New Clevos with Max-Q?

Employees doing presentations want a slick running machine when doing so in front of clients so they seem with the times, they don't want a larger brick.

I deal with these people every day

 

These aren't power point laptops.

These are laptops with professional P4000 GPU's, used for high end design software, not traveling salesperson presentation laptops.

http://www.excaliberpc.com/products/products.html?search=ws63vr

 

I don't know... I can use some pretty cool transition and swipe effects! (J/k; lmfao)

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

Often the machine with prototype products etc are the ones with the power to run the demo presentations.

 

I actually think this is all valid.
There is a market for thin laptops, there are people who really want to get the thinnest and lightest unit. That´s ok, let´s all agree Max-Q is there for this specific type of clients.

But i do not believe for a second it´s safe to say 10 to 15% less performance. Don´t believe in synthetic tests. Heavy games and software in a unit with less capable cooling system and tighter power limits will reduce your CPU performance too.

Max-Q means that the CPU will also be affected.

If we take in account the actual GPU performance difference plus the effect that the CPU heat and power limits will have on heavy games/software, in some cases i believe we will see performance differences above 30%...

Even on a P650HS to get the most out of the CPU you need to undervolt it, YES, by undervolting you get MORE performance out of it.
Just try it, take any laptop, open Throttlestop, fire AIDA Extreme and do a run with FPU + GPU, watch the CPU clock.
Now start undervolting and you will see that turbo clocks sustain times will be longer, yes, higher clocks will be sustained longer. Eventually you can even find the perfect spot where the max clocks gets sustained 4ever, even if that clock is not the max cpu announced clock, it will still perform better then the stock scenario where after 5 minutes it will clock down to non-turbo clocks.

On laptops if you perform long runs usually you get more performance with less overclock and rather more undervolt at lower clocks instead. It´s cool to see the clock reach 5G yeah, not so cool if you can´t maintain them. You get clocked down due to power limits or thermal throttle as soon as you start using the GPU too.

Now do the exercise in a unit with tighter limits and +10ºC of temperature (at least). There´s no way the CPU will perform the same. If it is, you are not testing it right.

If you combine the difference in CPU+GPU performance, more throttle, lower clocks, everything, you will eventually start seeing that really demanding stuff will have a all around bigger performance difference.

 

That's an oxymoron. It wouldn't be a rational excuse otherwise

I have a couple of friends here that would probably go for something like that mainly because they often have take a Shinkansen between multiple cities in a day. You, me or the clients don't have to like it. I don't think it's money well spent either but I can see an niche appreciating this.

 

http://laptopmedia.com/comparisons/...e-gtx-1080-gaming-performance-and-benchmarks/
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Max-Q vs GeForce GTX 1080 – gaming performance and benchmarks

 

I think I threw up in my mouth a little while I was watching that.

 

I guess you haven't done much project management

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

I've heard plenty of "rational excuses" for "irrational behavior", one doesn't deny the existence of the other. I phrased it exactly as I found it, many many times.

It's not their fault really, to them their behavior was sane and all the excuses methodically lead them to their doom - the irrational behavior that was the cause of failure.

When you do project management for large groups of people on complex projects there are endless combinations for failure - or failures close companion - delay, and few combinations for success.

 

But, that's the point I was trying to make, this is a company expense toward pleasing clients by completing project work, including the demo(s) / progress reports to clients.

If the real time work / editing requires refreshing project files on the road, the processing time / rendering time while the client sits there next to you with a non-Max-Q laptop using the same P4000 GPU takes visibly shorter time to render, your employee with the "light" lower performance (Max-Q) laptop is going to look weak and ineffective to the client due to their poor judgment / choice.

It is all about making the client happy. The employee is there to make the client happy, not show off their 1lb lighter laptop that costs more than the laptop that can do the work faster.

If the client thinks your company / employee is making poor choices / decisions they aren't going to want your company to help them make decisions. If your company is perceived as making frivolous use of their own funds, clients won't want you to advise them on their use of project funds.

If you are recommending your friend's this laptop, you aren't doing them any favors.

 

hmmm....maybe worth a look if clevo makes a model with the 1080MQ??

 

That's what you got out of that comparison? That the Max-Q was a good idea, so lets get a Clevo Max-Q?

I got that the Alienware 1080 tested needs tuning, and the Predator 1080 is a good build, but I know it is outperformed by the MSI GT73 and Asus G701VI.

Compared to the MSI / Asus 1080 laptops the Predator is just below them, so ranking them according to performance.

Asus 1080
MSI 1080
Predator 1080
Alienware 1080
Max-Q 1080
very close behind the Max-Q 1080...
Full performance 1070 laptop.

Since we already know that the Alienware 1070 shipping with the new OC vbios/BIOS matches the Alienware 1080 Max-Q performance, I'd say there is something wrong with that Alienware full 1080 laptop, that's what I got out of that article.

 

I said "maybe"!

 

This isn't primarily a Max-Q laptop review, but David touches on a comparison with Max-Q inside the review, showing results for a Max-Q 1060 vs 1060 vs 1050ti.

David says that Max-Q in a laptop not designed for Max-Q benefits - thinness - isn't worth it (Don't buy the wrong one). He's almost got it right, Max-Q is never $worth$ it

HP Omen 2017 Review - Don't Buy The Wrong One.

 

I have always said this

 

Just to clear this up, those are my words from my original post in this thread. In that post, I copy-pasted the review from another thread on NBR which was deleted by the mods for, I presume, having shill links.

As far as I can remember, those are not the exact words of the original poster of the review on that other NBR thread that was deleted, or at least not verbatim.

My words from my post in this thread:

I am not the original poster of the thread that this review was copy pasted from (that the mods deleted) on NBR. Nor do I know where the review was copy pasted from, outside of the assertion that it was from a Portuguese forum.

My sole intention for copying that review from that (now-closed) thread to this one was to put numbers into this thread where they can be analyzed by members, since the other thread was deleted, and the numbers do have use.

I did not know that the review was store-conducted, and figured that it was a shame to have so many numbers deleted by mods because of shill links or shadyness, when the numbers themselves do hold some value, and that other readers here could make sense of them however they wished.

This is why I removed the links to that store from the post, as these links were embedded in the original post, and I saw no reason why they should be copied over. I admittedly did not make the connection that the review might be store-conducted.

--

With that said, just because one test has a 6700HQ and the other has a 7700HQ as the most significant difference doesn't, to me, invalidate their usefulness. I can still make an estimation, and at the moment, numbers are scarce so I'll honestly take anything I can get, make comparisons, and then come to my own conclusions.

But GPU tests across two CPU generations that vary so little in performance (same IPC, 10%~ higher clocks) is not something I throw out the window.

I agree that a store should just fully disclose when the review is their own conducted review, and I admit I didn't not catch in the performance summaries that the P650RS changed to a P650HS, and was apparently a lifted copy of your own testing done on a completely different machine, which of course invalidates the conclusion.

 

CedricFP don´t for a moment even think any of my posts were directed to you man.
I was talking about the actual review and about how it was originally presented and conducted. I think everyone understands you just wanted to share numbers because they indeed are not easy to find!
Since i have this bad habit of over-explaining myself and writing biblical long posts i think you understood my motives.

 

The review was made by my store and it was only meant to compare both 1070 GPU's (with and without MQ) just to have some numbers , wich there weren't much arround the web, and it was the first we receive.
At that moment we only had a P670RS to compare too, so the initial numbers are comparing to a previous generation cpu, after John posted some results of one of his P650HS, we added those numbers to the review so it could be more accurate. It's all there, well explained and of course, coming to the conclusion that the P650HS is allways better, but the P950HR is not that bad at all, althought, like John says, it could have a more reasonable price, and also should have more battery life. If anyone needs some info or help about the review, feel free to PM.
Some deleted posts turned some things again out of context, but no problem.

 

Obfuscating ?

Wasn't I pretty clear I'm not recommending it? Have I ever peddled BGA junk?

I don't think you're grasping what I'm saying. It might actually suit some professionals use case. I trust that they're wearing their boy boy pants and will know if it will work for them.
You can always part more of your pro project management tips to Nvidia in case they missed something you didn't.

 

You keep talking about it like you do...

There you go again, recommending it...

They are welcome to them, anything to set them on the straight and narrow.

 

Reaching much? Sorry, that's on you if you want to misconstrue that as a recommendation.
I think it's pretty obnoxious not entertaining the possibility that professionals have different arrangements from what you understand.

"The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know" Albert Einstein

 

Now, now, c'mon... Max-Q is disgusting enough on it's own merits without the two of you getting sideways over something so unworthy of anyone's recognition or acknowledgment.

Drinking water from a toilet is OK when you're on the verge of dying from dehydration. No reason to do it otherwise.

 

For the benefit of people not reading from the beginning of the thread: Max-Q does have benefits. These guys preferences are probably not your own.

 

Here's something that can make both camps happier, high 1080 scores (much higher than Max-Q 1080) from a full performance GTX 1080 in a laptop, and a slim laptop form factor.

Win win designs like this are to be commended, and voting with your dollars is the way to do it

Check out @Darkhan 's posts with scores on his new slim Aorus X7 DT v7

Aorus X5 V7, X7 V7, DT X7 all estimated for June release in USA
http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...e-release-in-usa.805021/page-35#post-10577365


He just got the laptop today, and had scores posted in 20 minutes... give that a thought and please do the same when you get your new laptops

Aorus X7 DT v7
https://www.aorus.com/product-detail.php?p=216&t=35&t2=59&t3=60

 

The notebook may be slim, but it certainly isn't light...3.2 kg is a far cry from the ~ 2 kg Max-Q builds...

 

Really, that's what your take is from a 17" vs 15", full 1080 gpu performance vs max-q 1080 clobbering of ~50% greater Graphics Score, it weighs a few grams more?

Give it up, the Max-Q 1080 is a joke, it's literally been stripped of weight *and* performance.

For ~50% higher Graphics performance, that ~1kg more weight is worth every gram, allowing that 1080 GPU to performance to it's real value.

 

He does have a point. Anyone considering Max-Q won't be looking at 17" laptops, because the main point is portability and/or low noise output.

I think that by now everyone understood that Max-Q is more of a marketing stunt then a valid product, but it may make sense for a small niche of consumers. Like someone that has a great desktop but sometimes has to travel and wants to carry the least weight for example.

For me it was just a matter of naming. If you had gtx1055, 1065 and 1075 it would be great. As is could get the least knowledgeble costumers into mistake.

I could see myself with a Max-Q laptop, especially because I prefer to lose performance and have a quiet laptop, even if I have to dial down a bit on the visuals.

Enviado do meu MHA-L29 através de Tapatalk

 

It's not your fault, the whole Max-Q presentation is a mix of opposing and confusing mixed messages.

High Performance, Thin light packaging, Quiet Operation.

All of those are independent individual goals.

The lie is that you can have all of them with Max-Q. You can't. No one can do that, it's a matter of the physics getting in the way of the desire.

My goal, why I keep posting information that deflates these claims from all angles, is to help people understand the actual product, rather than be tricked into buying into the illusion.

Gaming on the Max-Q laptop running at full performance, you no longer have Quiet Operation, it's been posted in every video that try's to show best performance, then their fans are spinning at full speed - and 39dba is left far behind - more like 55dba-65dba.

Once you tune for Quiet operation, your games are throttled in Frames Per Second, down to 30-40 FPS from 120 FPS. You need to reduce the heat generation to the minimum because there isn't enough material mass in the small form factor and low weight components to dissipate the heat fast enough when running at higher performance.

The benchmark results are a deception, even that severely gimped performance maximum is not going to be available to the user during Quiet 39dba operation during normal gaming.

You can't have all three at the same time: High Performance, Thin light packaging, Quiet Operation. Offered together as a cohesive package as it has been, it's a carefully sliced and presented deception.

Using the 1080 name isn't a simple miscalculation on their part, it's an indefensible deception to get people thinking - even ever so briefly - that they are getting a GTX 1080's full performance.

They will hem and haw, back track and walk it around the park all day, but they won't admit this. Even though it's the most salient point to be aware of - they did this intentionally to deceive you.

All your Max-Q appologia aside, this isn't a product to reward Nvidia for selling. It's on the order of the 3.5GB fake 4GB memory, it's "slightly slower", but we didn't know it was going to be such a problem, look at these carefully crafted benchmarks that show it doesn't matter.

How many hundred's of thousands of people got $30 in the mail for that "innocent mistake"? At least for most desktop 1070 GPU buyers, they had no idea they were being hoodwinked.

Don't fall for it. You know this one up front is a shady deal, why take the bait? It's just another exercise in deception from Nvidia. Why reward that behavior?

A 17" laptop is the proper minimum size for a full performance GTX 1080; the only GTX 1080 worth buying is a full performance GTX 1080. Why would you pay more for less?

The point of posting Aorus's victory in providing a true thin laptop with a full performance GTX 1080, with *useful* CPU and GPU overclocking, is to contrast the weak showing by a Max-Q 1080. To show that it takes a physically larger and more massive frame to host the power and cooling requirements a real GTX 1080 in a laptop requires.

Can it get smaller? Maybe. And, if Nvidia put their massive $ weight against that problem - finding better engineering solutions to get closer to a slimmer laptop ideal while providing full performance with overclocking headroom as desired by so many, you might actually have it eventually.

If you buy into the sham Max-Q 1080 laptops, you are telling Nvidia you'd rather buy the deception than the real deal.

Vote responsibly with your $

 

Most people who want to buy Max-Q want maximum portability, regardless of price. They aren't likely to buy a 17" machine anyway.

A typical GTX 1080 in a notebook ( MSI GT73VR here) achieves ~ 21000 in Fire Strike Graphics, while the GTX 1080MQ in the Asus Zephyrus achieves ~ 18000 points in the same.

By my maths, it appears (21000-18000) / 18000 = 16.7%. A far cry from '50% greater', I would think. In more real-world performance, the numbers are similar: MSI GT73VR achieves 135 FPS in Battlefield 1 1080p Ultra settings, the Asus Zephyrus achieves 113 FPS in the same. The general idea: GTX 1080 is ~ 15–20% more powerful than GTX 1080MQ.

This is not '50% higher graphics performance', contrary to what you claim.

Furthermore, NotebookCheck also debunks your claim about noise—the Asus Zephyrus does stay within noise limits, even when playing Witcher 3. You ought to read that review, it might correct several misconceptions and biases you have.

The Asus Zephyrus is a full kilogram (1000, one thousand grams) less massive than the Aorus DT V7. That doesn't sound like 'a few grams', unless you can throw away a $1000 note and call it a loss of 'a few dollars'... That kilogram of two can make the difference whether or not your hand-carry baggage is allowed on the plane or not.

The Asus Zephyrus is also half as massive as the blocky, monstrous (albeit powerful) MSI GT73VR or the P870DM2, while managing to achieve ~80% of the performance of all three machines.

This is the same physics in action—as far as semiconductors are concerned, there is diminishing returns in jacking up clocks on the same process or same die. It's why Ryzen is incredibly efficient at 3 GHz. The R7 CPUs draw a mere 30 W while achieving 800 to 900 CB R15 points, a score far higher than that of even the i7-7820HK at full tilt. However, clock the same to something like 4.1 GHz, and yes, the performance doubles, but the power consumption nearly trebles.

It's the same with anything electromechanical, really—turbojet engines, LCD displays, cars.

You are under the impression that I like Max-Q. I like the concept: undervolt GPUs, use better power delivery hardware. It should be a universal thing, every watt saved can be used for agriculture, or to light up a home elsewhere instead of forcing it through some silicon just for the sake of benchmarks. But the marketing and the product delivery, as well as the pricing, has been absolutely terrible.

I dislike the name Max-Q. I dislike the way nVidia presented it to the public. I dislike the naming. I dislike the buzzwords. I dislike the pricing. Paying equal prices for reduced performance is a lousy deal. It doesn't happen in cars. It doesn't happen in the aerospace industry. It shouldn't happen in the notebook industry.

I don't dislike the idea behind it.

 

You like the idea of Razor and Nvidia using lies and deception to mislead customers in the marketing of products to them?

That's the idea behind it all. Make no mistake, you are focusing on the wrong things. You've fallen into the logical argument trap many league's aside from the real idea and goal.

Think Nvidia, think history of behavior, think as if you are working from their shoes with their goal in mind - maximize profit, sell promises, deliver non-litigious products within their promises. Just because all 3 promises can't possible happen all at once, it's not their fault that's what you believed.

From all the things you don't like, you should arrive at an overall don't like decision. Instead you are derailing yourself before arriving. You've been hoodwinked by the scheme.

Better to admit it to yourself now, and help others to avoid the same fate.

At least you didn't buy a RBP 1080 or a Max-Q 1080, and contribute to the success of the caper

 

goddamn the zepherus is pricey: it's like $5300 AUD in my territory.

https://www.mwave.com.au/product/as...ing-notebook-i7-8gb-512gb-gtx1080-w10-ac06448

this metabox/clevo is much more reasonable.

http://www.metabox.com.au/store/b214/Metabox-Prime-P650HS-G-Laptop

 

'logical argument trap'? Sounds like you are focussing on the wrong things. I am using benchmarks to prove my point: if you want the highest possible performance in a thin-and-light machine, the Max-Q idea is the way to go. With all due respect—you, on the other hand, are using hoity-toity words like lies, deception, mislead. I have already conceded that Max-Q is not good value for money. I have also conceded that the marketing is shady.

Max-Q is for people along the lines of those who like to buy and drive Lamborghinis, Ferraris and Bugattis in cities and speed-restricted areas. Such cars are also lousy value for money, are they not? They get us from point A to B, but they still exist. Why? There is a market for them. They are a status symbol. Some people do have money to spend on such notebooks. Who are we to deny them the opportunity?

 

(Was looking at the wrong benchmarks, the real Firestrike Graphics Score for the 1080 Max-Q stock is ~18k, not 14k - that's the Overall Score)

A guy said today that at least he was able to go into a Asus Zephyrus purchase knowing what performance he was going to get.

Nvidia didn't tell him that. Asus didn't tell him that. We did. And, so did Alienware.

 

What? I believe you've mixed up the scores of the GTX 1070MQ and 1080MQ. The 1070 ought to achieve 14000 to 15000, as seen in the P950HR benches. The 1080 is firmly in 18000s territory.

NotebookCheck Asus GX501 Zephyrus review here.

Nvidia and Asus would not tell them that, because they're selling a product. I'm not sure of Alienware's reason for making such a video, I'd be intrigued to find out.

 

hmscott, some parts of MaxQ are shady and others are sound. In shouting to the four winds that MaxQ is all wrong, you undermine your own correct arguments for the parts that really are bad.

 

Damn, I was looking at the overall score, and I think you're right the last GPU scores I looked at before the Aorus 1080 was the Max-Q 1070.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-1080-Max-Q-GPU-Benchmarks-and-Specs.224730.0.html

I hate it when that happens, thanks for catching that

Even so 18k is a lot less than 21k

When you've hit the limit on the Max-Q thin cooling and power, there's a lot more range in the full 1080.

Even the Aorus is going to drop away in comparison to a thicker heavier chassis with more cooling mass, for even more performance potential.

If you want a thin relatively good performance laptop, someone needs to make it with a full performance 1070 so it's price matches it's performance. It can be done.

Of course Asus and Nvidia should be able to tell us the real performance scores, that's what they are selling. Their screwing around has messed up our expectations, we should expect clear and reliable performance range estimates from both, more from Asus since it's running in the final form.

Alienware did it because Max-Q is a joke. They showed that with simple tuning, adding a moderate OC to their existing 1070 laptop GPU it could match the Max-Q 1080 performance. Alienware were making fun of Max-Q, or don't you recall the video? Here it is again, so fun

Not All Nvidia Geforce 1080 Max-Q's Are Created Equal | Alienware


Alienware is telling you the same thing I have been saying, overly thin designs give up too much performance and features, it's not the game Alienware is in - so they aren't playing it.

 

If you are referring to my recent skipping the line on the performance of the graphics score, hey, I'm human, don't let that get in the way of hearing the good stuff.

But thanks for the shout out, the bad stuff is enough to stop supporting Max-Q and the shift to more expensive laptops.

Doesn't that bother you? That the whole Max-Q $1000 bump in cost for performance has now been reflected in the MSI GT75VR 1080 also now costing $1000 more than before?

They couldn't charge the same price as the Max-Q 1080 for the full performance 1080 could they? So the price of the full performance 1080 laptop needed to go up accordingly.

With the Max-Q price hike, everyone can end up paying more in the long run.

 

Hello, I have been reading this thread for a while now, and i am wondering about all the arguments about performance loss.

If you overclock a Max-q to standard clocks, can you get the normal performance?

Then the problem is more about the thermal headroom of the chassis and cooling system, right?

Edit: And, obviously, the price.

 

Yes, it's a matter of form not fitting full function. Without the volume for cooling, the mass or weight for thermal transfer, the power for full performance, all of those things add up to less peak and sustained performance overall.

The Asus does a better job than the other Max-Q 1080's, but has a metal skin that is used for cooling, and two metal bottoms to hold and dissipate heat.

The Aorus, and even larger full frame laptops have more capacity for cooling, so they can take the 330w PSU to drive the performance that last 20% or more and hold it there for extended periods of time.

The thinness and form makes the Max-Q odd layout's a challenge to cool over the traditionally thicker and heavier laptops with GTX 1080 GPU's, they help to limit that heat by limiting the sustained performance, limiting the FPS, and physically limiting the power by only providing a 230w-250w PSU.

The cost is unwarrented, but the uniqueness - the very inexplicability of the whole endeaver makes it an interesting odd duck - odd inexplicable ducks can demand a premium price, the goal of the project - to sell more 1080's in what used to be the realm of a 1070 "thin" 15" laptop.

If you want performance, get a full performance laptop, if you want a thin carry long battery life laptop then there are a lot of those out there.

As I've often recommended, don't kill yourself trying to get the long battery life light carry laptop with gaming performance - or the other way around - as it doesn't exist - it still doesn't as the Max-Q laptops have terrible battery life.

Get 2 laptops well designed for their role, a nice light carry long battery life laptop - don't blow a lot of money on a glitzy one, then get a full performance gaming laptop that can run for hours at full gaming performance.

It's the best solution, even today.

 

Hello, I have been reading this thread for a while now, and i am wondering about all the arguments about performance loss.

Correct about the thermal headroom and cooling.

In fact, whether or not a Max-Q GPU can be overclocked in the first place remains to be seen, much less so to original 1060/1070/1080 levels. The fact that a GPU is marked Max-Q is a firmware/vBIOS issue, and it also remains to be seen if a 'normal' VBIOS can be flashed onto a Max-Q GPU with the accompanying performance boost.

 

This sounds incredibly condescending. And yet you point out that I 'viciously eviscerate' others...

 

@bruno.uy pointed out there were salient points but they were getting blown out by casting them to the 4 winds. If my response came out as strong, then I withdraw it.

The wind is likely from continually responding to your posts.

I mean really, I made one post to point out the Aorus performance, and you just had to try to demean the laptop and stick up for Max-Q.

If you would knock it off, and just not respond to my posts - there was no need we've already said to each other all that is needed - then this wouldn't continue.

I don't understand why you are defending Max-Q any more than you understand why I think it's important to stop supporting Max-Q.

How about we leave it at that and let me speak with others, without interrupting us and jumping in and speaking for them. Ok?

 

So how do you see it? How would you express the good points vs shouting to the four Winds. I don't mind constructive suggestions to improve the message delivery.

Once you determine the roots are rotten, their intentions are to deceive, the fruit of the product is tainted, and whether it's a cool doo-dad or not, it's not a good idea to support the original intentions.

There are unforeseen consequences, like the Max-Q 1080 price point of $3000 - right smack in the middle of the previous full 1080 price point edging up the price of full 1080 laptops into the stratosphere - with the MSI GT75VR 1080 @ $4299 and the MSI GT75VR 1070 @ $3299.

All of a sudden the new 1070 performance price point is now the old $3000 full performance 1080 price point, pushed up by overpriced Max-Q 1080 / 1070 models, and the full performance 1080 models are now so over priced at $4000 that no one is going to buy them.

"Gee, no one is buying full performance 1080's, I guess they really don't want full performance laptops, so let's go ahead and detune the performance for all of our laptop's so we can just ship the thin and light ones, after all, we make more money from them - and shipping lighter laptops is a lot cheaper!!" - ...the not too distant future?

Sigh...

 

For money? Is not a good value at all. It's Scam!!

 

You use a behemoth with dual gpu and 120hz 4k screen to say that the prices of the gpus are going up because of the Max-Q?

A bit reaching for the sake of arguing no?

Don't bt that guy. You are right on most accounts, but it's not the end of the world with Max-Q. Even lga vs bga wasn't the end of the world, and in this case you have the option.

Calm down and give advice accordingly.

I have a question. If Nvidia presented Max-Q with 1055, 1065 and 1075 naming would you be so worked up?

Enviado do meu MHA-L29 através de Tapatalk

 

The GT75VR is the new replacement for the GT73VR, both of which have a single 1080 / 1070 or SLI 1070, but I was referring to the single 1080 model, which used to sell at around $3000 for a single 1080.

The new GT75VR single 1080 sells for $4299!!
http://www.excaliberpc.com/660922/msi-gt75vr-titan-pro-4k-082.html

I know that price point sure sounds like a 1080 SLI model, but it's not! 4k screens don't add much to the price, a 120hz is a better choice I think, the single 1080 can't quite support full performance game play at 4k, that'll come with single Volta or Navi.

That's what I am saying, the Max-Q 1080 price point at $3000 has edged the real 1080 laptops up another level in price, essentially pricing them out of reach of everyone that was planning on paying around $3000 for a GT75VR single 1080 laptop.

I am calm, I am using emphasis for the truly egregious ramifications of Max-Q 1080 effects on the market.

I think now that you know I was talking about a single 1080 @ $4299 you can share my shock at just how much Max-Q has messed things up.

The lies and deception are the core genesis of Max-Q, and the main complaint against Max-Q. But those deceptions are also necessary for the existence of a "new" product to push into the 1080's previous price point.

Nvidia wouldn't bring out a 1075, or a 1065 instead of what they did with Max-Q - one doesn't logically come from the other. Nvidia's extension of the Razer model for deception pioneered with the RBP 1080 was the base element for their Max-Q product. What started in deception continues in a new form with a new name.

Merely filling up an incredibly small gap between the 1070 and 1080 performance with a 1075 simply would never happen, that's way too small of a niche. Nvidia needed something with some "pizazz" associated with it to make it special.

Nvidia wouldn't have been able to sell a 1075 for the price of a 1080, as it's clearly under performing a 1080 level laptop, the number indicates the performance.

See how the 1075 story reads flat, with zero reason for existing? Nvidia needed at least the 1080 name to sell at 1080 prices, and Max-Q added the marketing Pizazz that elevated it above a simple "1075".

Yet, the Max-Q 1080 performs just like a "1075" would, fitting right in between the 1070 and 1080, but because of it's deceptive allusions to being "better", it can be priced higher than some 1080's, and people happily buy the story and the laptop.

Nvidia was avoiding the 1075 name like the plague, they couldn't charge premium 1080 prices without including 1080 in the product name.

A replacement product, one that would have not only garnered my approval, but maybe even a purchase, would be a real full performance 1080 with some real thoughtful engineering thrown at it to give better capability, battery life, and quality - less flash, less plastic, less RGB lighting, some real substance.

That would have been a product worth paying a premium to get; a real next generation full performance GTX 1080 laptop. Thinner, but reasonably so such that performance was not reduced.

Most likely a 17", as a 15" just doesn't have the volume without puffing it out making it too thick.

Or, if you want to follow the same form factor as the Zephyrus, put a full performance 1070 into a similar form factor - maybe a little bigger in all dimensions, and make it a next generation slim full performance + OC CPU / GPU 1070 level product.

But again, that wouldn't demand a premium on the level of the "extra special Max-Q" mystic.

No, it was all marketing puffery to create as high a price as possible.

I know what you are saying, but all those road's just lead to progress in full performance thinner 1070 / 1080 laptops, the next generation "best".

Definitely what we all hope for, and hope to not pay much more than those categories used to cost. $1700 for full performance 1070's and $2700 for full performance 1080's.

Instead we got Max-Q, and higher prices across the board for each performance category.

Yuck!

 

I feel like if 3k only gets you a Max-Q, I would rather spend that money on building my own monster pc with left over money to get a chromebook lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I am sorry, but it is hard to believe that the GT75 pricing has anything to do with Max-Q disrupting the market and price points. It does indeed cost 600 bucks more than a GT73 with similar configuration, but this is most likely due to the new design and cooling, way more massive, and not maxq pricing.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

How can MSI charge the same price as they did with the GT73VR 1080 when the Max-Q 1080 now occupies that price range?

The last few 1080 laptops all came in around the same $3000 price now occupied by the Max-Q 1080, and the GT75VR 1080 laptop is now $1299 more, that's a lot more than $600.

There will hopefully be barebones MSI GT75VR 1080's, and let's hope they drop down to the same price as the Max-Q 1080 laptops, from $2700 to $3000.

What do you think a full GTX1080 17" laptop should be priced at? If not at or below where they were before the Max-Q 1080 took over that price point?