New Clevos with Max-Q?

I don't know about the GT73, but G-Sync runs up to 75Hz in mobile and most of the panels are 60Hz. The 120Hz G-Sync panels are all NVSR, but there was a little confusion over wether Nvidia would actually publicise 120Hz sync as NVSR or not. Don't forget that G-Sync to external displays is supported, it's just the internal panel support which goes through a validation process.

Max-Q was specifically created to enable laptops slimmer than the current offerings with the same GTX nomenclature, thus BGA is the priority.

 

that was my very first thought and basically the only usage scenario where max-q gpus would actually make sense. however, @Prema already stated that hes only seen bga models around without any plans to adopt mxm boards...

Sent from my HUAWEI NXT-AL10 using Tapatalk

 

You seen the new form factor Asrock are trying to bring out? Mini-STX. as it uses MXM cards, if that was to kick off, there could be space for a proper MXM eco system.

 

That's been the dream. These proprietary walls NEED to come down though. Imagine how many desktop folk would join the party if they could buy upgrades off Newegg. It would be a renaissance.

 

guys, this might seem a little bit out of topic, but....

does this Max-Q thing will have effect on eGPU market penetration?
i for one, really interested with eGPU. But today's eGPU still have bulky chasis. I kinda wish the eGPU will have more slim form.

 

I just saw that clip while going through the thread @hmscott has going and that's the first thing that came to mind, if it does in fact kick off that would be a huge side benefit.

 

The only problem is there aren't any affordable or available MXM GPU's to make it work out right now...
The Raven Z squeezes discrete graphics into a mini-PC | Computex 2017

 

Maybe if some high end builders started building them and were able to demonstrate that there is a market for this it could take off. I still prefer my mid ATX but I can see people making some small rigs. I have my sons old gaming rig as a second HTPC in our bedroom, if it had a tiny MB I would love to downsize the case. If I were building form scratch I would consider this.

 

they trying real hard to suppress the MXM side of thing and force all BGA for sure. i wonder by the time 2080 come out will we see mxm module. i can only hope to find one in clevo/msi.

 

A lot of eGPU solutions are homebrews. There really isn't much commercial market penetration - but I don't see this stopping what little momentum external graphics has made.

 

Or just like the RazerBook Pro?

 

Dont insult the toyota like that! Its a car for gods sake, not a portable oven....

 

can you cook an egg on it?

 

http://www.supersizedmeals.com/food/images/articles/20080128-Exhaust_Burger_Cooker_3.jpg

 

eeeww.. the meat might cook alright, but the smell...

 

nothing wrong with a little cancer

 

I can just imagine some hillbilly cooking his roadkill in this grill. Food on the go

 

All dem carcinogenic aromatic polycyclic hydrocarbons.

 

Food on the go. Like Portable gaming who is Dellienware's new motto

 

When does a 17.3 inch laptop that weighs around 10 pounds become portable exactly lol.

 

Love the scale of that graph. What a jump!

Enviado do meu MHA-L29 através de Tapatalk

 

if u showed smth like that in the scientific community, theyd smack you with it and throw you out on the street

 

Is there any implications that most manufacturers are moving forward with max-q only cards in their refreshes and products? It'd be a shame if future 1060/70/80 cards are lower clocked versions of their current line.

 

The only issue is the price. I wouldn't mind getting a 1070 Max-Q instead of the 1060 as long as it's the same price. But I am fairly certain it will not be.

 

Yea the Asus Zephyrus gx501 has already released pricing. $2,699 for the 1080 model and $2,299 for the 1070 model. These are the entry level prices with the gpu's lol

 

They only have a couple of chips, so they are now re-branded as Max-Q, base & OC models in order to target the entire market by re-using the same chip variants.

 

USD2700 for 1080 model... thats the same pricing for similar 15.6" laptop with 1070 non-maxQ... at least in my country.
MSI GT62VR with 1070 have a USD2700 price tag here.

At least they sell the 1080 maxQ model with lower price than the 1080 non-maxQ model.

 

That 2700 quote almost certainly refers to US market pricing. If the GT62VR costs 2700 where you live, then I guarantee you the Zephyrus 1080MQ will cost much more than that.

For reference, the GT62VR costs 2200 on Newegg: https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834154290

 

The USD2700 in my country already include sales tax and it's for the Kabylake version.

Price at newegg exclude sales tax and it's for the Skylake version.
And it's out of stock, so i assume the pricing was newegg clearance sale price.

 

A GT62VR costs 1700$, and it has a full GTX1070....

Even with a 20% tax it would be 2000-2100$

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...43953&cm_re=gt62vr-_-9SIA57X5B43953-_-Product

 

ah, i see...i was wrong then about the pricing.
but then again, MSI GT62 is not a thin laptop.
so maybe the correct comparison should be to... Razer Stealth Pro ?

 

Correct comparison:

 

In my country is portable equal laptops

In short, they only follow AMD's well-known recipe. But with some changes vs. AMD... Together with the same generation and with lower clock speed AMD wait with the re-branding to the year after

 

Gt72vr is $1399 skylake

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B01M0O4296/ref=psdcmw_13896615011_t1_B06XSBQZXR


Ge72mvr $1699 no tax

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/co...rU8iG71z299RoCfuzw_wcB&is=REG&m=Y&sku=1329559

 

I think the point is more that if the GT62VR retails at 2700 in your country, which is a considerable markup from it's US-market MSRP, then expecting the 2699 announced price point of the Zephyrus, which certainly refers to US market price point, to not be similarly marked up, is very optimistic.

 

They actually do have the best battery life compared to all of the gaming laptops.

Hmm you should have seen me carrying my P870DM3 with the power adapter to school in my AW17 backpack this semester.

 

It all depends where you look

 

Read the last sentence on what you posted...

That review was done with a 120hz display. All 120hz displays have crap battery life because nVidia Optimus is not supported.

My friend has the 17 with 1080p 60hz and his battery lasts way longer than those NBC review laptops.

It's only natural that a 99Whr BGA laptop beats a 89Whr LGA laptop in battery life.

 

60hz and without G-stink is the golden standard today for gaming laptops? Oh'well Maybe I have missed huge But I think Notebookcheck's review still stands on their own feet. Same also for other reviews. For the records, I don't talk about BGA vs. LGA regarding battery life We both knows who will win

 

Meh. TL;DR: Max-Q notebooks will have abysmal value for the performance that we get, all in an attempt to shave off a couple of millimetres. The Aorus X5 V6/7 and P650HS-G are already significantly thinner than machines from 2013 (P150 series) and yet both come with 7820HKs and GTX 1070s, and achieve almost desktop levels of performance (maybe 5% less) when tweaked appropriately.

I see absolutely no point in coughing up half a grand more for 20% worse performance, just to get my machine a couple hundred grams lighter.

Make no mistake: I like small, lighter notebooks. But I know a bad deal when I see one.

 

Weight is one thing, but the power brick? When will they start making those lighter? What point is a 2kg light laptop when the power brick is 0.5 kg, when you move around you usually take it with you no?

 

The 1080 adds (not substract) 15% performance to the Aorus, compared to the 1070: https://www.windowscentral.com/gigabyte-aorus-x5-md-hands-gtx-1080-nvidia-max-q
The charger of the EVGA SC17 seems the best. Heavy but at least slim: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/evga-sc17-gaming-laptop-review,4978.html

 

skinny notebooks look like junk to me.

 

Gigabyte claim's 15% better in their tests, let's see how owners and reviewers benchmarks compare.

"So just how much faster is the new model, with the Max-Q-equipped GTX 1080? Gigabyte claims a speed bump of around 15 percent compared to the X5 v7, with GTX 1070. That's impressive considering almost everything else appears to be the same, and a 15 percent improvement is enough to make a noticeable difference in frame rates."

The point was that a 1070 OC'd should be about the same as the 1080 Max-Q given the same thermal and power limitations, given the 1080 Max-Q and overclockable 7820HK have no OC headroom left - as on the Razer 1080 - owners are finding they have run out of power budget.

 

The 1070 is a 1080 with one part disabled. The 1080 Max-Q is the full 1080. To achieve the same performance, the 1070 must run faster, but running slower on larger hardware usually takes less power. For example, at the same TDP Xeons with more Cores run slower but finish threaded jobs faster.

 

The more I look into it, the less likely it seems the 1080 Max-Q will be anything close to a real 1080.

If you look at the idle power draw, there is a gotcha in the power boost spec that requires builders to either choose the boost steps (increments in boost) to include low power or to get highest performance. There aren't enough steps / increments to reach both ends of that complete boost range.

The Founders cards get about 6.8w idle, but the high performance MSI (for example) is 10w-15w depending on the card.

That means right off, in a laptop you are going to want to get low idle power draw in a slim chassis, unless you have a large frame chassis that can cool (quietly) 10-15w idle power draw you can't program the power boost for highest power, so right there the slim laptop gets short changed.

Then if you look at these 2 graphs for power usage under gaming load, the 1070 draws mostly under 200w - and also sparsely above 150w - but the 1080 draws solidly over 200w - that range won't be available in a thin laptop with a 180w-250w PSU - so there goes any "1080 performance joy" out the window...

Here are the sources:

GTX 1080 - Page 10ower Consumption Results
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-pascal,4572-10.html

GTX 1070 - Page 7ower Consumption Results
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-8gb-pascal-performance,4585-7.html

 

Look like? They are!! Pay more for less!!

 

@hmscott You are arguing with a straw man. I agree that the 1080mq is far less powerful than the 1080. It's criminal that they call it 1080. It should be 1075.

But the full 1080 is not an option for small laptops. Gaming in small laptops is going to remain expensive. Gaming in large laptops is expensive, relative to desktop. Yet here we are in this forum. Remember that you can buy a desktop with a handle for easy carrying to lan parties for far less money than the equivalent notebook.

 

I wonder if there will be any 10-13" laptop models with the 1080 Max-Q.

 

Well, if nVidia wants to risk a hell of a lot of RMAs, or maybe if the devices are going to be 2" thick... Or if the 1080 Max-Q runs at 1050 Ti levels of performance.