NVIDIA to Drop Max-Q and Max-P Differentiators in Mobile GPU Specifications

erek

erek

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
10,893
"Today, according to Notebookcheck, NVIDIA has decided to drop these naming differentiators in the products, where customers are now unable to know whatever their product uses the high-TGP or low-TGP configuration of a specific GPU SKU. From now on, laptop makers will no longer list the GPU configuration in their specifications and will just list a GPU model, without any explanation whatever it is a Max-P or a Max-Q arrangement. Originally the company did announce both types of SKUs for the 3000 series GPU based laptops. However, this change has happened recently, and now when looking at the laptop specifications, the GPU variant is not listed. Below you can check out the slide posted on Chinese social media spotted by @9550pro on Twitter, showing the differences in Max-P and Max-Q offerings. Laptop OEMs have already excluded the Max-P specification from the specification list."

https://www.techpowerup.com/277546/...-differentiators-in-mobile-gpu-specifications
 
So they will still offer different models, but there is no way to tell which one you're getting?

Basically the desktop naming, but on laptops?
 
Based on the slides, the chips in either configuration got nearly identical FPS the only thing that really changed was their power profiles, in either case, they are going to ramp up to the same place based on available thermals. So I am not really sure the differentiation really means anything anymore.
 
Weird. I would think this would be a nice differentiator worth some krone.
 
Lakados said:
Based on the slides, the chips in either configuration got nearly identical FPS the only thing that really changed was their power profiles, in either case, they are going to ramp up to the same place based on available thermals. So I am not really sure the differentiation really means anything anymore.
Click to expand...
I agree. If the performance is equal ,no real reason to use the identifier. Plus, Max-q (to me) identifies the GPU to be the lower performing version. Trying to wade through the confusion of the RTX 20 laptop series, I kind of gathered that the 2070 max-q does not perform as well as a standard 2060.

However, if there is a performance difference, it should be identified in the model with the q vs p label.
 
What so you won't know if you're getting a "Max Q" vs a "vanilla" variant of a Mobile GPU?
Don't the Max Q variant's perform significantly slower than the vanilla variants???

I remember when buying my MSI GE60, I wanted to make sure I got the GDDR5 version of the 850m vs the DDR3 version. The GDDR5 version made it perform just under the 860 while the DDR3 version was 30%+ slower
 
Rockenrooster said:
What so you won't know if you're getting a "Max Q" vs a "vanilla" variant of a Mobile GPU?
Don't the Max Q variant's perform significantly slower than the vanilla variants???

I remember when buying my MSI GE60, I wanted to make sure I got the GDDR5 version of the 850m vs the DDR3 version. The GDDR5 version made it perform just under the 860 while the DDR3 version was 30%+ slower
Click to expand...
The difference is in their low power states mostly now, there appears to be some difference on actual memory speed but the graph shows almost no measurable difference between the specs.

1611268597936.png
 
Jeebus. just FIX the naming so the customer isn't confused. Don't drop it al together. Jeebus! of course MAX-P and MAX-Q are confusing.

those labels give you very little information as to what is the distinguishing characteristic
 
Rockenrooster said:
What so you won't know if you're getting a "Max Q" vs a "vanilla" variant of a Mobile GPU?
Don't the Max Q variant's perform significantly slower than the vanilla variants???

I remember when buying my MSI GE60, I wanted to make sure I got the GDDR5 version of the 850m vs the DDR3 version. The GDDR5 version made it perform just under the 860 while the DDR3 version was 30%+ slower
Click to expand...
It's not the GPU, but the cooling solution and power delivery that determines notebook GPU performance more than anything.
Crappily cooled laptop with the higher end part could still perform worse than the lower end part that was in a better constructed laptop. Those unscrupulous notebook manufacturers were using it to mislead the consumer, or it was just confusing the consumer due to the varied actual performance that didn't follow the Max-P or Max-Q name. Getting rid of the moniker is actually better. And the lesson is, read a review before picking a laptop for gaming, instead of looking for Max-P, and you will know what you are really getting. And it's a middle finger to those shit laptop manufacturers.
 
GoodBoy said:
It's not the GPU, but the cooling solution and power delivery that determines notebook GPU performance more than anything.
Crappily cooled laptop with the higher end part could still perform worse than the lower end part that was in a better constructed laptop. Those unscrupulous notebook manufacturers were using it to mislead the consumer, or it was just confusing the consumer due to the varied actual performance that didn't follow the Max-P or Max-Q name. Getting rid of the moniker is actually better. And the lesson is, read a review before picking a laptop for gaming, instead of looking for Max-P, and you will know what you are really getting. And it's a middle finger to those shit laptop manufacturers.
Click to expand...
This is basically the process that I use for researching laptops.
None of this is new information to me, I didn't figure I had to point it out...
 
I did a lot of research before buying my current laptop and never once saw the “Max-P” term used anywhere, so seems like this differentiating term wasn’t used much anyway. As others have said, at the end of the day the GPU cooling system is what determines performance of a particular GPU model, but determining exactly what model you’ll be getting can be near impossible. I ended up with an Alienware m15 with a 90W 2070 Max-Q.
 
What happened to just putting "M" on the end of the mobile version of the GPU?
Companies obsessed with coming up with new naming schemes all the time, confusing AF.
 
Concentric said:
What happened to just putting "M" on the end of the mobile version of the GPU?
Companies obsessed with coming up with new naming schemes all the time, confusing AF.
Click to expand...
Because it’s not a different chip, the ones they place in the laptops are the same as the ones going on the cards just with different power delivery.
 
Lakados said:
Because it’s not a different chip, the ones they place in the laptops are the same as the ones going on the cards just with different power delivery.
Click to expand...
Sorry if not clear, that's exactly what I meant.
Not expecting it to be a totally different chip (if it was it should have a different model number)
 
Lakados said:
Because it’s not a different chip, the ones they place in the laptops are the same as the ones going on the cards just with different power delivery.
Click to expand...
no they're not. if they ever were at one point they aren't this gen. they are cut down versions.
so who here's happy that nvidia's pushing laptop part's out the door when they still can't manage to get desktop parts to people that want them?

 
d3athf1sh said:
no they're not. if they ever were at one point they aren't this gen. they are cut down versions.
so who here's happy that nvidia's pushing laptop part's out the door when they still can't manage to get desktop parts to people that want them?

Click to expand...

The idea of an Intel gen 11 8/16 paired with a 3070 with a 1440p 15” with g-sync actually gets me pretty hot.
 
It looks like nVidia is reverting to the old days of pushing significantly cut-down different chips with the same desktop monikors. Let's get things straight: The 3080m has only 6144 CUs and a 256-bus -- it's based on a GA104 (same chip in a desktop 3070, not the 308's GA102). It's essentially a desktop 3070 with another CU cluster unlocked. And now they're not even making it clear which are the low-power cards by eliminating the Max-Q designation.

Here's a reasonable run down of the mobile line up, albeit missing the actual chip designation s:
https://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-RTX-3080-Mobile-GPU-Benchmarks-and-Specs.497450.0.html

nVidia has no business calling the laptop 3080 a "3080", much less one with a 30% reduced power/performance envelope. Performance wise, a 3080m -- provided it has a full 150w and good cooling -- should perform around the same as a desktop 3070. A reduced-power/Max-Q version will probably perform like a desktop 3060.

Edit: My guess is nV held back on releasing a GA102 mobile card since they know AMD will outpace them in RDNA's power/performance profile, and they'll release a cut down mobile version of GA102 later this year (which they'll confusingly call "RTX 3090 mobile").

Edit 2: The Linus video above is wrong. The 3080 mobile is based on the GA104, not the GA102. And once again, I ask myself why I just wasted 10-min watching a video when I could have just read two paragraphs and a spec table?
 
Last edited:
d3athf1sh said:
no they're not. if they ever were at one point they aren't this gen. they are cut down versions.
so who here's happy that nvidia's pushing laptop part's out the door when they still can't manage to get desktop parts to people that want them?

Click to expand...


Look at the pinned first comment..
 
That's going to be confusing AF for people.

Also, I haven't seen the performance numbers, but I'd expect an 80w 3080 to perform similarly to a 115w 3070 -- and an 80w 3080 will almost certainly cost hundreds more than a 115w 3070. I think I just understood where NVIDIA is going with this... they're tuning their chips to leverage low-power as a selling feature.
 
harmattan said:
That's going to be confusing AF for people.
Click to expand...
Yep. Before, if you did a lot of research you could get some idea of the performance envelope that the mobile card you were looking at was theoretically capable of, then look at reviews for how well a specific laptop’s cooling solution allowed it perform. Now apparently all you’ll have is the reviews.
 
So we're looking at, what, 28 variations across 4 cards?

They might as well put up a sign that reads, "Wait for Mobile RDNA2, You Want an AMD CPU Anyway..."
 
Axman said:
So we're looking at, what, 28 variations across 4 cards?

They might as well put up a sign that reads, "Wait for Mobile RDNA2, You Want an AMD CPU Anyway..."
Click to expand...
The catch is Intel and NVidia are delivering products, AMD is delivering consoles and car parts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top