Max-Q goes to work. MSI's updated WS63VR 7RL brings Nvidia's new Max-Q design to the GPU giant's Quadro line. How well does the Max-Q philosophy benefit a powerful professional-grade graphics card, especially with regards to heat and power management?
https://www.notebookcheck.net/MSI-WS63VR-i7-7700HQ-4K-Quadro-P4000-Max-Q-Laptop-Review.248306.0.html
Your description of the PenTile (RG/BW) not-true-4K display is OK. Here's what I'd change:
- Start out by calling out the PenTile issue. It fundamentally affects what the resolution spec means, so I would say it should go in the overview and as part of the introduction to the display section. I would also put it in the display description as it appears in comparisons with other laptops' displays -- perhaps call it "3840RG(BW)x2160" not "3840x2160". I would try not to treat it as normal 4K at first only to somewhat rectify the misnomer further into the details.
- Call it "RG/BW" not "RGBW". The term "RGBW" can be misleading because it can be interpreted as if all four components were in each denoted pixel, which isn't the case. "RG-BW" and "RG(BW)" are also OK.
- Don't tout the "advantages" of PenTile without putting them into context. The manufacturing cost, power draw, and sharpness are all lower than true-3840x2160, but the same is the case for "lower resolution" true-resolution displays such as "3K" 2880x1620, which demand less from the GPU and aren't as "bad" when software scaling fails. Sharp IGZO true-3840x2160 displays also have lower power draw due to their smaller transistors blocking out less of the backlight. There are no "advantages" to PenTile displays that aren't solved better by other, non-PenTile displays.
- Don't dismiss PenTile because it's "not very noticeable". Some find it easily noticeable. I do. In particular, it can mean that using 150% scaling to achieve a 2560x1440-sized workspace on not-true-3840x2160 won't look as good as using 125% to achieve a workspace the same size on a true-3200x1800 display. Or 250% scaling on the former vs 200% scaling on the latter, for a similarly-sized workspace. For those who won't notice, then again I would say a "lower resolution" true-resolution display would be more welcome.
You're already better at calling out this issue than some review sites. But I think your classification and descriptions of the issue still can be improved.
This should be a lot cheaper. Like, $1,400 at most. Not $3,400.
MSI never care about battery life. Lucky i use Acer Predator 17 , it's upto 8 hours battery life.
I am considering this laptop as Battery life and screen etc.. none of that matter to me. All I want is a thin light professional laptop it will always be plugged in. Here is my dilemma, I do 3d modeling Cadd etc.. so I want this machine with the Quaddro. However I am also doing a lot of VR which I want to be able to take on the road with this. Am I better off with this or the GS with the 1070? How good will this be for VR? Everything I read is the P4000 is "entry level" VR whatever that means? I have a 1070 in my desktop so I know that works but am concerned about the heat and inconsistency that will have for everything else I do.
@Derek:
I'd advise against the current MSI GS series. Their build quality is cheap and maintenance is a hassle. Instead, you should look into Clevo P950HR with GTX1070 Max-Q. You can find thorough reviews and user experience here at NBC and more over at Notebookreview Forums.
For the GPU, 1070M all the way because from my personal experience, laptop 1060 struggles quite a lot when it comes to handling VR, which is why I guess they list it as a "minimum required" hardware spec. As for a Quadro card, you don't one unless your line of work absolutely insist that you use non-gaming graphics.