New Clevos with Max-Q?

Yeah, fair enough. I've already decided that I will most likely get myself a desktop for performance computing around mid-next year when Zen 2 and Volta comes around. Any notebook I buy will be more for portability, which means—unfortunately—no LGA or MXM, unless somebody manages to stuff a MXM 3.0B GPU into a chassis this thin.

I've tried using the P950HP, and it's a really good notebook for its weight. I can only imagine what the P950HR would be like.

Like I said earlier, Max-Q is a good idea with terrible marketing and equally lousy pricing. Placing a GPU that's the most efficient possible, with an undervolt to boot, should be a universal implementation in notebooks, not just restricted to Max-Q. It should be on the manufacturers' part to reduce noise and heat, not nVidia to enforce it.

 

I'm interested in any of 15" models linked below for portability.

http://www.metabox.com.au/store/Prime

but still get a high end DTR or desktop for home.

 

I'll make one for you if you get one. I don't have the HQ spec-sheets with me, but if possible pick a HK chip.

Edit: Just checked factory only offers 7700HQ

 

Are you serious? :O

 

probably not

 

You waited long enough to upgrade from our glorious W230SS.
Clevo P-series = Prema-series.

Ask @Donald@HIDevolution guys for a 200W+ AC Adapter for 1060 (stock HQ is 150W) or 230W for 1070 model (stock is 180W).

 

Hahaha! Glorious indeed. Socketed PGA, 2× MSATA, one 2.5" slot in a 13" machine, which company offers this now? Also, W-series = Wicked?

I'm trying my best to hold out for Volta and possibly a hexacore i7-8820HK or Zen 2... But the wait is agonisingly long.

 

mSATA has been replaced with M.2 SATA or PCIe NVMe. It will be best to wait until you are ready to purchase so that we can see what is available at that time. Just email me when you are ready.

 

Well here on polish tech portal they have good max-q 1070 review in Clevo p950HR (FE vs 1070N vs 1070 Max-q with the same CPU and amount of RAM)
http://pclab.pl/art74974-2.html

 

So this was posted in a different thread which was then deleted by the mods. It's a translation of a Portugese review of the 1070 vs 1070 Max-Q. I think it'll be useful, so might as well post it here since it can't be found on NBR anymore. After all, the more data points we have, the better informed we are:

(In quote tags for convenience and to be less disruptive.)

 

Wtf is that at the end? Are they comparing power to weight ratio, like its a car? Oh right I get it, the "A" in VGA stands for accelerator what kind of pointless metric is that for a laptop.

The real meat it seems they're trying their best to hide is that the P650HS is 16%/24%/23% faster in synthetic GPU tests.

 

I can see performance per kg to be an interesting metric, how efficient the machine truly is being per KG.

 

I actually do too.
Probably power per inch squared would be a more interesting metric for me. I'm guessing the DM3 would be up the top on the latter.

 

I think it would too, especially using metrics that can use both GPUs well.

 

Which would only go to supporting my point of the meaningless nature of an "ergonomics efficiency" statistic that can support a conclusion that two vastly different machines, with opposite ergonomics, are somehow similar.

 

It's more useful for keeping an eye on the state of cooling at different points and again more useful for comparing similar systems.

 

It is indeed.

 

That review is a bit out of context here because that last part of it was in reply to other members in the forum where it was made. But it's interesting
The P950 is from a different league than the P650, but still a great model.

 

It is a good metric if it is an important metric FOR YOU or for the person who is Buying.

It´s actually very simple to look at it, you sacrifice up to 30% performance but you Gain mobility with less weight and a more thin chassis.
The direct comparison will have to be the P650HS, so to be totally honest, you need to say something like this.

The P950 in comparison to the P650HS is up to 30% less powerful for gaming (games are not synthetic tests) but it is more thin and light.
AND, looking at other characteristic the 950 will also be missing the following:
- One less M.2 slot
- One less SATA slot
- No G-SYNC and no option to set DISCRETE only
- Less connectivity
- And less GPU OC capability
Finally, most stores are selling the units with a price above the HS... ouch!

That´s how it is, i would rather let clients do the metrics, because you can do Price/Performance Ratios, Weight/Performance Ratios, Features/Price Ratios, well the list goes one. I always assume clients are smart enough to look at a piece of hardware and decide if it´s good for them or not.

My big issue with metrics is mostly because I do have problems with brands using the metrics that suits them better for marketing, that review for instance was written by a store, who even included promo links, hence the post being deleted. I´m sure NVIDIA and re-sellers/brands will take that route with those types of metrics.

I do like the P950 with GTX 1060 (no Max-Q) but i still feel the price should be a bit lower, specially because there is tough competition in the market for the i7 7700HQ / GTX 1060, other brands are going hard on it, like Lenovo and MSI.

 

That review was a copy past from another fórum, indeed it had to be edited and removed the links, but it's still a usefull review.

 

I am a user from that other forum.
That review even quotes text written by me, i am JohnKeeL, the one who wrote the performance difference in synthetic benchmarks.

That review was written by your store in a promo post about that model. Yes all that text is written by your store.

It even includes someone that works for you making themselves look like a regular user and saying "I bought one from you... bla bla bla and i am happy with it".

I really like to play clean, let´s try to keep it that way at least in this forum.

 

By this metric, Apple computers are actually some of the best, as they manage to cram a lot of performance into a very small volume. But each user has different preferences and difference budgets. It's simple economics, I may be willing to sacrifice 10% performance and pay $200 more for having a laptop weight one kilo less, but I won't be willing to sacrifice 30% performance and pay $500 more for one kilo less, however other users may be willing to.

 

Not quite, if you use the same benchmarks, Apple will loose
The difference in prices here between the P650HS and the P950HR is almost none, here you just have to balance the difference in performance and connections vs the difference in weight and volume. Also the G-Sync, but i really rather not using g-sync and don't have input lag (unless it comes with a 120hz screen).

Hate when someone deletes our posts and leaves us without reply to someone...

 

P650hs is better than P950hr IMO

P950 should have more battery life and thunderbolt3 like gigabyte aero 15, xps 9560, asus ux550, lenovo 720 or razer blade

 

No doubt about that, p650hs is allways better, but they are 2 different machines for two different type of use, both with good performance. If the P950 had all that, it would go for the price range of the razer blade...
The worst in the P950 is the battery life, only 4hrs top is to low for a more "mobile" laptop.

 

If I buy a 1,9kgs laptop, I expect that It should be portable with a good battery life (6/7 hours wifi web surfing) and It should have newest ports like tb3. I could pay 1700/1800 euros for that

Razer prices are totally non sense IMO
gigabite aero 15 is the target

 

Agree, maybe in the next revision of the P950

 

P950 is really similar to msi gs63vr but P950 is better IMO
gs63vr mobo is overturned and it is difficult for repasting/upgrading but it has a thunderbolt3 port
may be a p950 without hdd could have a bigger battery. Why not a version with gtx1050/1050ti?

 

I think there's a very succinct, salient point that @Stooj made (I can't recall or find the exact post):

Max-Q GPUs are the most efficient, i.e. the greatest performance/power usage ratio for a given chassis. They may not necessarily be worth the asking price (the Asus Zephyrus certainly isn't), but I think nVidia ought to tune GPUs dynamically (this being an optional feature, of course) for each notebook chassis, given power draw, temperatures and potential differences.

 

Yeah, that's not quite right either, they aren't the most efficient, they are the least performance at the maximum power limited by the chassis and power supply.

There isn't anything special about them, they are detuned to be underpowered.

The most efficient design would include cooling and power efficiency changes to get the *most* performance out of the GPU, that is the most efficient use of the GPU.

Max-Q is wasting the entire top end of performance of the GPU.

If the GPU at maximum performance sets the design parameters, then you can have detuned profiles for quiet operation. Battery profiles for best battery life. And, of course, Profiles for highest peak performance, highest sustained performance for gaming, and highest performance for 24/7 operation.

This is what I do when I tune a new laptop, it would be nice if it came that way, but we know how to get the best performance from a laptop, and how to manage our environment to live with the noise - headphones, or detune for polite company with others.

There's nothing magical about Max-Q, it's already been done by all of us that tune our computers for 30+ years.

Welcome to Last Century, Max-Q

Excusing the bad behavior of Nvidia by holding back tuning from the rest of the laptops, and only offering quiet performance (which it doesn't really have) via overpriced Max-Q hardware should not be rewarded with accolades.

Max-Q should be ignored; buy a real full performance laptop, and learn to tune it on your own for best performance.

Whisper Mode has been added to GFE, so you can use that to detune games for lower noise, lower heat generation, setting the parameters yourself - with assist from Nvidia for 400+games. Still without voltage tuning or other hardware adjustments, instead Nvidia choose to do it via detuning the games - what about other applications?

Nvidia could choose to offer full tuning for their GPU's, and offer this Max-Q detuning to all Nvidia laptops. Control over performance, without neutering performance, like with Max-Q.

Let's hope AMD plays it straight and offers fulling tuning, profiles for games and applications, along with customization of those profiles, along with the hardware tuning that Nvidia withholds from us.

 

Quite wright about all that, Max-Q is just some kind of "nice" name to hide a "detune" in the graphics card, the problem is that you probably will only have slim powerfull machines with Max-Q's and in this category the P950 is not that bad (the battery is really the worst).

 

Exactly, with Max-Q you are stuck at that detuned performance level because the hardware can't provide enough cooling or power for full performance - even if sometimes you want full performance and don't mind about the noise from the fans - the top performance of the GPU is never available; that would be very frustrating.

 

That is very true. and YES a model needs to have some sort of logic, my problem is not Max-Q, my problem is this:

The P950 in comparison to the P650HS is up to 15-30% less powerful for gaming (games are not synthetic tests) but it is more thin and light.
AND, looking at other specs the 950 will also be missing the following:
- One less M.2 slot
- One less SATA slot
- No G-SYNC and no option to set DISCRETE only
- Less connectivity
- And less GPU OC capability
Finally, most stores are selling the units with a price above the HS... ouch!​

-Let me also add more information, it´s around 10ºC hotter all around


The P950HR is only $40 cheaper then the P650HS-G. Not sure if other brands are following the trend of removing a lot of features from the thicker models, slapping Max-Q on the new chassis and keeping it in the same price range or going above it.
This makes it a unit that will probably only have any interest to anyone who is really, i mean REALLY, into thin and light, and is whiling to pay that much for that difference of specs/performance.

I´m probably the only guy in this forum that actually defends CLEVO on a lot of stuff, but just like i told them face to face, this laptop is all wrong, the price should be way bellow the P650HS, at that price tag it´s hard to sell it.
This is the first time in this forum where i actually go after CLEVO for a model that i do not like. Also it feels like some re-sellers are actually pushing them down the throat of smaller shops (NOT something that CLEVO is doing). Fortunately for me i buy from CLEVO so this does not apply.
What i do not like is seeing stores or brands using marketing numbers to say this is better then the P650HS, it´s not better, it´s different. Anyone who is selling this to the public should refrain from saying it´s better then, that´s something for the user to do and decide. I would never be as bold as to public try to create a list making a point where this is better then the alternative.

More Power/Performance efficient, yes
Thinner and Lighter, yes

Everything else is stated above. Unless you fully list all Pro and all Against, that type of exercise is dangerous for both the store and client.

Selling this unit like "Hey buy this instead, it´s more power/ efficient" or even "It´s actually better then the P650HS in some metrics", "Hey it´s a lot thinner and lighter and you only loose up to 10fps". That´s all so wrong in so many ways.

Say it like it is, a BIG spec and Performance sacrifice to gain a thinner and lighter laptop, so it´s an alternative for someone who REALLY needs/wants the thinner and lighter possible gaming laptop. That´s it.

 

So far i haven't seen one store telling that the P950HR is better than the P650HS. Our review shows that on the numbers, but also shows that the P950 is not that bad as some say at the price we have it.
I believe everyone can read and understand the numbers.

 

The resellers who go out to mislead people don't tend to do well int he long term.

 

Agreed. In your opinion, the review misleads people?

 

I was referencing the openness over max-q implications. Nothing was directed at the review.

 

Just wanted a opinion, thanks

 

The review seems fine to me and produces results I would expect

 

I was not trying to direct that post at anyone, but since you clearly insist so much.

If you want my sincere opinion about that review i can tell you, my personal opinion:

"It's a translation of a Portugese review of the 1070 vs 1070 Max-Q"
It´s comparing a P950HR with a P650 RS, and NOT a P650 HS, that would be enough for me not even wasting time on it.
It´s not a "portuguese review" it´s a review made by your store. -> correct sentence should be this

"
Titanfall 2:
P670RS -130 avg / 144 max
P950HR -137 avg / 146 max
The P950HR gains ~ 3% to the P670RS

Grid Autosport:
P670RS - 107 avg / 154 max
P950HR - 113 avg / 148 max
The P950HR matches the P670RS

F1 2015
P670RS - 119 avg / 133 max
P950HR -124 avg / 137 max
The P950HR gains ~ 3% to the P670RS
"

In 3 out of 6 games the P950HR is actually better, so that can only mean the games are CPU driven, so... whats the point? Half of the review becomes pointless at this point.

"I think that sacrificing ~ 5 to 10 Fps to bring less weight at your backpack pays off." - Are you forgetting the match for that model is the P650HS-G and not the HR? So that conclusion is not very logic now is it? Why even state something like that?

Now comes the part when you use my data, finally we can clearly see that the P650HS-G does have more performance, so in that same post edit your logic goes to " With this new data we can calculate the performance / weight ratio between the 2 laptops."

"Summing up:

3dmark TimeSpy P950HR> P650HS by 13%

Unigine Superposition Fhd medium P950HR> P650HS by 6%

Unigine Superposition Fhd High P950HR> P650HS by 6%

In this ratio, that we find important ,the P950HR gains on average by ~ 8%"


The way the review was conducted does not sit well with me, i´m sorry, you probably had good intentions, but hey that´s just how i feel.
-Not once you mention the other spec difference (there ARE MANY) and yet the only one you can read is about G-SYNC
-Add the fact that this was first posted not by your store representative (who already had an account here) but by someone with a regular user account and included direct links to your store.
-The fact you said "A review from a Portuguese forum" and not "A review made by OUR store".

Can you understand my point now?

 

I understand your point wright from your first post with me and i think everyone understands too

There was no rep account created here before that post, and that's why it was made like that, and i already thanked your help on correcting this, but the post was deleted

Let's just keep going, i'm tired of wasting my time and also the time of who reads this nonesense.

Let's be usefull, and the review was based on performance only, wich there wasn't any at the moment it was made, the other differences everyone can read in the specs page...

Oh and no, i wasn't asking for your opinion, sorry

 

And under normal gaming load, without any oc or tuning, what is the quietest? P650hs or the p950 Max-Q?

Enviado do meu MHA-L29 através de Tapatalk

 

If you use the whispermode in the nvidia driver the P950 can be a bit more silent i supose, but it isn't the extreme quiet as some sites say it is. If you don't use the whispermode it can be louder than the P650HS i believe (we only compared it with the P670RS).

 

Who said they were anything special? You're preaching to the choir here, I know exactly what Max-Q entails...

What? That makes no sense. Efficiency is measured in FLOPs/W. Max-Q is the most efficient possible point on that curve. Ever heard of engine derating? That's exactly what Max-Q is. Overclocking reduces the efficiency of any computer component. One gets a bit more performance using up a lot more power. Try it yourself, if you happen to have a way of measuring the power usage of your GPU. Increase the clock in steps of 1 Hz, run a looping GPU benchmark or transcode a video, and see the power usage for every step of the way, all the way starting from the P8 clock (should be 405 MHz). Take the instantaneous FPS output, or FPS transcoded, divided by the power usage. This value would peak at roughly 80-85% of the stock boost clock.

There's Optimus for usage with batteries. The rest of your comment is more or less the same as what I'm saying—instead of locking performance and applying undervolting and underclocking to just Max-Q notebooks, nVidia ought to implement it as an optional feature for all GeForce GTX notebooks. Performance when needed, quiescence when not.

Like I said, Max-Q is a good idea covered in terrible marketing and equally terrible prices.

 

Our good idea is what we are agreeing on, not Max-Q.

Max-Q is all marketing greed, riding on the misshapen corpse of what should have been a good idea.

Optimus was good idea misshapen by Intel into the Walking Dead, killing and corrupting every laptop it bites, and all Optimus laptops bite.

 

The only thing missing here is the Nvidia mentioning of more efficient VRM. Problem is the Nvidia slides are deliberately vague about it. It could be physically different VRMs which may have a small impact or whether it's identical VRMs operating more efficiently at lower temps/voltage/current etc. We'd have to get a good close-up shot of the board to see if it's actually different.

 

So this happened: http://www.excaliberpc.com/products/products.html?search=ws63vr
Qaudro Max-Q .

 

So a "high performance" professional tool, whose job is to perform work for the $ invested, is now detuned to put it in a thin form?

Who would think that's a bankable idea?

In a gaming laptop, with little purpose other than to entertain it's owner, you can trade performance for fashion, it's ill conceived, but wasting resources as an elitist object de art isn't unprecedented.

In a work tool, a high priced GPU for professional work, giving up performance for fashion is like stealing production from the company.

Silly people

 

It might make sense for certain professionals who travel a lot and need it for work. At the end of the day, if their work is valuable enough and the balance sheets work in their favor I don't really see why not. At least in this instance there's tax deductions to be had too.

 

There are lot's of rational excuse's for irrationally blowing company money

Buying a laptop for a higher price than the one that performs better because it's lighter means the wrong person is being sent out for the job, and making the order.

Send someone that can carry another 1lb of weight so the proper tool can be applied to the task.

Clients aren't going to want to see a puny thin laptop being used for high performance work.