Why no detailed reviews on SB2?
- Thread starter Afy
- Start date
wynand32
Well-Known Member
Looks like Microsoft is now just explaining the issue as being by design. And they've worked out a whole system to manage things -- slide the performance slider to the right, you'll get full performance and battery discharge for a time before it will throttle back. Slide the performance slider to the left or middle and the system will throttle out of the gate and avoid discharging the battery. So, it's no longer being marketed as a bona fide gaming system, but rather as fine for creative apps that use the GPU because those don't tend to run the GPU full-throttle over extended periods.
Sounds like a load of crap to me. It makes no difference if it was a concious design decision, it is still a fairly serious flaw. Did they not learn from the feedback with the SP3? People do not want throttling, to the extent that they'll start hanging fans off the back of the thing just to be able to make use of its potential. Almost as bad as the nexus 10, which would only maintain charge under heavy use if the pogo charger was used, which google then decided not to manufacture and sell.
wynand32
Well-Known Member
Here's a discussion: Microsoft's Surface Book 2 has a power problem
I'm perplexed by this. I'm not sure how they could have gone through their entire engineering cycle on the machine without realizing this, and so it can't be a surprise to them. And then I don't know why they'd engineer it this way unless the thermals just aren't sufficient to handle the GTX 1060. At which point, they could have used Max Q, unless once again they just missed out. And if this was by design, then they should have been more careful in marketing the machine -- they could have specified right away that the SB2 isn't meant as a hardcore gaming system but rather as a high-end creative system.
I'm perplexed by this. I'm not sure how they could have gone through their entire engineering cycle on the machine without realizing this, and so it can't be a surprise to them. And then I don't know why they'd engineer it this way unless the thermals just aren't sufficient to handle the GTX 1060. At which point, they could have used Max Q, unless once again they just missed out. And if this was by design, then they should have been more careful in marketing the machine -- they could have specified right away that the SB2 isn't meant as a hardcore gaming system but rather as a high-end creative system.
they were never great, but it's certainly gone a bit downhill since his departure imo.starstreak
Member
I would be more ticked if they did a "Well, they don't want it drain batteries? Fine. Lower clock on the GPU".. Now the 1060 is slower. I would rather it drain if I was to game and plugged in. And just move the slider if I didn't want it to use the batteries, then for them to lower the speed of the GPU because they can't get enough power to the SB2.
wynand32
Well-Known Member
I agree, except it raises the question for me: why can't they get enough power? Is it a limitation of the Surface Connect port? I thought I saw that it can provide 120 watts, so I'm not sure about that. So I get what they're doing, and they could have also limited things to keep the machine thinner. This is essentially what Max-Q does, and why it's 15% or so slower then non-Max-Q.
Mostly it's just a weird decision that I don't understand.
Yeah, those gigantic pins on there certainly wouldn't be a limiting factor. /S
wynand32
Well-Known Member
I know you're joking, but on a serious note there is a legitimate question about how much power the Surface Connect port can carry. So it could be a limiting factor, depending on exactly what that amount is.
