Quote from: hubert on March 11, 2021, 04:57:13 It's not too bad but the deceptive naming is that's kind of the point, ok call it 3060m-75, 3060m-130 etc no problems. But just calling them the same name is slimy.
100% agreed with your whole post. Max-Q was just an excuse to sell a larger, more expensive chip to be shoved into a smaller chassis so that OEMs can overcharge customers who think they're getting high-end performance in a small chassis. Now they've even eliminated that distinction, so the money-grab is even more transparent.
It's not too bad but the deceptive naming is that's kind of the point, ok call it 3060m-75, 3060m-130 etc no problems. But just calling them the same name is slimy. Why nvidia doesn't just have 3 basic models, 3060m, 3070m, 3080m is a big problem, it's just marketing babble to charge more for less of people who aren't into the details of what they are buying in a gaming laptop, they do exist. IMO 10%+ difference is too much for the same name on a card. Don't get me started on the difference from desktop card and laptop card with the same name either, and this gen the difference goes up with higher models, 3060 25%+, 3070 40%, 3080 55% timespy graphics scale.
The performance gap is definitely there, but it's nothing that we haven't seen before from previous generation Max-Q and non Max-Q designs. Gamers will see about 15 to 20 percent slower performance if jumping from a 130 W GeForce RTX 3060 GPU to the 75 W version.
Deutsch
English
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Русский
Türkçe
Svenska
Chinese
Magyar