Opinion: Nvidia's Max-Q is a maximum rip-off

[Redaktion]

With the launch of Max-Q, Nvidia has officially started selling a GPU somewhere between the Xbox 1 X and a GTX 1070 for US$1200. This is not okay.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Opinion-Nvidia-s-Max-Q-is-a-maximum-rip-off.232038.0.html

[Mr. Fox]

Great work on this article. I agree... I is NOT OK. Max-Q is a scam by the master scammers. Just another gimmick for the Green Goblin to make money selling garbage for crippled trashbooks. Why anyone would pay big bucks for an emasculated piece of trash is a mystery, but you know that uninformed kiddos will be lined up to get their share of this filth.

[Imglidinhere]

Great work on this article. I agree... I is NOT OK. Max-Q is a scam by the master scammers. Just another gimmick for the Green Goblin to make money selling garbage for crippled trashbooks. Why anyone would pay big bucks for an emasculated piece of trash is a mystery, but you know that uninformed kiddos will be lined up to get their share of this filth.

Wait wait wait... so... if I buy a laptop with a Max-Q GPU, say for instance (and assuming a lot here, but staying positive) I grab a future 1060 Max-Q and it's got the same raw performance as a GTX 980M... but at half the power draw and, likely, thermal output. How is that a loss? You keep most of your performance (Mind you that the difference between a 1080 and a 1070 is around 25%, so you don't lose much really) and you maintain the same thermals in a form factor that's easier to move around. Why is it a bad thing to want a slimmer PC?

Also you insinuate that a slim PC means it's poorly built. I'd honestly like to see that argument presented toward Clevo and any of their designs. But in all reality, the difference between a good and bad notebook tends to be exceedingly obvious, most bad notebooks are built to LOOK flashy, and perform poorly. It's why Clevo has such a good overall reputation. It's why the Dell Precision line has such a high acceptance rating too. They're blocky, kind of unattractive, but they're build for functionality, not form and it shows how much more powerful of a PC you can have when you build it right.

So while points of your argument are correct, the other points are extremely not so. I fail to see how this is a scam. They have a completely different name, "Max-Q" is kinda hard to miss tacked onto the end of the GPU's title, the machines are openly advertised as being thinner while using this newer version of that card, etc... they don't leave ANYTHING out. So... clearly you've never been scammed before, otherwise you'd know this is anything BUT a scam.

[don_svetlio]

Fantastic article. Love the detail and yes, Max-Q feels like a cheap sales tactic. Sadly, when there is no push back from the masses, Nvidia and other companies get bold enough to force such things down people's throats. Next generation, everything will likely be back to Max-Q "M" cards.

[Woof]

I'm sitting here, thinking "A rant? By Notebookcheck? Weird..."
Needless to say, Max-Q is indeed so bad that this rant is 110% justified.
An excellently written article by the way! I support it 100%

[QEXdu35dv]

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.

[Klaus Hinum]

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.

[D2ultima]

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.

[iunlock]

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. 

[Law]

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.

[Mr. Fox]

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.

[Legion343]

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...

[ClippyCasual]

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.

[D2ultima]

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.

[ClippyCasual]

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.