GeForce laptop makers who don't explicitly state their target TGP levels would be withholding vital performance information from potential customers and we're going to start calling them out for it

[TisButAScratch]

>Calling them out

So, pistols at dawn in the park, Baron?

[PdV]

Ah... the next step will be a generic GeForce RTX discrete card spec with a "Hardware can be changed without prior notice" clause. Just like cheap SSD vendors do for their products. They swap controllers, NAND chip, and it's a total lottery what you get.

[_MT_]

I agree that many of these comments are ridiculous, people just want to complain about NBC (sometimes rightfully so), but without even considering what they're saying first.

I also agree that NBC should take points off for computers where the OEM doesn't make the info readily available. If the only way to get the info is by reading reviews, that's not really the review site holding them accountable and "calling them out for it," that's just the review site doing their job and reviewing the product. To truly call them out on it and incentivize them to do the right thing, NBC and other review sites need to knock points off when OEMs are hiding this info, period.

And yeah, the whole Max-Q nomenclature was misleading as hell. As pointed out, it suggests that it's actually superior, and uninformed consumers--which unfortunately far too many people are--will buy it, possibly even paying more for it, thinking they're getting a better product. So yes, it is a good thing Nvidia changed how they're doing things, but they're ultimately at fault for this whole new mess, because instead of developing a better nomenclature and switching to it, they just dropped any form of differentiation in the names and left it up to everyone else to deal with it. Everyone's getting upset with MSI and other OEMs for not being transparent, as they should, but where's the frustration at Nvidia for going from one lousy system to another?

Calling someone out means explicitly mentioning it rather than simply stating the numbers in a table for those interested to find. Praising those that do it and damning those that don't. Which draws attention to the problem.

I don't know what was the intention but I tend to understand the Q as quiet. Although, a lower TGP doesn't by itself guarantee a quieter laptop. A weaker, easier to cool version.

A problem is that there is a significant overlap between 3060/ 3070/ 3080. Even if they provided the chip (core configuration) and power information, it's not very consumer friendly. I mean, is the 115 W 3070 more powerful than 90 W 3080? How about 100 W? Does it always perform better or only in some scenarios? Not to mention, like I wrote repeatedly before, cooling is very important. If they have multiple TGPs in the same chassis (which can make sense if you want to increase the gaps between models), can it actually cool the highest TGP or does it backfire and it throttles more? How good is the throttling mechanism? Is it so crude that it actually performs worse than a lower TGP would?

[vertigo]

Ah... the next step will be a generic GeForce RTX discrete card spec with a "Hardware can be changed without prior notice" clause. Just like cheap SSD vendors do for their products. They swap controllers, NAND chip, and it's a total lottery what you get.

That's why I ended up not going with the ADATA XPG SX8200. I was extremely impressed by all the reviews and the price and was about to get one, then saw multiple reviews warning that ADATA used good components when it first released and went to reviewers, then switched to a slower controller after it got all the good reviews. And it's not just that specific model I won't buy; I don't plan on using any ADATA parts in the future. Another brand to add to my boycott list with Zotac and apparently MSI now.

Calling someone out means explicitly mentioning it rather than simply stating the numbers in a table for those interested to find. Praising those that do it and damning those that don't. Which draws attention to the problem.

My point exactly. It's not enough to just state the TGP and move on. That's not calling them out, that's reviewing the product. To "call them out" requires making an actual point about it, and ideally that should involve an automatic drop in their score of at least a couple percent.

A problem is that there is a significant overlap between 3060/ 3070/ 3080. Even if they provided the chip (core configuration) and power information, it's not very consumer friendly. I mean, is the 115 W 3070 more powerful than 90 W 3080? How about 100 W? Does it always perform better or only in some scenarios? Not to mention, like I wrote repeatedly before, cooling is very important. If they have multiple TGPs in the same chassis (which can make sense if you want to increase the gaps between models), can it actually cool the highest TGP or does it backfire and it throttles more? How good is the throttling mechanism? Is it so crude that it actually performs worse than a lower TGP would?

And that's why Nvidia is the source of all this trouble and the real problem. OEMs like MSI that refuse to do something as simple (regardless of what they claim) as including the TGP in the specs are definitely an issue, and they should be called out for it and held accountable. And people should refuse to buy their products, and definitely wait to buy until they see reviews, though that should always be the case whenever possible, especially for something that expensive and where performance really matters, which obviously it does if you're buying a gaming laptop. But Nvidia (and probably AMD) is responsible for creating the mess and just passing the buck. They should benchmark all their products in a standard system and include some sort of grading based on that in the part number or specs. Then OEMs could include that to give people an idea. You still wouldn't know how it performs in a particular computer, but it would at least give you some clue as to the expected performance and it would definitely help with desktops. And then, if possible, you wait for reviews to see how it does in a particular computer you're interested in.

As has been said, reviews are the ultimate, and really only, way to know for sure. But not every configuration or even every laptop is tested, and not all reviews are equal, and sometimes people are just not able to wait weeks or months for a review. So the GPU manufacturers could help clear things up a bit and give people a reference at least. And OEMs could benchmark their systems as well, to give usable numbers, as long as they all use a standardized test and don't cheat (and if they do, it'll be revealed by reviews and their reputation will be tarnished). I really don't think it's too much to ask to expect a company selling a product to test that product and tell consumers what they're getting for their money. If they don't want to do that, then as far as I'm concerned they don't want or need people's business.

[_MT_]

To "call them out" requires making an actual point about it, and ideally that should involve an automatic drop in their score of at least a couple percent.
...
And people should refuse to buy their products, and definitely wait to buy until they see reviews, though that should always be the case whenever possible, especially for something that expensive and where performance really matters, which obviously it does if you're buying a gaming laptop.

You can lower score as a punishment and incentive to change their ways but to readers, it's even more obscure than simply stating the value if you don't explicitly mention it. You call someone out when you actually talk about it. Consider how many people can't even understand how relatively small part of a rating plays performance. And that's something that should be obvious from the categories.

It's certainly laughable when a manufacturer claims that it can't state the value as it would be too complicated. :D Unfortunately, there is a very long and very generic (spanning all sorts of products) trend towards less and less detail and more and more meaningless BS (what we call the sauce). Often written by people who have no clue. Or consider the quality of sales people.

I like good reviews. The problem is that they take time. There are many products coming out. If you're unlucky, you might have to wait five or eight months, if not longer. After eight months, given the fast product cycles, a product is nearing irrelevance. And even then they might test a different configuration than you want. As you probably know, it can happen that one configuration is mediocre compared to other laptops with the same components while another is really good. And ideally, you'd want multiple samples in review so that you could establish confidence that what you're seeing is representative. And then driver or BIOS update comes and everything could be different. That's why I have given up, really. If I fancy it, I buy it and if I like it, I keep it. Then again, I'm very comfortable financially. For me, it was always the case that I just hate to waste money. I was brought up that way. And I believe in voting with money; I really hate the idea of supporting bad products and rewarding bad advertising.

[vertigo]

To "call them out" requires making an actual point about it, and ideally that should involve an automatic drop in their score of at least a couple percent.
...
And people should refuse to buy their products, and definitely wait to buy until they see reviews, though that should always be the case whenever possible, especially for something that expensive and where performance really matters, which obviously it does if you're buying a gaming laptop.

You can lower score as a punishment and incentive to change their ways but to readers, it's even more obscure than simply stating the value if you don't explicitly mention it. You call someone out when you actually talk about it. Consider how many people can't even understand how relatively small part of a rating plays performance. And that's something that should be obvious from the categories.

It's certainly laughable when a manufacturer claims that it can't state the value as it would be too complicated. :D Unfortunately, there is a very long and very generic (spanning all sorts of products) trend towards less and less detail and more and more meaningless BS (what we call the sauce). Often written by people who have no clue. Or consider the quality of sales people.

I like good reviews. The problem is that they take time. There are many products coming out. If you're unlucky, you might have to wait five or eight months, if not longer. After eight months, given the fast product cycles, a product is nearing irrelevance. And even then they might test a different configuration than you want. As you probably know, it can happen that one configuration is mediocre compared to other laptops with the same components while another is really good. And ideally, you'd want multiple samples in review so that you could establish confidence that what you're seeing is representative. And then driver or BIOS update comes and everything could be different. That's why I have given up, really. If I fancy it, I buy it and if I like it, I keep it. Then again, I'm very comfortable financially. For me, it was always the case that I just hate to waste money. I was brought up that way. And I believe in voting with money; I really hate the idea of supporting bad products and rewarding bad advertising.

I think we're actually in full agreement. I'm not saying they should just reduce the score, I'm saying they should do so and say why they're doing it. IOW, they should absolutely comment on every review if the OEM is hiding the info, which is "calling them out," I'm just saying they should take it a step further to really hold these OEMs feet to the fire (as much as a single site can) by additionally lowering the score. And that it's not enough to just "call them out" in one article but then not mention it in the reviews, as if the article alone is enough. It doesn't sound like that's NBC's intention, but it wouldn't surprise me, and if that's all they did, mention it once here then in reviews simply state the TGP so consumers know what it is, without saying if the OEM is hiding that info, that's not calling them all, that's making a single point about it that will get buried in a couple weeks then continuing to do normal reviews. That's my point.

And yes, as I said, you're not always going to get a timely review, or even a review at all, on the configuration or even model you want, especially if it's not a really popular one. Which is why it's even more important to insist on this info from the OEMs and also AMD and Nvidia. I also believe in voting with my wallet, but sadly most people done, and it can often be very hard to do. For example, as much as I hate Lenovo, the laptop I just bought is a Lenovo, because they're the only ones with TrackPoints and decent keyboards (and even those are going downhill), aside from supposed models from Dell and HP that are much more expensive and not as good. And as much as I hate Lenovo, Dell and HP are pretty bad, too, and I won't buy another MS product. Basically, if you have even fairly specific requirements your options are limited, and if you want to avoid brands that are consistently poor they're limited a lot more. So in the end, quite often I end up buying something from a brand I'd rather not support, because otherwise I'd never buy anything or I'd buy something that didn't meet my needs. It's an unfortunate reality of the current state of things.

And yes, to a point you can buy and return, and you don't even have to have a lot of money to do that, since returning gets you your money back to try something else. But that takes a lot of time, first in research (I'm not just going to blindly buy something like a laptop, even figuring on returning it if it doesn't meet my needs), then testing it and getting it set up and using it, then realizing it's not working out and returning it and starting the cycle all over again. Not to mention if it's a special order laptop that took weeks to even arrive, like my new laptop. For something cheaper and more basic, I tend to do that more, but for something big/involved/expensive, I try really hard to be sure it's the thing I want before investing in it. And that would be a lot harder if I were looking for a gaming laptop with all this crap going on, and personally, if I had to get one without having reviews to gauge them on and had to rely on that strategy, I'd tend more toward brands that are transparent to help minimize the chances of having to return it, not to mention to reward them for their pro-consumer stance. Maybe NBC should prioritize reviewing models from OEMs that are transparent over ones that aren't.

[_MT_]

I think we're actually in full agreement.
...
Basically, if you have even fairly specific requirements your options are limited, and if you want to avoid brands that are consistently poor they're limited a lot more. So in the end, quite often I end up buying something from a brand I'd rather not support, because otherwise I'd never buy anything or I'd buy something that didn't meet my needs. It's an unfortunate reality of the current state of things.
...
And yes, to a point you can buy and return, and you don't even have to have a lot of money to do that, since returning gets you your money back to try something else...

Yes, we are.

Tell me about it. You can have just two or three specific requirements and there is just nothing. One huge filter being 16:9 aspect ratio.

As you wrote, built to order is a problem. Not only returning, but also the lead times involved. The point was that I'm not really impacted if I make objectively bad choice. And hence not pressured to make good choice. You know, you can be happy with a product and it can still be objectively poor choice. I wouldn't be happy about it (if I ever found out) but it has practically zero impact. If throwing 2k out the window means you have to spare 2k elsewhere, it's a different proposal. I do understand that the attitude I adopted is a luxury.