Kind of similar but not as bad because one is the result of engineering limitations in regards to power and more importantly, your still getting the full chip which means margins are the same for Nvidia.
The RX560 14CU variant is a lesser and cut down chip which cost less for AMD to produce since it is a salvage chip and retailers are selling them at the same cost as the full rx560. Meaning the only one benefitting in this situation is AMD because they are selling the price of a full chip at the price of a cut down chip.
Meanwhile in this case, the mx150 low power would likely reach the same clocks as the other mx150, but because of heat and power restraints of the design for these laptops, they have to be clocked lower. Nvidia case is like an ECU artificial limiter limiting the original design in an engine, while AMD case is like getting a cyclinder less in an engine. You can reverse one but not the other.
Both instances are wrong and mislead the consumer, and more importantly have the easiest fix in the world: a simple name change.
It should cost the same to make a 560 in 14 or 16 CU to my knowledge. Same exact chip with the same transistors. A portion is disabled for defect or performance reasons, but there's nothing saved in the manufacturing process. I'll accept any info on this if someone knows better.
And if you insist on grading the the offenses to pick a lesser evil, don't forgetthe neutered MX 150 is cheaper to make since it uses slower memory, and the OEM also can use reduced cooling components and power delivery. It's very possible these Ultra books couldn't safely over clock to normal speeds, but hopefully they can if the user docks. Also the performance difference with these downloaded MX 150s is vastly greater than a 1/8 core cut, so to the end user there's no point unless they can overclock to normal speeds.
I'll call it out every time. Consumers deserve a simple name change. For what is worth I won't measure these on a gradient and will consider them simply both misleading and unacceptable.