New Clevos with Max-Q?

Discussion in 'Sager and Clevo' started by pdrogfer, May 30, 2017.

  1. Glzmo

    Glzmo Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    470
    Messages:
    809
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    41
    It's normal. If the voltage is too low, the hardware will compensate (by either doing error correction, re-sending signals, etc. - unless it's too much to compensate, at which point there will be a crash). It's the same with CPUs, too (albeit it may not be as noticeable as they tend to crash the system quicker). That's why you have to tweak things, you need to find the voltage/clock sweetspot for your unit where it performs optimally. It takes time and patience but in the end it's worth it. Also note that this sweetspot can change slightly over time.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017 at 5:50 AM
    Blacky likes this.
  2. CedricFP

    CedricFP Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    32
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    153
    Trophy Points:
    56
    I could be wrong, but I would say this behavior by Pascal is actually a little abnormal when we consider past generations of graphics cards. Graphics cards in the past would usually either hard-locked or driver crash when voltage was insufficient for the clocks that were being attempted to run.

    With Pascal, we are actually able to lower voltage and still report a full clock speed, but at worse performance, which means something else is going on, such as disabled cores or some other internal power management.

    I don't remember this behavior in other generations of graphics cards, though I skipped the Fury, and never owned a Maxwell. If there are other generations that behaved this way, I would love to know them to be more informed :)

    As for CPUs, I don't really understand what you mean. If I try to undervolt my 7700HQ by -200mv and I run a stress test, my PC will lock up and reboot. Clearly, -200mv is not enough to run the rated clock speed.

    With Pascal, if I undervolt to 0.9v, I still report "2012mhz" but my performance is nothing like 2012mhz @ 0.962v. So that way, assuming Afterburner is reporting accurate clocks, there is other management going on internally.

    The analog to this with CPU would be if I set a -200mv undervolt, and my CPU still boosted to it's max 4-core 3.4ghz turbo, and yet my CPU benchmark scores were lower. This, however, is not what happens. What happens is I hard-lock and reboot.

    I do agree that you need to find a sweet spot for sure, especially because ultimately you don't want to compromise performance.

    I initially made my post on Pascal undervolting because I discovered that it's actually quite easy to compromise your performance on Pascal by undervolting without realising because your card will still boost up to the clock rate you set and be "stable", but you'll receive less performance for it. Many people may undervolt their Pascal's to 900mv at 2ghz and think sweet it passes a FS 1 hour loop, and not realise they're performing lower because they're not paying attention to performance as much as stability, because they assume performance remains the same at the same clock speed.
     
  3. Knight666

    Knight666 Notebook Consultant

    Reputations:
    21
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    157
    Trophy Points:
    56
    It's just another strategy for renaming GPU (680M, 780M, 880M) or holding one gen for 2 years (980M). This time they just downlocked them and say they are pro awesome for pancakes class laptops. They forgot to mention that they will be pathetically weak after.

    I don't see any rational reason for Max-Q except trying to push more GP cores and hold longer til' volta. More profit per year with one technology investment.

    [​IMG]
     
    Mr. Fox likes this.
  4. Meaker@Sager

    Meaker@Sager Company Representative

    Reputations:
    6,718
    Messages:
    41,264
    Likes Received:
    9,546
    Trophy Points:
    931
    A downclocked 1080 for 1080p is still more than capable.

    Nvidia have taken it one way with advertising and the people on here have gone the opposite way *sigh*
     
    hmscott likes this.
  5. Thousandmagister

    Thousandmagister Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Is that a sarcasm ? Most GTX 1080 owners don't game at 1080p . For 1080p , GTX 1060 is more than enough . You could buy a GTX 1070 gaming laptop with G-Sync for like $1400~$1600 and still have $1000 to throw at a big party or a new PC/ultrabook
    Or if you really want a thin gaming notebook that bad , you could buy Gigabyte Aero 15 , this thing can withstand Furmark + Aida64 extreme test and it's a whole lot cheaper than MaxQ laptop
    Seriously , who would pay 2 grand for this crap ? Who this is for ? Knowing GTX 1080MQ is not faster than a normal GTX 1070 (according to that Dell guy) , the CPU is most likely to throttle to da max

    If MaxQ laptops sell well in the future, full power laptop will be hard to find . Manufacturers only care about profit anyway . Nowadays , it's hard to find a gaming laptop that has removable batterry , most laptops have built-in battery because of "laptop must be thin" kind of trend
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017 at 10:51 AM
  6. Prostar Computer

    Prostar Computer Company Representative

    Reputations:
    1,179
    Messages:
    6,832
    Likes Received:
    756
    Trophy Points:
    281
    You noticed that too, huh?

    That's not exactly a step backward. Big desktop replacement laptops are a niche market.
     
  7. Thousandmagister

    Thousandmagister Notebook Enthusiast

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    26
    I bought my first business notebook in 2013 , just like any other "light-weight" laptops at that time, it has removable battery. One year later , ultrabook became popular in Japan and that's the end of tradional notebook....
     
  8. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    2,585
    Messages:
    10,467
    Likes Received:
    11,736
    Trophy Points:
    931
    What a surprise, Nvidia has marketed Max-Q so as to sell it to people that are easily fooled into believing that they can have a full power GTX 1080 in a slim laptop. Just like the Razer 1080.

    We worked out the truth about Max-Q, confirmed by Alienware - as part of their marketing to "one up" the "weaker Max-Q" laptops, it's a GTX 1080 in name only, performance wise it's no better than a GTX 1070.

    We have taken Max-Q at face value, for what it is worth, and it's not worth the asking price.

    And, you still suggest Max-Q has value because "a down-clocked 1080 for 1080p is still more than capable"...

    You are too close to the "drink the kool-aid" dispensary. :newpalm:

    Paying big bucks for a "down-clocked" GTX 1080 only to get GTX 1070 performance, has no value.

    If all the vendors selling GTX 1080 Max-Q laptops price them at their true value as GTX 1070 laptops, then Max-Q will be an interesting curiosity at best => "Why would laptop makers put a perfectly good GTX 1080 GPU into a laptop only to deliver GTX 1070 like performance?"

    At least at it's proper cost for performance value Max-Q would then be fairly priced.

    Better yet, correctly name the GPU to a GTX1070 - call it a GTX 1070 special edition if needs be but don't call it a GTX 1080 as that will lead people to believe they are buying GTX 1080 level performance.

    Purchase would then be a matter of preference in the final package vs trying to buy GTX 1080 performance in a thin package, which Max-Q does not deliver.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017 at 6:58 PM
  9. Meaker@Sager

    Meaker@Sager Company Representative

    Reputations:
    6,718
    Messages:
    41,264
    Likes Received:
    9,546
    Trophy Points:
    931
    You're own needs and requirements are blinding you from looking at the needs of others.

    Let's say I want the best experience possible but I had a hard limit on weight of 2kg.

    As a consumer you are saying I should be stripped of the choice of getting a 1080 chip lower clocked to fit the form factor and instead should settle for a downclocked 1070 and get overall lower performance, that I am not allowed to buy the best chip possible because its a waste not to fully clock the chip.

    That's the same logic desktop gamers use to dismiss laptop gamers that I have had to listen to time and again and now to see this community trotting it out is quite disappointing.

    Nvidia are giving it a moniker, they are not just calling it the same thing. People will be able to compare benchmarks and make a value comparison. Will it be the right choice for everyone? No. But then again what is?

    I don't see why we should strip choice from people when you believe some may be led astray. That's belittling the consumer.
     
    jaybee83, DukeCLR, ssj92 and 3 others like this.
  10. Stooj

    Stooj Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    101
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    391
    Trophy Points:
    76
    citation needed

    I keep seeing people regurgitate this and yet with zero research. The "Big Bucks" going on here is almost exclusively based on the super high end Max-Q pricing for one-of-a-kind models with no point of reference. Previously it was things like the Razer Blade Pro which had such high prices and the fact is, people who bought those cared little about perf/$$ anyway.

    For reference, the only price I can see online for the ASUS Zephyrus is AU$3600 for the 1080MQ and yet a P870KM with a GTX1070 costs $3999. So...

    All the models I can see which actually have multiple variants with lower GPUs (ie MSI GS63/73) are only about 15-20% more expensive for the next "Max-Q" model up. Most of these are also the 1060-1070MQ change, which as I've said before, is what will impact the most buyers. Lets be real here, very few people even have the budget for high end models 1080 models, MaxQ or not.

    We still don't have good bench tests either. We've got 1 3Dmark score (and it's 3DMark 11..I mean come on....) which is a combined score with CPU taken into account and nothing else. No power consumption or thermals.

    I think it's because too many people here seem to believe they're better qualified to spend other consumers' money and are quick to lose sight of the fact that pure performance is not the sole factor in a laptop purchase:rolleyes:
     

Share This Page