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

[Redaktion]

Although the "Max-Q" marketing term was flawed, it at least helped to differentiate the "slow" GeForce gaming laptops from the "fast" ones. The onus will be on the manufacturers to list their thermal graphics power (TGP) targets in the specifications now that Max-Q is no more.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/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.517688.0.html

[A]

Will it hurt their score? Cause there really isn't much incentive for them to post these numbers. Which is annoying.

[jkkg]

>Actually, abandoning Max-Q makes a lot of sense. Here are our top 3 reasons why Nvidia is finally getting rid of it
>Allen Ngo
↓
PSA | 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
>Allen Ngo

When an article that was published with a lot of confidence is criticized, the opposite article is published. This is the US Editor in Chief.

[HWGeek]

Should this also applied to Intel Laptops?
Laptop makers should state the Turbo TDP levels so when you buy i7/i9 they won't be slower then other model with i5 and better cooling/turbo TDP values.

[xpclient]

Personally I don't have a problem with NBC writers having different opinions on whether Max-Q was good or bad. I think Max-Q going away is good for the simple reason that to a newbie, a term like "Max-something" associated with a gaming CPU generally indicates some performance related enhancement but we know that Max Q was in fact the lower clocked GPU.

I didn't even know there was a Max P when I got a Max Q GPU. But doing away entirely with the Power specifications isn't right either. They should have replaced Max Q with a simpler branding e.g. GeForce RTX Lite.

[Sad for you, NBC]

You're a caveman. You cling onto a single value (you hope) you can measure - in a web of technical terms... Understanding which would require knowledge of CS, processor design, and graphics pipeline.
Nuance escapes you.

[Ppo]

You're a caveman. You cling onto a single value (you hope) you can measure - in a web of technical terms... Understanding which would require knowledge of CS, processor design, and graphics pipeline.
Nuance escapes you.

Cavemen did not know how to be transparent and measure TGP. I applaud NBC for this. Being transparent about all of these measurements is the first step towards a rational evaluation of a product.

[lmaongo]

LMAO: Dude wrote the exact opposite days ago
Allen Ngo and this website is a fucking joke

[i.diot]

consumers don't make their homework and manufacturers are caching in on this lazy technical illiterates .

of course manufacturers will cut corners by putting a weaker cooling system , lower power supply , weaker power electronics and just sell the brand to fanboys !


read the reviews folks !

[Andrey Konstantinov]

I find it incomprehensible that some of the commenters here apparently can't understand that one can both approve of getting rid of Max-Q/Max-P branding, and at the same time disapprove of not publishing the new metrics.

Imagine if Intel would revise their current horrible CPU naming convention - that's a good thing, right? Now imagine they would just leave it at "Core i7" without specifying the model. That's a... bad thing, right? Yet according to your logic, you can't think both things. It has to be one or the other.

Come on, think before you write.

[ZODD]

Good for you guys to correct a glaring flaw these OEM's are doing.
This is a good thing moving forward.
Thanks and this will clear up a lot of confusion on future reviews

[S.Yu]

Regardless of the wattage, the numbers here at NBC are going to dispel most of the confusion regarding component performance :)

[Elena Poskova]

I find it incomprehensible that some of the commenters here apparently can't understand that one can both approve of getting rid of Max-Q/Max-P branding, and at the same time disapprove of not publishing the new metrics.

Imagine if Intel would revise their current horrible CPU naming convention - that's a good thing, right? Now imagine they would just leave it at "Core i7" without specifying the model. That's a... bad thing, right? Yet according to your logic, you can't think both things. It has to be one or the other.

Come on, think before you write.

Fanboys exhibit group think. I think notebookcheck is doing the right thing. People deserve to know what they are buying 100%. I will not buy without knowing the details of the computer.

[vertigo]

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?

[Myst]

>Actually, abandoning Max-Q makes a lot of sense. Here are our top 3 reasons why Nvidia is finally getting rid of it
>Allen Ngo
↓
PSA | 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
>Allen Ngo

When an article that was published with a lot of confidence is criticized, the opposite article is published. This is the US Editor in Chief.

Haha, indeed. Allen flip-flops like no other. Dude needs to learn how to be sneaky, he makes a poor journalist. We can all see how little confidence he has in his opinions and articles.