to speed on that too.

 

@hmscott please note that I did not quote you, so taking anything in my post as personally directed to you is an imaginary figment of your own making.

You can continue to rant away, repeating over and over your same arguments. However if you are not interested in Max-Q, why do you continue to obsess over it? Max-Q is not for you...we get it!

I love free speech. Let people voice their opinion and say what they will...then the listener/reader will decide on its credibility.

I am just curious, are these people deplorables, or just ignorant...in your opinion? That is intentionally a rhetorical question, to hopefully save you from further embarrassment...a reply is unnecessary.

Somehow I don't think these people you say have too much money, and no engineering sense, will agree with you about Max-Q, or that they have too much money, and no engineering sense, nor do they look to you to do their thinking and/or deciding for them. They simply want a cool, quiet, slim & light laptop that will outperform whatever GPU is below what they are buying. They are not interested in overclocking, or comparing it to a hotter, louder overclocked GPU in a bigger, heavier laptop. Why not just leave them alone, and go your own way?
.

 

I'm not quite sure why that fine point is important to you, I don't take offense if it was directed at me, since my posts were bracketing your response I assumed answering you was in order.

Actually I'm not ranting, I'm trying to inform and alert people to the facts.

That's why I appreciated @Stooj 's setting the facts straight on the Max-Q 1070 performance visa vie the 1060 OC.

With Nvidia masquerading a 1070 performance laptop as a 1080 (at least in name), I was approached by a number of people wanting to know if it would perform like a 1080, "a dream come true".

After that I found it essential to keep up the information and facts about Max-Q's lack of value for cost as it's clear the naming is decieving people - playing into their hopes to get 1080 performance in a slim laptop.

Which it isn't.

Man, where are you getting that from, deplorables? Ignorant?

I think they are uninformed potential victim's, which is why I am here trying to help them from being taken advantage of by marketing and sales intentionally or unintentionally (yeah, I don't really think it's unintentional, just being polite) mis-leading people by the naming and pricing of the Max-Q 1080 laptops.

The same goal as Alienware had to warn their customers not to be taken in by the Max-Q 1080 marketing, proving that a 1070 engineered for the same performance would provide the same results for less money. My points exactly all along.

Embarrassment for what? For losing interest in Max-Q laptops and concentrating on better subjects, to find that Max-Q 1070 performance is found to be slightly better than a 1060 OC while I was away?

That's the whole point of these forums, to find out what's what when you don't know.

There's nothing wrong with coming into a situation without information only to be corrected by those keeping up with the current situation.

I do that for others 99.99% of the time, it's perfectly fine to have the tables turned on me when I don't know something

That's how we all learn, by finding out something we didn't know. There's no need to be embarrassed for not knowing something.

And, to push embarrassment on someone for not knowing something is a deplorable bullying tactic, I'm disappointed you went there.

This is supposed to be a safe open place to learn what we don't already know, and to share what we do know with those seeking to learn.

Please help to keep it that way, even for me

Because the members that are interested in OC'ing and getting the most performance out of their laptops were just as taken in by the mention of a "1080" as those that don't know better. Those that should have known better didn't.

Hope springs eternal, and that's what Nvidia was counting on by putting "1080" in the name, to motivate people to purchase with an expectation built on the name. That's not cool.

That's what we are here for, to help others without all the information, or those that haven't thought it through to avoid disappointment - to help them have accurate expectations for their purchases.

You are here to sell laptops. And, that's cool, but we don't always need to agree on what a good purchase is, and what a bad purchase is.

IDK why you seem steamed about this, you said yourself you are selling out of all the Max-Q models.

Apparently not enough people read this thread, and the other Max-Q threads on NBR

 

Thank you! Read it. Hopefully we get an idea of battery life soon I think I'm going with the Aero 15 for build quality, better thermals, and battery life over it

 

I'm not totally against the concept of Max-Q, just how Nvidia is marketing it. if i was working on site doing design stuff or going on long haul trips then yeah I would go for max-q since i have no intent on lugging a DTR like the P870DM-G around....god no! That's the last thing I want to do.

 

AFAIK there are no models which have both a 1070 and 1070MQ variant. Comparing across models or brands is pointless as there's too many variables. This is part of the problem now with people assuming there's massive price differences. For example, a P650HS (full 1070) is cheaper than a P950HR (1070MQ) in most stores I can find. That's no more useful than saying a P650HS is cheaper than a Razer Blade with only a 1060 in it as there's more to it than just the GPU change.

That's simply a matter of opinion really. The fact is, MQ chips (particularly the 1070MQ) perform most efficiently at their designed lower clocks. It doesn't matter if you or anybody likes it, it's just the facts. If you have a chassis with 80-90W cooling potential then the 1070MQ is the best thing you can put in it.

 

It's not pointless, you find the lowest configuration - least memory / storage / extra cost items, there's usually 1 model like that, with a 1070 - and then compare it to a Max-Q 1070 for price and performance.

There's no magic or difficulty in doing that

As you said there are full 1070 laptop models for less cost than the Max-Q 1070 model, and that's what I was looking for, then it's the same as with the Max-Q 1080 laptops for sale around $2700-$3000 performing like $1700 1070 laptops.

Pricing the Max-Q laptop at the same going rate for the "number" in the name, Max-Q 1080's for real / full 1080 prices and Max-Q 1070's for more than the price of a full performance 1070 laptop.

In this case the range of price difference maybe less, but it's still paying more for less performance, "paying for smaller size".

The Max-Q design small sized chassis apparently don't allow for a battery sized to provide what most people want in that easy carry size, battery life.

Those slim laptops are almost all judged highest on their battery run time. Usually 8 hours to 14 hours.

It looks like Nvidia forgot about that aspect in the Max-Q design. They designed in a "Silent" mode, but are still using Battery Boost for extending battery life; that technology looks like it needs refreshing too.

It's not so much opinion as a design perspective, or performance vs cost reality. More expensive components have to carry their "weight" for cost vs performance.

I don't agree that those TDP's are the "limit's" for a thin / slim laptop - given 25w-35w more I think they could have "stretched" the parameters to fit full performance GPU's in there without bringing back "M" GPU's.

Razor did it with their RBP 1080 model, cutting down the PSU to limit performance and thermal load, and still were able to charge a premium price, all without inventing a "Max-Q" GPU differentiation.

How about we agree to disagree on this and let it be for now, @Donald@HIDevolution would like a break from the repetition

 

@hmscott, with all due respect, please use the 'Enter' key more judiciously! It's way too hard to read single-line paragraphs, especially given the fact that I'm on the desktop site using my notebook

 

I make a point at spreading out the text so it's not a huge paragraph, growing into a "wall of text".

Most english and non-english readers like thoughts as sentence's more clearly divided out, so they can decrypt and understand it in smaller chunks at a time.

You're the first person I've seen that wants it all smooshed together

How do you have your mouse set up? I just have to flick a finger to spin up to the top and back down to the bottom in a couple of seconds - at most.

 

This is patently untrue. Sentences are already divided by virtue of the fact that they're, well, sentences—it's what they're for! Most guides online recommend not less than 2–3 sentences per paragraph. There's a reason why: single-line paragraphs are really bad for reading—they make obvious breaks in the line of thought of the reader when the author is making a single point (and elaborating, while providing examples on the point in question).

Some sources on the matter:

Spoiler: Paragraphs

http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/ld/resources/writing/grammar/grammar-guides/paras

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/writing-help/structure

http://oxfordediting.com/paragraphs-and-topic-sentences/

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/606/01/

Compare the first paragraph in that third link as seen in that link:

Versus @hmscott's paragraphing style:

Do you suggest the second one is easier to read? Our eyes move horizontally when reading, not vertically, and frequent vertical jumps (especially one for each sentence) make for very incoherent understanding on the reader's part.

I don't think I said I wanted it 'all smooshed together'—that's not what 'judiciously' means...

I was talking about readability, not scrolling.

Referring to one of your own posts earlier:

I have paragraphed it judiciously:

 

Yup, I gotta agree with you

 

Typical... Why do I waste my time?

 

Don't feel bad, after another 30 years of posting online, you'll be where I am and understand why I format my posts the way I do.

It's futile to try to foist proper writing style on people when the medium isn't fit for it, there's no need to write things all bunched up. People tend to lose their place and drift off if the paragraph is longer than a few sentences.

Each of my paragraph's are made to convey 1 thought, and if I can convey that one thought with one sentence, then that's what you get.

Trust me, I know from where I speak, you may not appreciate it, but when someone is online panicking because their laptop or other device isn't working as they expect, they aren't looking for proper paragraph structure, they are looking for clear instructions and steps to get them back doing what they want to do.

There's no need to bunch things up, in fact they are looking for little bites of information, in the order and at the speed they can take it in while they are flushed with adrenaline.

You may appreciate a nicely formated leisurely read, rather than a laundry list of thoughts culminating in a conclusion, but you aren't my audience.

My audience are those looking for quick solutions and information, getting an idea they can take with them to try out on their own, and not be burdened with parsing out the important points buried in a formal writing style.

I've seen this happen to you - and others that post here. You write big long articles, and then someone misinterprets what you said, and you have to repeat yourself, sometimes several times before they get the point hidden in the mountain of text. I learned that long ago, and don't bother wasting my posting time with a formal writing style that obscures the point.

If you really want to format my text every time before you read it, that's up to you, but you should be quick enough to elide the white space and merge it all into a continuous read on your own. Try that next time instead of asking the writer to do it for you.

 

Exactly. Knowledge is King!! See also my reply below.

A big text wall camouflage the real deal. Continue as you do.

 

Well...that was an insightful exchange

 

Chicago Manual of Style, Fight!!

 

In case anyone is interested Inphtech from Portugal posted a review of Clevo P950 in english here:
https://forum.zwame.pt/threads/comparison-review-of-the-new-clevo-p950hr.996066/

 

I might just purchase the P950HR—or its Volta+Coffee Lake/Ryzen equivalent—next year, given the benchmarks above. Sure, no G-Sync (which is frankly a pity), but still... 700g lighter is more than one can shake a stick at.

@Donald@HIDevolution, does @Prema plan to release Prema Mod for this notebook? If so, could there possibly be a firmware flash where we could restore an original GTX 1070 vBIOS and possibly enable near-stock clocks?

 

We do not have plans to offer the Prema BIOS on the EVOC High Performance Systems P950HR at this time...but by the time you are ready to buy, who knows??