Sager 8800 Update

That is a very good way of putting it - in fact, they could have made the "deal" even sweeter by charging $959 for a new 8800M GTX, plus a new motherboard, plus shipping.

On top of which, they might not even have had to say anything about the motherboard - instead, just charge $899 for the videocard upgrade, replace the motherboard, and then send it back with a note saying "dear customer, unfortunately, while your notebook was in for service the technician accidentally damaged the motherboard. Because the damage to your system was our fault and was covered under warranty, we have taken the liberty of replacing it for you at no extra charge."

Again, that is a useful perspective, thanks

 

To all of the angry folks:

I do not care what credentials, certifications or years in IT you have. You can have a 149 IQ and absolutely no common sense. Which appears for some, is the case.

Why is it so hard to understand that Nvidia changed the final spec from what they had previously sent out? This is a fact that has been stated several times but seems to be lost. Can any of you prove clevo knew 100% it would not be compatible? Anyone?

Could it be possible that the first specs released on the 8800m were compatible with the 9261 motherboard? Then when they changed it at the last minute, it was not compatible? Why not show the hostility toward Nvida for not keeping to their own self created and self proclaimed "standard" and threaten not to buy their products?

To bad ATI is so far behind in this field because I bet if there was an alternative to the 8800m for performance, there would be in fact a lot of hostility toward Nvidia instead of clevo/sager.

I can get a new motherboard for $80? Holy S***, my mouse cost more than that. Sounds to me you people are upset for having to pay a premium on the new GPUs. If this is the case, refer to my Sig.

 

Donald, Justin, and everybody who cares:

this comes directly from nVidia's site:
http://www.nvidia.com/page/mxm.html

Hence, it's pretty normal to assume MXM = upgradeable
And to assume that if a notebook has MXM-IV, a FX with MXM-IV will fit.
Just like you assume that a PCI-e v2 GFX (or whatever they call it) fits in a PCI-e v2 slot on your motherboard.

I think the point now is: how much did Clevo know about the changes nVidia was making, and how much info did they spill to the resellers.

Now, I for one can believe Xotic/Eurocom/PowerNotebooks/... did not know about this. I've also never blamed/accused them of anything.
I do think however Clevo knew, and my accusations/discontentment always went in their direction.


as for Donalds links to previous posts:
the 1st one is about the M570U (or so that post says)
Also, you point to power and thermal solution to claim it won't be upgradeable. However, the M570RU has no issues with this! So, while the claim was apparently valid, it has no relation whatsoever with your reasoning. It therefor is pure luck that your warning became true.

Same reasoning i your second post, third and fourth post.

And (just imho), if the reasoning is faulty, you can't say the result is good. (But that could be just me )

Other than that,I'll say again: I have no problem with the resellers. Only with Clevo and nVidia

Best thing nVidia can do, is give control of the specifications to a third party.
This will stop these "sudden" changes + it will allow for an adoptation by ATI which will cause MXM to become more widely spread which benefits everyone

 

There is absolutely no reason to believe that spec were changed at the last minute, they were released in September to the public on nVidia's Web site. And samples of 8800 would have been available to Clevo and other notebook manufacturers month before they were announced to public. This is how hardware industry works. Can I prove 100% that Clevo knew it would not work - of course not, I do not know the internal operation of Clevo. But I do know how things are normally handled in the industry, and also we have previous Clevo record to go on.

 

Whether resellers think they are to blame or not, the truth is they will bear the full brunt of dissatisfied customers and future sells drops from less peer to peer recommendations of their systems. Reputations have inevitably been tarnished. The supply and demand chain has no mercy and can be viewed like the stock market, a primordial beast that never reacts to foreseeable change only to actual change, and is in essence is like an organism composed of many smaller entities (consumer, supplier, manufacturer- each composed of individuals). Such a beast is not tamed by mere words, but by tangible actions that can placate it from going on the rampage.

Actions are far louder than words, and despite resellers making out they are somehow not apart of this nonsense and confusion is laughable. Resellers are apart of the chain and are out to make profit and are not social workers or social engineers ensuring what is the best for their customers. What usually happens are the interests of both tend to be coincidental, serve in symbiotic partnership until someone gets greedy or makes a grave error and destroys this balance...this trust?

Sometimes it's best to just see these things for what they are.

For those people who are saying yes I did my research and because of that I didn't get suckered into the motherboard replacement scam, we all did research before buying our systems, the majority of us did wait a few months before deciding and buying our laptops. You got lucky that is all. But in the end not so lucky as if you really think this is not going to happen again (MoB replacement for something or the other) then you haven't researched properly at all. But then again you can't wait forever can you.

Damage reversal by resellers is already too late. The only way to plateau the damage is to take more decisive action. Which you won't do unless it's absolutely necessary (due to short termism), which is the mistake that is being made right now. Like the beast above you only react to situations instead of creating new ones that you can have far more control over.

What is the number of this particular beast: 899.

 

First off I am more of a camera guy than a notebook guy. I see new cameras come out with great regularity that beat the pants off old ones. But there are often incompatibilities in the software used to post process the RAW files from the new cameras. With less regularity there are problems with lens that go on the front of cameras.

So it really does not bother me so much that you cant upgrade a notebook. I currently have an older Sager 8800 series laptop I got in 2002. It is getting long in the tooth. Probably a year ago I discovered I could not run a RC simulator (RealFlight G3) on my laptop due to the old graphics card. I contacted Powernotebooks (my reseller) and was told I could not get a new graphics card without changing the motherboard. So I just run RealFlight on my Alienware desktop; big deal.

What does bother me is that I have not seen anyone post the time line for the 9261 MB design. Everyone seems to be saying the 8800 specs were known a while before the 9262 MB was designed; but I doubt the 9261 MB sprang full grown from the head of Zeus. It took a while to design and test. And I doubt the 8800 specs were around then; especially in the hands of the designers.

Maybe it is because I lucked out and waited a while to get the 9262; instead of getting the 9261 a couple of weeks ago. But I dont have any gripe about whats going on. And I am happily waiting for my new 9262 with a single 8800 that I intend to upgrade to dual 8800 in a few months.

I just wish it would get here sooner.

 

Why would there be no reason to believe the spec has changed? As I posted in this post Sager has came out and confirmed they did change the protocol and were kind enough to provide the details of the protocols that changed. You dont think manufacturers alter specs between their "pre-production" and "final production" models?

MXM also refers to the "interface " or the "common design" of a card. As Sager has stated there is more to it then just the interface or design that led to this lack of instant upgradeability. In this case the communication protocols changed from nVIDIA.

 

Actually, NVidia did make a last minute change that, based on industry practice, probably did catch Clevo off-guard and rendered the D901C incompatible with the 8800M.

Specifically, all of the MXM specifications, up to and including the specs released by NVidia in November of 2007 permitted ODMs and videocard vendors to choose one of several different methods of providing the display EDID information to the videocard, including by use of an EDID-compliant display that could provide the data itself, through use of a separate EPROM, or through a section of the BIOS.

From what I can gather, most ODMs use non-EDID (aka EDID-less) displays in their notebooks and instead provide the EDID info using one of the alternative methods.

According to Justin, here: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=2711801&postcount=99 , NVidia decided to change its customary practice with the ODMs and vendors and make most of the videocard module in-house, leaving very few options for the ODMs/vendors to customize. In particular, NVidia appears to have decided to only provide 8800M modules that support only one method of providing EDID info to the card, and that method ain't the one apparently used by almost every ODM/vendor.

Most notebooks come with a display unit that cannot provide its own EDID data. That means that most ODMs/vendors are relying on the use of a separate EPROM or a section of the BIOS to provide the EDID data to the videocard. (if you want to check whether your display unit is EDID-compliant, i.e., it can provide its own EDID data, try running a utility like dtuner from Nicomsoft, at: www.nicomsoft.com/dtuner/ ; that utility attempts to query only the display unit itself, and not the videocard, BIOS or ancillary EPROM used to support an EDID-less display - if dtuner says that it cannot find any info on your display, it's more likely than not that your display unit is EDID-less).

By making what appears to have been a last-minute decision to not provide support for the most common means of getting EDID data to the videocards, NVidia effectively sc**wed the ODMs. It is almost undoubtedly true that Clevo had the specs on the 8800M chipset itself quite early on, but that is not the same thing as the complete videocard module, and since the MXM specs released by NVidia expressly permitted ODMs to use one of several methods of getting EDID data to the videocard, the fact that Clevo might have had the specs on the 8800M chipset even twenty years ago is irrelevant if they were not informed that NVidia (a) would be making most of the module in-house instead of letting the ODMs make it according to the design kit and (b) would not provide support for the most common method used by the ODMs to get EDID data to the videocard.

Based on the apparent facts in this instance (let's be honest here, no-one other than NVidia and Clevo really know what happened), it is my guess that what happened is NVidia put its foot down on the requirement that the display unit itself provide the EDID data to the 8800M - or that it appear to the videocard that the display unit was providing the EDID data - and that the old D901C motherboard, as originally configured, could not do that because the EPROM (my guess is that Clevo puts the EDID data on a separate EPROM with the BIOS providing the videocard with a pointer to that data at start-up) is only accessed at start-up and, being an EPROM, is basically static.

As a result, the 8800M modules supplied by NVidia would not be able to work with the old D901C motherboard because they would be getting garbage (or worse, an open circuit) everytime they tried to query the display for its EDID data during runtime.

My ultimate guess, at the moment, is that what Clevo has now done is to add an EDID chip to the motherboard on the bus between the videocards and the display unit so that the EDID chip will intercept the EDID queries from the 8800M cards and feed back the EDID data during runtime. That, of course, requires that the motherboard be reconfigured and the new chip fitted into the existing design.

(As an aside, since most notebooks seem to ship with EDID-less displays, and since Clevo/Sager haven't said anything about replacing the display unit in the old D901Cs with a new display unit, it is my guess that what they've done is to jury-rig the board so that, from the perspective of the videocard, it looks like the display unit is EDID-compliant by virtue of having a free-standing EDID chip sitting in between the display unit and the videocard).

So, to stop being a wind-bag chatterbox: ) and bring this reply to a close, it is entirely possible that, notwithstanding the fact that the ODMs had the 8800M chipset specifications months in advance, NVidia's last-minute decision to make the card modules itself in-house, and to not support the EDID method used by most ODMs, had the exact same effect as if NVidia had changed the specs of the chipset itself at the last minute.

Since we know (or have good reason to believe that we know) that NVidia made a unilateral last-minute decision that effected the compatibility of the 8800M cards with then-existing motherboards, the better (if still tentative) conclusion is that NVidia is the root cause of the 8800M fiasco, and that Clevo and the other ODMs probably had reason to believe, prior to NVidia's decision to not support the usual EDID method, that there was a good chance the 8800M would work on existing motherboards without requiring replacement of the then-current motherboards.

Ultimately, where Clevo comes in for blame is in not taking the extra effort and spending the extra money to have a truly cutting-edge system by proactively designing the original motherboard to the severest version of the MXM standards, instead of lazily relying on the pseudo-legacy support NVidia permitted in those standards for ODMs using EDID-less displays.

(Good Lord, I sure do have the "gift" of gab, don't I? )

 

Let's review:

"Can anyone show me any other Multi National Brand laptop that is upgradeable to the nVIDIA GeForce 8800M w/512MB GDDR3?" Please...link us to their upgrade program.

"Now, as for the cost of upgrading, please keep in mind the cost of the nVIDIA GeForce 8800M w/512MB GDDR3 card alone is $745 and the labor to install it is $80. So at $899 that only leaves $74 for the cost of the new motherboard. Considering that the TRUE cost of the motherboard alone is $400 if you needed to replace it on an out of warranty repair, and considering that this motherboard upgrade will also support the Intel® Core™2 Quad Processor, I would say that Sager is actually showing a great deal of customer care with an installed upgrade price of only $899."

Do those complaining here actually believe that the upgrade to the nVIDIA GeForce 8800M w/512MB GDDR3 card was going to be free?

I just don't get what the complaining is about. The upgrade path is available and the cost is reasonable...and there is no other Major National Brand out there that has an upgrade path at all.

I guess there are reasonable people out there and there are unreasonable people out there. So, if those unreasonable people prefer to buy and recommend another brand that simply cannot offer what Sager/Clevo offer this market, they are certainly free to do that, and this market will probably be better for it.

 

Righteous response

 

Donald`s right. Clevo branded systems,sold by Sager are the only ones providing this upgrade. Of course, it`s not the cheapest,but it will not force to buy another laptop just for that GPU, as all the others do.
I remember last year, when I sent an emal to HP regarding my NX9420 if the GPU was upgradeable and if there was an upgrade path or such, and you know what they told me? "Hp does not undergo upgrade programs or upgrade paths for any of their products-laptops' . And this comes from the #1 laptop-selling company in the world.
What is Sager? - the portable power people. They are the ones who give the best performace at the lowest price.Let me see a laptop competing for the 1st in all world with the D901C. Or an equivalent in cash/power for the M570RU .
I dare you.

For the record, I really think off topic posts should STOP here. This thread was meant for info about the 8800M Update. Whereas complaining that the MXM is not fully what it should have been, seems to me that the upgrade for (74$) the GPU-full price of course - is the one that everybody expected.
You think it`s too much? DON`T BUY IT !. There will be other who will, and new customers should know that the general truth is that Sager is among the best when it comes to laptops and they should be treated as such. All of my emails to them were answered by real persons,in a professional and somewhat familiar matter and that is what made me choose to do bussiness with their products. And being a laptop user,and owning 3 laptops ATM and planning to get some more in the future, Sager will be my #1 vendor,mainly because their systems,one way or the other, ARE UPGRADEABLE.

 

"Donald`s right. Clevo branded systems,sold by Sager are the only ones providing this upgrade. Of course, it`s not the cheapest,but it will not force to buy another laptop just for that GPU, as all the others do. "

I think Donald is missing the point really. Upgrade paths suggesting motherboard replacements on Clevo's was always an option. That is definitly a benifit especially when compared fo Gaming System's from HP and others. But some other companies as for instance ARIMA (Alienware) and DELL also offer upgrade paths.

What was different on this Clevo Systems was actually compliance with MXMIV regarding video cards, suggesting that it would be upgradable to future video cards according to the Spec. Justin might say that the Sager never promissed the system to be upgradable to an 8800M GT, and that is true.

But let's get real, is not up to Sager or any other VAR to make those kind promisses or not to make them. It is up to Clevo as MXMIV compliance is in their systems specs. If not, Eurocom and others for instance would have not be told by Clevo to stop selling d900c's with Quad Cores in the first motherboard revision as they would not be accountable for it, as it wasn't in the specs. But now that something is in the Specs doesn't actually work they want the help of resellers and their customers to solve it? Were is the consistency?

Now people here say that $74 for the motherboard is not a bad deal and Sager is being so good to their customer etc etc. Let me speculate that is not Sager that is doing this deal for you, but actually Clevo is doing the deal through Sager whilest accepting some responsibility. Maybe I'm wrong. but it is not common for a value added reseller to loose money to their supplier, especially when they are not accountable for other ones mistakes.

All in all, I believe that some customers somewhat enlightned some business people by simply stating the truth around what people expect from MXMIV compliance and what that implies in terms of upgradability. I'm sure the price for the new motherboard would be much higher if it weren't for the "winning" people on this forum.

I still think that deal "stinks". The new motherboard itself should be totally free, becouse Clevo would be simply making sure that their direct or indirect customers have at least free access to a proper MXMIV compliant system beacouse what they have isn't as specified in the d901c spec if they need that specific facet.

The manwork necessary for the replacement can ofcourse be payed by customers if needed, but that is all. We as customers have the right to a free access to a full MXMIV compliant motherboard, period!

As for Clevo having all the necessary information to build the system accordingly from NVIDIA or not, that is something that they need to solve with NVIDIA not with their VAR's and their customers.

"This thread was meant for info about the 8800M Update."

All posts on this thread are about the update, maybe it became much more then that, nevertheless is about the update.

Stay cool,

Trance
PS: Some customers here go even further in their fidelity to Clevo and their systems by stating they don't mind supporting finantially some mistakes that were done regarding this issue. I just hope Clevo is as supportive of their customers as they are of them.

 

I have still one question, is the cooler of 7950GTX the same with the 8800M? That is to say only change the card is enough. Or the update comes with a new proper cooler?

 

No, they are not the same kaltmond. The 8800M has its own unique heatsink.

 

Thanks for the info! Do u have a original Photo of 8800M ?

 

You mean like this?

 

Now that is original

No kaltmond, I am sorry but we do not have any original pictures of it. However you could ask Justin to post one over in his Sager NP5792 w/ nVIDIA 8800M GTX 512MB Benchmark Thread

 

Bingo!

We have a winner!

Cost started out at 400 bucks for the 6.0 Motherboard.

Now it's a much more reasonable 74 bucks.


I think this thread had a part in that also.

We are now in the 21st century, The Information age so to speak. Anyone buying a new Clevo will do some research and in every search on Google I have done with the word Clevo Or D901C in it, this fourm turns up somewhere on the first page of the search.

Oppinions of the people i trust the most, Actual owners/end users of the Laptop.

Will the Oppinions of the current owners and how there looked after have an effect on future sales?

I think we all know the answer to that.

By the way, Can I buy the Motherboard now, And wait till the price of the Video cards drop to a reasonable price later before i go all the way?

Or is it just a "Package Deal"

P.S. Thanks for Unlocking this thread.

 

am i correct the mobo swap we cannot perform ourselves it still has to go to them? just looking for a way to avoid sending it out. thanks

 

"Bingo!

We have a winner!

Cost started out at 400 bucks for the 6.0 Motherboard."

Well $74 is the Sager deal for laptops under warranty and $400 is outside the warranty. I don't know what other VAR's will or are doing regarding this.

I can tell you that if it will cost something similar to $400 in Europe to get the MXMIV compliance as stated in the spec things will get hotter in the outskirts of this forum.

Trance

 

regarding Dell's and Alienware's upgrade paths? how do they do it? well...alienware is launching brand new notebooks (m15x and m17x) and so far didn't say a thing about 8800M GTX upgrade for their CURRENT notebook (9750). how about dell? another good question..even though 8800M GTX is already available, they haven't given any option so far. that's not really an alternative to Sager's upgrade path IMHO.

guys, remember that we are talking about notebook upgrades - these are NOT desktops with standardized connectors. MXM is not PCI express and it will take a while (if it ever will) to become as standardized as desktop parts.

regarding prices? they look VERY reasonable to me. how many of you remember launch price of desktop 8800 GTX? how about nVidia 680 chipset motherboards? and those were desktop parts that are always (ok, almost always..) cheaper and still were EXTREMELY expensive at that time.

you seriously can't expect to get free hardware updates just because you bought a notebooks from Sager. it's not like they will send you new $800 GFX for $50 just because you bought from them once. it just doesn't work like that. Sager has great prices and gives you GREAT bang for the buck (Dell or Alienware just don't compare here) but you have to keep in mind that you got what you paid for - great hardware @ very reasonable price. and that's it. no one will give you free upgrades.

I hope it didn't sound hostile - I can understand that some of you guys are upset that they will have to fork $900 for upgrade - but no one is forcing you to upgrade. I just got sick of people jumping on resellers who actually can't do anything about this situation.

btw. Merry Christmas everyone!

 

"you seriously can't expect to get free hardware updates just because you bought a notebooks from Sager. "

Go back and read what I've written. I've never said that the video cards should be free. Neither I am upset with the current prices of the video card, that would be silly IMHO. I am upset that I have to pay for an new motherboard to get the MXMIV compliance fixed so that it can work with the new video card that is also acording to the spec MXMIV compliant. For me as a customer that does not make any sense since according to the my system spec I already have a MXMIV compliant motherboard.

As for price's of Sager being reasonable, I believe almost all Clevo VAR's practice reasonable practices and Sager is one of the best, especialilly when paired with XoticPC and Powernotebooks. When I buy a notebook rarely I pick one becouse it is cheaper then another. I care only about the Specs of a System X QOS X Price, were price really is the member of the equation that bares less weight (I know I'm one of the few lucky ones).

Hope I'm not hostile just becouse I have a different opinion then some people.

By the way, most people that are not ok with my point are of three types:

* Have ordered an brand new d901c or M570RU with a 8800M GTX
* Have not bought any and are thinking about buying one.
* Are VAR's

So this specific issue or situation is not applicable to these classes of people - "I don't have the problem, why are people "winning"?" - Not very smart. I wonder why they get reps for posting on this thread.

Stay cool,

Trance
PS: I have not bought my d901c from Sager, so for me being bought from Sager or not is a moot point regarding the specific issue that I point out on my posts. Although I do believe Sager is doing the right thing under the current circunstances ... I'M NOT JUMPING ON VAR's BUT CRITICIZING CLEVO!!. I thought that was already clear!

 

Gimme the mobo upgrade for free and I'll buy that video card. That's all there is to it.

 

I'm content with the S3 errors.

It's not much of a problem for me, I can just use suspend to HDD isntead of suspend to ram.

But, those of you with XP shouldn't care anyhow, since if you didn't know, suspend to ram is a feature of Vista and XP doesn't have it.

 

XP does have suspend to ram, it is the sleep mode, which is the default when the notebook lid is closed, unless changed in Power options.