• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

[AT]Nvidia silently rolls out slower MX150 for ultrabooks.

If it was named MX145 there wouldn't be a problem. Same could have been said for the RX 560 14CU.

I do wonder if the lower end MX150 can overclock the same as the regular version with proper cooling. Not that many laptop users overclock anyways...
 
VirtualLarry said:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12565/nvidia-silently-rolls-out-slower-mx150-for-ultrabooks

Remember the uproar by team green over AMD's release of lower-spec RX 560 cards, with 14CU as well as 16CU variants?

Well, NVidia just pulled the SAME shenanigans.

Same consumer-facing model number, slower performance for some. No branding differences. Gee, thanks NVidia.

Edit: Lawsuits indeed. 🙂
Click to expand...
Not really the same, as a lower 10W TDP MX150 variant is necessary for the application, whereas the RX560 lite version really isn't necessary for anything.
That said, it should be called Max-Q or something.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Still takes up two slots and provides no real noticeable benefit for the decrease in power. Still an unnecessary change, imo.
Click to expand...
Whether the product's existence is justified or not is irrelevant, the fact remains that neither chip will operate at the same performance level as their original counterpart, hence they should be named differently.

Look at it the other way around, would they keep the same name if their new product was faster than the old one by 20-25%? Or would they change the name to advertise the performance increase?
 
nvidia really had a very simple way to fix this in its naming conventions: use "Ti" for full-fat versions of gaming chips, get rid of it for 1st cut chips, and then use "SE" or something for 2nd cut chips.
 
We all must condemn this practice and make it unacceptable in the industry. These clock differences are beyond even the Max-Q chips. The full speed MX150 already hits low settings in a number of titles. This heavily down-clocked version will miss minimum requirements in those games and it is misleading to have it with the same name. There is no consumers benefit to leaving such room for misinterpretation when a simple name change would lead to clarity.
 
It was wrong when AMD did it then, it's wrong when Nvidia does it now.

The sad thing is that Nvidia was finally doing the right thing with other mobile part numbers, ending the practice of misleading -m numbers like "680m" that was really a 670 or worse and so on. Two steps forward, now a step back.
 
VirtualLarry said:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12565/nvidia-silently-rolls-out-slower-mx150-for-ultrabooks

Remember the uproar by team green over AMD's release of lower-spec RX 560 cards, with 14CU as well as 16CU variants?

Well, NVidia just pulled the SAME shenanigans.

Same consumer-facing model number, slower performance for some. No branding differences. Gee, thanks NVidia.

Edit: Lawsuits indeed. 🙂
Click to expand...

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.
 
coercitiv said:
Whether the product's existence is justified or not is irrelevant, the fact remains that neither chip will operate at the same performance level as their original counterpart, hence they should be named differently.

Look at it the other way around, would they keep the same name if their new product was faster than the old one by 20-25%? Or would they change the name to advertise the performance increase?
Click to expand...

Well, I said it should have a different name...not sure how you missed that?
 
tajoh111 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Pretty tortured logic to defend a literal bait-and-switch. It's bad when any company does something like this. Possibly illegal.
 
"The average consumer cannot reasonably be expected to look at “GT 1030 2GB OC LPD4” and understand that is 55% slower than “GT 1030 2GB OC LPG5.” That is completely ludicrous, and nVidia, for a company so righteous on making “choices clearer for gamers,” sure seems to be obscuring this one. "
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top