New Clevos with Max-Q?

I'm afraid you're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. I'm going to explain to you why hmscott has a perfectly fine point.
When you read something that has a noiselevel of 39dba, then that itself gives you a really poor idea of what it actually sounds like. The problem here is, that it really doens't only depend on the actual volume of the sound, but the sound itself.

Human hearing gets much faster irritated by a certain range of frequenies, which those kind of notebook sometimes reach. Those thin notebooks tend to get smaller fans which spin faster making a rather high frequency tone, which can be really irritating for many people, it doesn't have to be loud in order to annoy people. That's why saying that a cooling unit is "only" 39db loud really doesn't tell the story.

So instead of telling people they don't know what they are talking about, ask first why it would bother people first, it makes you look less like a fool.

Prime example:



On the 1. vid people would tell you do tix the noise.
On the 2. vid some people would fall alseep.

 

No **** mate. Post #1133. You've got your wires crossed.

My personal point of view, is that the individual is well entitled to believe whatever the hell they want, but it takes a grub to whack someone on the ignore list over it.

God I hate auto-subscribe

 

Just a little lifelesson. You should be way more considerate about your choice of words, calling people "grub" will only make less people willing to hear you and help you. Right now, it was detremental for you, because the issue you have with your Clevo P670hs-g, is a problem only very few people have a solution on, which I am one of them. Since you keep using foul language and insulting people I do not feel the need to help you out.

Also you contradict yourself, I basicially prove that what hmscott said was true, you replied with "no *** mate", told him he doesn't know what he's talking about and then proceeded to call him names. Your behavior is unacceptable.

 

Is this MAx-Q or not: https://noteb.com/?model/model.php?conf=59883884401818141&ex=USD

HID has it as MAx-Q , Xotic doesn't specify Max-Q .

 

It's Max-Q. That's a second-order reseller—Xotic does list the P950HR as Max-Q. If you were interested, I'd say the P950HR is one of the more value-for-money Max-Q machines, if you cared more about weight and portability than pure performance.

 

Thank you, I will update the info on my website in light of this information.

 

I have never...read a more ridiculous thing in my entire life. Testing a laptop for noise from the user's position is irrelevant!?
You have got to be kidding me...

Umm...you mean every laptop in existence? Who in their right mind would exhaust the heat and sound forwards towards the user? Where exactly would you propose the sound goes? Into a black hole perhaps?

Are you kidding? The point of it is to provide a stable, repeatable base-line so that people can compare values with some kind of reliability. It's called "benchmarking"...you might be familiar with the term.

@hmscott, You're impossible...the more reason and science I bring in, the more obtuse your excuses get. I know you don't like the GX501, I know you think MaxQ is bad, but you're obviously beyond reasonable at this point. Most obviously because you keep misappropriating the 39dBA number (NBC's test) whereas Nvidia's number for MaxQ is clearly 40dBA.

That's what dBA (A wieghting) is for. It simulates, somewhat simply, the "response curve" of the average person's ear.

Maybe that's where the extra cost of the GX501 goes

Just FYI, you cannot test this simply with a video as the sound heard is being generated and amplified by speakers. Best you can do is something like a sweep in a single video so the comparative loudness can be compared. You would have to calibrate you speakers/headphones if you wanted to hear the "actual" noise something creates.

 

From Nvidia Max-Q release info, 39dBA:

https://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/nvidia-geforce-gtx-max-q-laptops

 

Always got to look for that fine print

 

It can work both ways... just because something is "designed for a target" is not a guarantee it'll reach it...

The point of ISO standards is to try and standardise testing and objectify the subjective, such as the experience of noise. So Nvidia's claim is as good as the standard they used for the test (and the same applies to any test done by any reviewer and a differing methodology) and how the test actually relates to the highly subjective and variable way the individual pair of human ears experiences sound, we have two ears pointing sideways with semicircular dishes around them with a frequency profile that changes with age and deterioration, unlike your average sound meter.

 

I know just enough about acoustics to serve as an expert witness in court.

While ISO 7779 is not the actual standard for IT equipment (that's 9296), it makes more sense for Nvidia to use it here. Even if they were to use ISO 9296, the noise output would only be a bit higher... 0.3-0.4 dB more in most cases.

ISO 7779 is based off ECMA 74, which is a more robust standard in some ways.


HOWEVER!..... HOWEVER!!!!!

The use of ISO 7779 allows nvidia to discriminate between high and low fan speed modes and advertise one separately from the other. Take a guess which one they chose?

Long story short, when there is a load, I wouldn't give 2 craps for the cooling "quietness" of the max-Q spec systems.

 

That is specifically describing the GX501. I'm referring to the entire Max-Q spec in general which is in your own post.

 

That quote is from Nvidia's Max-Q release info on Nvidia's site, and was part of their slide presentation. If Nvidia couldn't make up their mind, and changed the Max-Q limit from 39dBA - what Nvidia told Asus was the goal? - to 40dBA what Nvidia says now - that 1dBA difference is irrelevant.

The GX501 and the other Max-Q laptops are way above either of those "maximum" noise numbers during heavy gaming load.

Maximum noise exceeding 40dBA is the same as exceeding 39dBA, maybe Nvidia should have remained "silent" on the specific numbers.

Here's another 3rd party verification - @pdagal felt the need to turn on MSI Cooler Boost (full fan / loud) mode to keep the laptop from thermal throttling, starting at 06:52:

WhisperMode was advertised as even quieter than the Quiet maximum, but it turns out it's the only way to stay below 39dBA/40dBA reliably by limiting FPS to 40 FPS.

Like I've been saying the 120hz/120fps display in a Max-Q Design laptop works against the goals of low heat and silent operation by forcing 2x the load on the GPU / CPU due to doubling the FPS from 60hz/FPS to 120hz/FPS.

The Max-Q laptop is the same as any other overly thin and light laptop crammed with a high performance GPU and CPU, hot and noisy.

 

There isn't a single place I've read that says 40dBA was ever the absolute "maximum" and I'm sure Nvidia have been very careful with the wording on purpose. They specifically use the word "target" or "targeted" in the case of the article on Geforce.com (which also has the GX501 slide in case you're wondering). I've clearly demonstrated that 40dBA is the Max-Q spec with 39dBA being for the GX501 specifically. You've obviously not actually gone through the actual presentation in context, as the GX501 slide is part of the section illustrating which flagship models will be available. Among those slides are the GS63 and P950HR.

If you're going to make sweeping statements, at least cite your sources. Otherwise you're just making $#!^ up.

 

Yes, I definitely agree, both 39dBA and 40dBA are essentially meaningless, as "targets" they are blown past with ease when heavy gaming loads running at 120fps are used.

Which is also what I've been saying all along. It took you all this time to get around to realizing / admitting this fact.

Congratulations.

Watch the video I just posted, enjoy the evidence of what I said coming to pass. It's probably not as fun for you to watch as it is for me, but I guess you just landed on the wrong side of the debate.

There is no excuse for Max-Q, it should have never happened. Over promised, over priced, under delivered.

And, I'm going to keep on using 39dBA for the Max-Q noise "target" as it's the first number given, and the first number I got a chuckle out of, so I'm going to stick with it.

Too bad Nvidia couldn't

NVIDIA Max-Q Design-Philosophy Laptops Are Available Now
https://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/nvidia-geforce-gtx-max-q-laptops-now-available

 

I'm still failing to see where this has happened.

This is also the Max-Q announcement article with the original slides: https://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/nvidia-geforce-gtx-max-q-laptops
40dBA for the spec. 39dBA for the GX501.

The video is a nice general review but there's no numbers or actual tests on noise. If the GS63VR is tested to be above 40dBA then all that says to me is that MSI screwed up and didn't meet the spec.

 

Nvidia can't just fob off responsibility for their advertisement, MaxQ is their IP, they are permitting its use.

If OEMs aren't meeting the defined criteria, it's Nvidia's job to prevent those units being labelled as MaxQ to prevent Nvidia's marketing being misleading.

Or, if there's no obligation to meet the "design targets" which is pirate's guidelines language, we should all just ignore the name and any associated claims like 40dBA blahblah because as mere "sales puff" it means absolutely nothing from a consumer law perspective.

 

Maybe that is why MSI doesn't mention Max-Q design on their webpage...hehe.

Sent from my crappy phone using my very slow internet in the boonies.

 

Asus Zephyrus GX501VS (i7-7700HQ, GTX 1070 Max-Q) Laptop Review
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Asus-...HQ-GTX-1070-Max-Q-Laptop-Review.241784.0.html

 

Nothing stopping you from setting 60hz and v-sync on it you want.

 

Except that the Max-Q marketing BS pushes the wonder of 120hz and 120FPS, with potential owner expectations made and sold on the whole package.

Are there any Max-Q marketing collateral covering the inevitable overheating at 120 FPS with commensurately louder than 39dBA noise output, and how to underclock the 120hz display to 60hz to solve the problem?

Oh, wait, Whisper Mode 40 FPS to the rescue

Maybe Max-Q Design should make Whisper Mode with it's 40 FPS cap as the default optimal setting for best noise / heat results.

As it turns out, most games won't reach 120 FPS on the Max-Q 1080/1070 laptops, so maximum CPU / GPU load is reached far below 120 FPS, so 60 FPS will be close to the maximum hot point for many games.

Whisper Mode 40 FPS as a default running mode for Max-Q laptops is sounding better and better.

 

NVIDIA's Whisper Mode For GeForce-Powered Gaming Laptops Put To The Test-Hothardware.com

 

I may have misread a little but 120Hz/120FPS doesn't really fit with the MQ spec directly, at least the P950 variants come with 60Hz panels. I think upcoming MQ models are a mix of 60 and 120 panels and it's a separate spec, like you can have different combinations of MQ and refresh. Though if someone is made to believe that 120Hz 120FPS is going to happen in whisper mode, that seems to be a sales side thing. I'd never claim it myself.

 

Whisper Mode is supposed to be 30-40 FPS, but I believe it's user adjustable, so you can make it 60FPS, or whatever, but making it 120 FPS wouldn't allow Whisper Mode to function as intended

The initial Max-Q Design presentation was also introducing the Asus Zephyrus and it's specs were assumed (not just by me) to be the Max-Q specs, and I believe they are indeed the original Nvidia ideal, but display options and individual maker spec's will vary, along with the Nvidia published specs being refined and changing along the way.

The only "real" Max-Q Design laptops are the Asus Zephyrus and Acer Triton 700, and Acer seems to be doing a good job of not shipping their entry, not sure what's up with that?

The Alienware, Clevo, and MSI don't seem to be living up to the Asus Zephyrus ideal model for Max-Q Design as presented by Nvidia at release.

The MSI seems to be doing the worst at making the package run cool and quiet, without thermal throttling, but maybe MSI will get that fixed - and maybe that review model @pdagal had is just a bad unit?

There are 3 Max-Q models (Asus, Acer, MSI) touted as having 120hz displays, but no hz mention for Clevo which now seems like a more reasonable load of 60 FPS G-sync on the CPU / GPU.
https://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/nvidia-geforce-gtx-max-q-laptops-now-available
https://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/nvidia-geforce-gtx-max-q-laptops

Edit: Super

 

Can't speak for Alienware but the Clevo models have been super popular at the lower price point. I've heard the same on the MSI, but I haven't got to really mess with one yet.

 

Wow, "super popular", that's great you could work that in to the "super specifications" discussion we were having, almost like a "super salesman" would.

Good thing "I haven't got to really mess with one yet" or you'd need to relay your personal experiences with how "super hot and noisy" MSI Max-Q runs...

Super

 

Apologies for the tone of my previous reply, "super popular" was actually something a sales guy said earlier today about it and it sort of stuck with me. Haven't noticed as much of the throttling in those units as has been reported but also haven't had enough returns/repair requests yet to get a solid idea of what problems people are having with them.

 

Fair enough, thanks for sharing that, it did strike me funny when you said "super popular", glad to hear the sales speak infection came from elsewhere, I'm happy to have fire-walled it for you.

I hope you sell a ton of Max-Q laptops and they all find happy and appreciative owners.

That would be "super"

 

Sit close enough and you start to pick up inflections, phrases, etc without knowing it. That one I think I'm going to avoid in the future.

I'm personally not as interested in how this gen of MQ goes outside how it affects what happens next gen. Ideally for the consumer choice side of things the MQ side just gets rebranded "M", the full fat versions in laptops stick around and they have a nice wide spectrum of form factors and performance levels across all price points. Something for everybody. To make that happen in my mind, it can't be a complete flop, but doesn't need to be perfect either.

 

Yeah I always thought scrapping the M series entirely was a little silly. It had its place.

 

Exactly +rep. Ngreedia scrapped M naming for making more money. People has to vote with their wallets. Less people buying this Scam from Nvidia the better.

They should be forced to open up for a new graphics line for Volta. Aka put in 2055-2065-2075 if the graphics line being called 2xxx. Or put in cheaper priced M graphics due less performance intended for thin and flimsy. Same as 980M was cheaper than the better performing 980 desktop graphics for laptops.

 

Here's hoping they clean up the lineup, number everything in a coherent fashion and generally cut down on the confusion to end users.

 

With lower prices for lower performance. Same as I payed less for less performance in my Volvo Cross Country. I had to pay $125 extra for every HP more. Aka $12500 more for 100HP more. More for more or Less for less!! Put what's fit

 

Not even the motor vehicle industry does that right all the time. I wouldn't hold out for a perfect system, just hoping for better.

 

You mean they sell exactly same automobile model with everything likewise, but the more powerful engine will be priced exactly same out to the customer? Same as Porche push out two likewise 911 with exactly same enhancement, but one with more HP. For same price. Not the normal I think.

 

I think it's more like they release two models and they have the same engine upgrade but one is tuned for efficiency and one for max power. They're the same engine, require the same amount or R&D, cost the same in materials and labor to make, they're either going to have to charge more for the more powerful one and annoy people because they're artificially pushing the price up, or charge less for the lower performing one and lose money. They could try something like Yamaha used to do where they took their supersport/superbike engines from the previous generation, tuned them to be more manageable on the street, and put them in tamer midrange bikes for lower prices while selling their newest and best at full price.

 

Isn't this similar as Nvidia did before for their best graphics? Used the top dog 580M and created second best graphics, 675M the next year? Either make cheaper M models as before or put it in the middle eg f.eks 1075.

 

Pretty much yes, and that's what I was thinking for cleaning up the lineup, though they'd still likely have to price them according to other factors than just raw performance.

 

A company here (I think Vauxhall) started charging the same for all engine options as it cost them the same to make all of them. People reacted the way they did on here so they started charging more for the more powerful engines and people were happy again *shrug*

 

It makes sense to charge the same for a 1080MQ and a 1080. The customer can choose whether to 'waste' the GPU in a thin notebook. Should NVidia charge more for a 1080 in a brick chasis that can overclock the GPU? I think not. Can I get a discount on a desktop 1080 if I promise to use in a PCIe x1 slot? No, again.

 

Literally everything I know about Vauxhall comes from Top Gear so I'll take your word for it. Would not surprise me in the least though.

 

Nvidia charge already high prices for Mobile graphics both the real deal and the crippled vs. the desktop versions. They crippling the performance on Max-Q and should lower the prices for it. Amen!!

 

It's the same silicon for both with exactly the same engineering and manufacturing. The system builder is then using more expensive materials and has a smaller form factor to work with.

Making the system is in no way cheaper, a system is not just about performance either it's the overall package.

I'd like to see them both a bit cheaper personally but it makes sense they are the same price.

If you start cutting units down off the core then you have a reason to drop prices as it's the salvage of the parts you could not sell.

 

Does the same logic apply if we're talking chips binned for lower clocks and tdp because they couldn't meet the full GP104 1080N/1070N spec?...

 

They could in theory charge more for max-q claiming "R&D" to get lower temps and noise with acceptable performance lol.

 

I can spin on this... Have some of you voltage numbers for normal 1080 vs. 1080 Max-Q at the same clock speed? Can Max-Qrippled run with lower voltage vs. Clocks? @hmscott

Maybe the OEMs will Demand much higher prices due they have to "R&D" new cooling design for Coffe and Volta?

 

On that logic they should have charged *more* for figuring out how to obscure the partially disabled memory access hardware on the "4Gb @ 224GBps" GTX 970.

 

I have seen no evidence of poorer silicon being used, typically it needs silicon on the less leaky scale to do well in this kind of situation.

 

Eurocom Q5 (Clevo P957HR, i7-7700HQ, GTX 1070 Max-Q) Laptop Review
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Euroc...HQ-GTX-1070-Max-Q-Laptop-Review.244590.0.html