That "Q" usually stands for heat in various scientific and engineering disciplines.  That the fact Nvidia chose to call this "Max-Q" is quite misleading, given that it chose physicist names for all their recent GPUs since Fermi.  Max-Q would lead you to believe that it is optimized for maximum heat output or dissipation, when in fact, it is quite the opposite in the target devices.  If this isn't intended as a scam, then it is surely deceptive marketing in my opinion.

Quote from: ClippyCasual on July 10, 2017, 03:26:16
If it is indeed not binned then I see no problem with them charging the same price of these cards as normal ones. The manufacturing and material cost as well as the theoretical performance (excluding clocks and power limits) are the same between Max-Q and normal chips. If NVIDIA is to be taken at its word, there was probably additional cost for these Max-Q cost in the form of the R&D for whatever thermals - meaning the cost could be higher than normal chips.

It's up to the buyer to decide whether or not to fork over same or higher amount of moolah for a lower powered/lower thermal card.

The R&D cost goes into the notebook itself, not the video card. In this case I'm talking solely about the video card's price. Even if price does not change I find it should have some indicator at point-of-sale to indicate it won't be performing like its namesake would suggest.

However, this is indeed an opinion piece (albeit with a lot of history and facts in it) so hearing what other people think is part of the point.

Using a 1070 at the same performance and power level as a 1080 Max-Q is inferior for cooling, because it has less cores (- 20%), so even though the power is the same, the relation power/area increases (generated heat is spread through a smaller area). So, conduction goes down.

Thats the only reason to use a 1080 instead of a 1070 in this case, and probably why the put so much emphasis on the "quiet" aspect of max-q notebooks. Even though the performance is the same, a laptop with a 1080 will be quieter and/or cooler than using a 1070 at the same power.

So not really a rip off. Its just an option for those who look for 1070 performance, but with better thermals.

I totally agree with you about it all, deception and shxx. Thing is, nobody cares... Certainly not nvidia and most certainly not your average uninformed consumer. Stupid is one that buys, not who sells.

https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/27763247
https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/27775572
https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/27782837
(https://pic2.zhimg.com/v2-86df3d64c60cbec7bf3f10650d0dbc21_r.png)
I have the same opinion......but my english is not good......
Hope someone help me to translate those articles......

Quote from: D2ultima on July 10, 2017, 00:28:34

Quote from: ClippyCasual on July 10, 2017, 00:02:35
While I agree that naming the new cards something other than Max-Q would more or less be appropriate, the marketing of the cards as Max-Q is probably to avoid the old 'gaming on laptop' stigma that comes with using a GTX 780M or such.

I don't agree with a price reduction in the Max-Q card simply because it is underclocked and underpowered (hear me out); I think a price reduction is in order for another reason. At the end of the day, these cards still cost the same to make and have exactly the same manufacturing process except for the voltage and clocks. But Max-Q 1080 chips are probably poorly performing chips compared to full fat 1080s, so they were binned as low performance. Every batch of chips made will have high performing and low performing, hence the difference in  overclocking, but my guess is that the Max-Q chips are the worst of the batch which are normally scrapped as they are unstable at normal boost clocks. Instead, NVIDIA decided to make some money off of their low performance by way of their inherently low thermals. What they arte doing here is charging full price for low performing chips.

TL;DR Max-Q should be priced lower than normal chips, not because of lower performance, but because they are most likely binned bad chips.

Nvidia officially stated (it is quoted in the article) that these chips were in no way binned.

If it is indeed not binned then I see no problem with them charging the same price of these cards as normal ones. The manufacturing and material cost as well as the theoretical performance (excluding clocks and power limits) are the same between Max-Q and normal chips. If NVIDIA is to be taken at its word, there was probably additional cost for these Max-Q cost in the form of the R&D for whatever thermals - meaning the cost could be higher than normal chips.

It's up to the buyer to decide whether or not to fork over same or higher amount of moolah for a lower powered/lower thermal card.

Quote from: ClippyCasual on July 10, 2017, 00:02:35
While I agree that naming the new cards something other than Max-Q would more or less be appropriate, the marketing of the cards as Max-Q is probably to avoid the old 'gaming on laptop' stigma that comes with using a GTX 780M or such.

I don't agree with a price reduction in the Max-Q card simply because it is underclocked and underpowered (hear me out); I think a price reduction is in order for another reason. At the end of the day, these cards still cost the same to make and have exactly the same manufacturing process except for the voltage and clocks. But Max-Q 1080 chips are probably poorly performing chips compared to full fat 1080s, so they were binned as low performance. Every batch of chips made will have high performing and low performing, hence the difference in  overclocking, but my guess is that the Max-Q chips are the worst of the batch which are normally scrapped as they are unstable at normal boost clocks. Instead, NVIDIA decided to make some money off of their low performance by way of their inherently low thermals. What they arte doing here is charging full price for low performing chips.

TL;DR Max-Q should be priced lower than normal chips, not because of lower performance, but because they are most likely binned bad chips.

Nvidia officially stated (it is quoted in the article) that these chips were in no way binned.

While I agree that naming the new cards something other than Max-Q would more or less be appropriate, the marketing of the cards as Max-Q is probably to avoid the old 'gaming on laptop' stigma that comes with using a GTX 780M or such.

I don't agree with a price reduction in the Max-Q card simply because it is underclocked and underpowered (hear me out); I think a price reduction is in order for another reason. At the end of the day, these cards still cost the same to make and have exactly the same manufacturing process except for the voltage and clocks. But Max-Q 1080 chips are probably poorly performing chips compared to full fat 1080s, so they were binned as low performance. Every batch of chips made will have high performing and low performing, hence the difference in  overclocking, but my guess is that the Max-Q chips are the worst of the batch which are normally scrapped as they are unstable at normal boost clocks. Instead, NVIDIA decided to make some money off of their low performance by way of their inherently low thermals. What they arte doing here is charging full price for low performing chips.

TL;DR Max-Q should be priced lower than normal chips, not because of lower performance, but because they are most likely binned bad chips.

Very good work here!

Well Max-Q was a good idea but only at the beginning not now.

I still prefer my about 10mm thicker Clevo P651RS with normal mobile 1070 over this crippled 1080MQ... Realy there is no need for such thin devices with less than 19 mm. However i agree with ultima about bigger laptop with this supposedly quality cooling in something like 25 mm chassis...

I have a hard time getting behind deceptive, overpriced gimmicks drummed up as lame excuses to defraud the people that insist on having something too small, thin and light to offer amazing performance. I understand the reason for the form factor, and it doesn't matter whether I like it or not. I don't see a good reason for Max-Q garbage to exist, other than it is a creative new marketing strategy that is being over-hyped for the express purpose of padding the Green Goblin's bank account by selling the customers in this ultraportable fetish niche something weird that sounds better than it actually is.

Yes men and Kool-Aid drinkers are the reason we are in such a sorry state. We have Intel and NVIDIA butt-kissers to thank for everything that is wrong with notebooks in today's world of technology, and for everything that's only going to get worse. And, those who fall for this nonsense are being led as lambs to slaughter.

I have big doubts when they announce Max-Q, and when the external reviews are out from Zephyrus came out, i felt like those doubts are justified. If Max-Q is going to be implemented on (especially) future gaming (and multimedia) notebook GPU then we'll be back at the GTX M era. I'd rather have a cheaper notebook with almost desktop GPU like pascal does right now with loud fans (to know that it's working well cooling the GPU and CPU) than having another mobile specified GPU which marketed as having silent fans and as thin as an ultrabook and have a hefty price.

Well written. A lot of people will get ____ hurt by this, because A.) They can't face the truth. B.) Denial. C.) Work for a company so they will feel the obligation to defend it (pay check), but what if that pay check was lifted? D.) Have no idea about real tech., and settles for what they are taught..ie doesn't know any better... either way, things need to be called out like it is. Being truthful is a good thing and anyone who disagrees with being truthful is just as crooked as the scam artists. Truth hurts usually when there's something to hide... Revealing how things really are is a positive thing and there needs to be more of it. 

Quote from: QEXdu35dv on July 05, 2017, 13:18:06
Isn't the price of the chips inflated by the demand for them in desktop GPUs due to the mining craze though?
I'm sure people will wise up to the fact that the mobile cards are no longer near their desktop namesakes with time.

No, from day 1 the 1080N has cost $1200 USD. The 980N cost about the same. The 980M was about $720, with the g-sync variants being $750 or so.

There is no inflation in mobile GPUs because the vast majority of them are soldered, and cannot be bought and sold like the MXM cards in the article that are linked to for the purpose of showing the prices and realistically only fit in four laptops: Clevo's P750DM3, P775DM3, P870DM3 and P870KM1. MSI has its own MXM cards but with a different form factor.

As for everything returning to people understanding mobile cards are far worse, this is... not good. I do not want laptops to be taken less seriously anymore. For the first time since I've ever been around this industry, the last few months have had people correct others that the new mobile cards aren't trash, and that laptops aren't the worst thing in the world for gaming, and I VERY much would like if Max-Q did not shake that up at all.

We are currently reworking the article (so older comments still reference the original version) as there were some to harsh formulated, misleading and also wrong informations in there. Sorry about the inconvinience, the article was published too early without going through internal revision.

Isn't the price of the chips inflated by the demand for them in desktop GPUs due to the mining craze though?
I'm sure people will wise up to the fact that the mobile cards are no longer near their desktop namesakes with time.