MAX Q

I love every title in the Crysis franchise. It's my favorite. Crysis plays fine for me, but I've always had stronger than normal hardware to play it on.

I wish there were more PC-exclusive game titles there were unplayable on weak computers. Having to accommodate the weak stuff has always been a ball and chain. Because of that we get lots of crappy console port garbage. But, as always, we cater to the lowest common denominators, including console jockeys.

 

One word...

 

Wow, another "sleight of hand" deception, this time a physical fake bottom to the "trick".

These things shouldn't be called Max-Q they should be called Max-D for Deceptions!

 

They still ain't cooling PCH? Have they not read what I've written here??? Of course not I'm nobody!!! It literally takes what amounts to a fancy piece of tape to do the job. AGGGGHHHHH

YAAAAAAAAY FOR BEING NOBODY!!!!!

 

Yup Crysis was underrated as an actual game in my opinion. Highest difficulty levels really make the nanosuit play crucial whereas in lower difficulties you could get away with never switching modes. High difficulty in Crysis really showed the level design was post-human. Everyone I knew who said the game was boring cruise controlled it on easy in while never leaving armor mode.

Actually quite a few titles don't really exhibit their design genius at low difficulty levels in fact, not just Crysis. I'm not saying I'm a pro (I am) but I do notice that many games lose the careful balance work that was put in by the devs when you move the difficulty slider around.

Max-Q is the opposite. Its setting things on easy mode (low clocks and voltages) and then pretending its really hard so the crowd goes "OOOOH AHHHH." Yeah that's right I just analogied the $#@! out of that.

 

@GenTechPC uploaded a review and benchmark for the MSI GS73VR that has the Max-Q 1070, and here are the results as a snapshot from the video, and the video too:

@GenTechPC also uploaded a nicer image in the GS63VR thread, and I also posted in the GS73VR thread, you might want to reply there too:

Spoiler: Clean Fire Strike Results image

Review + Benchmarks: MSI GS73VR 7RX Stealth Pro w/ GTX 1070 MaxQ

 

1070Max-Qrippled +-15500P in 3DM11 Notebookcheck.net

 

So MAX Q is equal to desktopRX 480. Maybe OEM must try AMD desktop GPU on laptops

 

How the Asus ROG GX501 Zephyrus performs with Nvidia's Max-Q technology


"The result you see here is likely to set off some alarm bells in gamers looking for the absolute in performance.

At the top, you can see MSI's GT73VR. It's a great laptop, but it's more along the lines of the classic, heavy-duty, huge and thick laptop people have come to expect if it's meant for gaming. In second place we have a virtual tie between the latest Razer Blade Pro (2016), which also has a GTX 1080 inside."

+21% lower performance in 3DM FS Extreme 1.1 vs. normal graphics, and even with the more crippled fully locked 7700Hq. Or put it in better light, +-2.4% faster than a stock 1070.


And Yeah, As we have seen... Razer put in *first version* of Max-Crippled graphics from Nvidia!! And almost same score!!

 

New AW15R3 with 1080Max-Crippled a little cheaper than its big BGA brother, but with lower spec for the screen (15.6 inch FHD (1920 x 1080) 60Hz vs. 17.3 inch QHD (2560 x 1440) 120Hz Enabled with Tobii Eye-tracking). If DELLIENWARE had put similar aka faster display and QHD for the smaller AWbook 15R3, this would mean same price!!

 

so I guess the performance will be 20% faster than a Normal GTX 1070 I guess.. but seeing the clock speed of MAX Q on MSI laptop.. 1126 boost core clock.. it sucks. but remember frank azor said our alienware max q will be different from competition... may be a slightly OCed MAX Q..

 

No, the Max-Q 1080 will be about the same performance as a normal 1070, not faster at all.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.pc...rforms-with-nvidias-max-q-technology.amp.html

Performance seems to vary a lot in games, beats the 1070 laptop by a fraction in some, is between the 1070 and 1080 in Rise of the Tomb Raider, but offers comparable performance to a full laptop 1080 in shadow of mordor.

Rather uninspiring 3Dmark,I think the 1080mq should be priced closer to a 1070 than a 1080 tbh.

Just waiting for the 1080mq in the 15r3 to be benchmarked, and UK pricing to be announced. Dells model should hands down beat the Asus though

 

Depends what machine it's in. It is faster in most cases

 

No, it's always slower than a real 1080, and tests so far show it's around a 1070 in most tests.

I wouldn't count on more than 1070 performance from a Max-Q 1080, even from AW.

If there is a difference, to differentiate from the 1070 model, it's in price, the Max-Q 1080 model is probably greater than 35% more expensive

A real 1080 has 180w-220w TDP, while a Max-Q 1080 is 90w typically, and 110w from AW, which isn't much of a difference. All are basically 50% of the TDP required for full performance.

 

It's odd that some tests it gets close to a real 1080, it must be a CPU heavy benchmark that helps the score.

That's why that 3dmark11 Performance score is misleading, they left out the 3dmark11 Graphics score which is the one we need to compare apples to apples - or Max-Q 1080 to Real 1080.

The really disgusting part is the price gouging with the Max-Q 1080 models.

@Papusan 's build price for the 15.6" Max-Q 1080 was $4800+ (before online discount), that's a total rip-off on the order of the Razer 1080.

 

I mean it's faster than a 1070, not a 1080. The 'around 1070 performance' is still slighty faster than a 1070 and I mentioned the 'comparable to 1080 performance' in regards to the article I linked that ran benchmarks in several games. Its only comparable in terms of fps in shadow of mordor as far as I've seen.

The overall power is nothing like a full 1080 of course, but I'd be surprised if Dell don't at least clock theirs higher, especially after calling out other manufacturers for 1070 grade 1080's

 

What with OC headrom? Will the difference in performance decrease or stand still if yoo max out the OC headrom? And thin, thinner, thinnest will not give an advantage, or maybe you have a different opinion?

 

In comparison to the AW 15.6 1070 the Max-Q 1080 could show as being a little faster, if the AW 15.6 1070 is performing near the bottom of the laptop 1070 range, which I suspect it is in comparison to full frame cooling and power in a 17.3" 1070 laptop.

So in that case AW can show some kind of performance "improvement" for the Max-Q 1080 in the same frame... or not - I wouldn't be surprised if they did benchmark within the margin of measurement error.

I thought the AW 1070's were at 100w, and the 1080's were at 180w, which means the AW Max-Q 1080 at 110w. More range for less performance than more performance.

 

I'm just basing my analysis on what I've read, and stock clocks rather than overclocked figures.

The 15r3 is no thinner with Max Q design, unlike other manufacturers? Dell have already confirmed it'll be more powerful, so it should stand up to an overclocked 1070 whereas MSI/Asus laptops most likely won't. Time will tell though.

Of course thin will give no advantage in regards to other manufacturers and their designs.

Also apparently the Zephyrus has 8gb soldered and one 8gb ram slot? Wtf

 

Isn't the 110W just an assumption? Notebookcheck says 90 - 110w but it can vary more if seller wishes. As of right now it makes no sense whatsoever to pay $400 more for 1080 Max-Quid on AW.

They make some poor decisions at AW, but the backlash for a $$$$ gpu that performs close to the same as 1070 in same model would be BIGGGGG. They have to show a meaningful performance difference.

 

Look at the configurator @Papusan did for the AW 15.6 Max-Q 1080, the Max-Q 1080 option clearly shows 110w:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/max-q.805420/page-26#post-10553708

Spoiler

Wow, even more importantly, notice the 1070 option says 125w!! Now how is that 110w Max-Q 1080 supposed to compete against that 125w 1070?? Hey, why can't they run the Max-Q 1080 at 125w too!!!?

 

The standard price for the Alienware 15 with the 1080 MaxQ 110w is 2650, while the same configuration with the GTX1070 is 2325.
Note: there isn´t a 120Hz option yet for the 1080M, which is strange. Setting all the options exactly the same, the price difference is $325. The standard option of selecting the 1070 over the 1080M is $400.

 

I talked about OC headrom... From Asusbook with the Max-Crippled + 7700BGA. Cpu Throttling as expected and makes perfect sense. As it's thin, and flimsy!!



FAREWELL from FPS RACE!! The way Ngreedia wanted you all should GAME!! For MAXIMUM PRICE. Maybe Nvidia missed with the naming of this SCAM? The name should rather be Max-P for Max Price.

 

I was following you ok until the last line... how can the first part be correct - the Max-Q 1080 costs $325 more than the 1070 be correct and your last sentence be correct too?

"The standard option of selecting the 1070 over the 1080M is $400."

Clarification?

 

Bruh, They can't!! Nvidia has put the GOLDEN standard for this trash. Both for the PCB and the voltage transformers. Aka the components used. The ODM's have to follow NGREEDIA*S RULES and manual!!

 

Yeah, well AW already broke the mold with 110w vs Nvidia Max-Q 1080 90w, what's another 15w for a total of 125w?

At least then the Max-Q 1080 has a chance of matching the 1070 125w performance.

@iunlock that would be a fun side by side test. AW 15.6 Max-Q 1080 110w vs AW 15.6 1070 125w, which one is faster stock and which one will OC to the highest performance

 

They shouldn't. The price would probably increase with increased TDP and Performance Isn't the *LOW* prices for this new soldered Trash, High enough as it is?

 

There are going to be enough people who aren't sensitive to frame-rate who will buy this thinking that they do have a 1080. The worst part is that they'll be charged for one and not receive it.

Its not an ignorance is bliss situation, this is just plain taking advantage of the fact that the average consumer isn't aware. All this crap started when companies started publishing incomplete spec sheets.

Actually all this started with the introduction of trade itself but I'm not the history major in my family so I'll leave it here lol.

 

You are right....there is an inconsistency there, the price difference is indeed $400. I got confused because if I select the Alienware 15 with GTX 1070, then customize to include the same specs, upgrade to i7-7820HK, 16gb Ram and the 512GB+ TB the price difference is $325. So it depends how you choose to customize on their site....strange that there would be a difference in price for the same machine though.
That means that selecting the Max Q option and "downgrading" to the GTX1070 you get a $75 discount...haha.

 

I feel like the RBP was the proof of concept for this sort of thing, just to prove people would buy a machine configured like that. Now it's an officially branded item.

 

Yes!! It's a Joke!! You've got it!

 

Only one word for this mistake!!

 

I'll try not to let it go to my head.

 

Max-Q is just a big joke being played on everyone by Nvidia, those jokesters

It's based on that hilarious knee slapper, the Razer 1080, and it's got the same punch line - buyers just blew a huge pile of cash on a laptop that performs worse than any other GTX 1080 laptop previously sold!!

Hours of hilarious fun for everyone... except the poor saps that bought them... sigh.

 

Don't forget about the niche market of gamer librarians that need these for the DB

 

There's also people who buy them as fashion statements.

 

@Papusan @judal57 @sirleeofroy @Vasudev @iunlock @DeeX
Max Q.. Almost Nerfed.. Clock Speeds are decent.. but those Texture fill rate and pixel fill rate.

 

Because of the Crippled aka Max-Qrippled Clock Speed

 

This is the empitome of deception. As I've mentioned before, there will be a market for this for those who just don't know or don't care because it's light and pretty. But it's tragic from what Ngreedia is doing using the same naming/branding scheme to take advantage of those poor souls that wouldn't know any better and mark up 30% with less performance. STOP IT already! They even use the word Max beside it like it can't be any better. Smh!!

 

And in what appears to be sharp contrast to my previous statements...we've been testing our review copy of this and I might have to amend my opinion further. While I'm still definitely against everything about their naming conventions for it, our testers were pretty impressed by it, and I'm definitely starting to see where this tech is going. I'm pretty confident at this point that both lines are going to exist alongside each other as alternate upgrades to achieve different things. So we're not going to lose the higher end ones, there will just be two versions. I'm hoping to see them make the distinction more clear in the future. Also my comparison to the RBP was unfair of me, the RBP was poorly optimized and was throttling because of excess heat whereas MQ machines are designed around the way the chip behaves at its TDP.

 

If reserved for low-end range laptops, OK, but to talk up maxQ in a glorified fashion is hog wash. That's what these clowns are doing.

1060 maxQ in the xps, fine. It could use it.

1060 maxQ in a 2K+ 15-17 gaming laptop; get the heck outta here. Especially at the ridiculous prices.

::iunlock::

 

So basically...this is throttling disguised as not throttling. I was considering this laptop, but it costs so much more than the general 1070s with similar performance.

 

The RBP 1080 benchmarks *faster* than the 1080 Max-Q. And a real 1080 laptop costing the same price, performs way faster than both the RBP 1080 and a Max-Q 1080.

Running so downclocked the Max-Q 1080 performs no better than a 1070, and pricing it the same as a normal 1080 isn't technology going forward.

Running benchmarks at 39db fan noise output isn't a sign that it's performing well, it's a sign it's throttled, and that's the "best" trick Max-Q has to offer. You can get that by downclocking a real 1080 and setting up a custom fan curve.

Maybe you can send them back, refuse delivery? I'd hate to think you got stuck with a pallet load of those Max-Q turds.

 

Yeah they should name is by its relative performance rather than the chip it was sourced from. Call 1080 Max Q some variation of 1070.

I mean when we get lower binned processors we don't call the i5-7600K an i7-7700k Max-Q do we?

1700X is 1800X Max-Q now right? Ugh marketing.

Its completely disingenuous my first reaction to the term max-Q was that it was referring to a perfectly binned GTX 1080 for overclocking. I mean that isn't too hard to see with what max-Q means in aerospace. I literally thought it meant you got another Ti with your Ti. Gtx 1080 Ti Ti yo. But I got the opposite.

 

Look what PC World wrote:

Man I guess the tech sites are really going to go all in to sell Max-Q as a revolution.

 

That's the problem with deceptions like Max-Q, it's a mess to start and any typo or misstatement won't get caught because it all looks like a part of the same BS.

"A 1060 performing like a 1080 - with no thermal issues!?, wow, I gotta buy me one'a those!!"

Either people will figure it out before they buy a Max-Q laptop and there will be pallet loads of Max-Q laptops sitting in the warehouse, or people will figure it out when the get them home and return them, adding to the pallet loads of Max-Q laptops sitting in the warehouse.

 

How can a "tech" site be so ignorant? Or the greasing is too high with this one ...

 

Similar to a 1600usd Omen 17

heh