*OFFICIAL* Alienware 17 R2/R3 Benchmark Thread

Do not forget that Dell has designed the new AW17 for a 180w power supply ( originally shipped with 180w power supply). Dell has messed up .. This can all see ..
Edit: Run all benchmark tests you can with your AW17R2 with the originally delivered 180w power supply, then you can tell me the truth ..

 

The Clevo scores I mentioned were achieved using a 180W PSU.

Why don't you try running those benchmarks again using a 180W PSU? If you'd thoroughly read my post, you would have realized the entire point is that the AW models require a 240W supply to match the performance of the Clevo's using a 180W.

When using the 180W PSU, AW laptops fall far behind.

To give you an idea, here's the result of my AW17 R1 using a GTX 980M

Firestrike
180w: 4952
240w: 7860

The AW17 R1 performs a little worse than other with the GTX 980M unless you flash a modded VBIOS, which I haven't done.

 

There is a BIOS update for the Alienware 17 R2 and 15 which enhances the performance when using 180W PSU.

 

Dell launched Aw17r2 with a bios and a 180w who gave a lower benchmark scores an other similar gaming laptops. Maybe it's better now but they launched a gaming laptop with not soo good benchmark results. The same as Aw17r1. The Aw17r1 had very por benchmark results in over 6 months before Dell fixed the problem. This is Dell. Tragic, this is my opinion.
A hybrid bios isn't a good solution for an 240w power supply.

 

Does this so called "hybrid BIOS" suck power from the battery to make up for the inadequate 180W power adapter Dell provided with the 980M? If so, then that is going to kill the battery in no time, and with it being non-removable this is lunacy!

Like said, the machine has been design to work with 180W power adapter, therefore getting away from it with everything working 100% ok might be impossible, unless Dell add-in full support for 240W therefore it doesn't differ from the working of the 180W model

 

Hybrid bios suck wattage from the battery under maximum load and with a 180w power supply it's also take longer time to charge the battery because off lack off power from the power supply. This is not a good situation. Msi had the same solution earlier but thei don't use this solution any more...

 

That is exactly what the hybrid BIOS does. It allows the battery to provide the extra power the 180W PSU cannot.

It still doesn't answer the question of how a Clevo running the same specs with a 180W PSU does ok, while an AW with equivalent specs and the 180W PSU performs very poorly.

Do you understand the problem here? Your AW requires a 240W PSU to perform on par with a Clevo using a 180W PSU.

 

I think Aw17 r2 have a bios with throttle power settings in bios like the Aw17r1. I can't understand other solution.. Thei use lower tdp for the hardware in the bios I think.

 

Its definitely another issue causing this. The 240watt PSU I had did not stop the cpu throttling during gaming. I really think dell just screwed up the bios. Getting them to fix this will probably never happen since they state the aw17 is within their performance spec.

 

Think they know the heatsink can only handle so much heat, hence force the CPU to throttle to allow the 980M higher TDP some leeway, where as the 970M lower TDP nothing needs to be done, as there is still room to move.

 

This wouldn't explain low Firestrike scores with the 980M, since that's mostly GPU bound.

 

High processor physics score is helping to draw up the Fire strike total score.....

 

Thought i'd share my new OC score in Firestrike.

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/4353912

 

What PSU do you have? That physics score is too low for your CPU, the 4720HQ in my razer scores about the same. You should be in the high 9000's or lower 10k's

 

What did you do exactly to get there?

 

I have a 240. I'm seeing it hit 3.9ghz during benchmark even 4 at times. I'm pretty sure that's just the physics score of these cpu's. I see no other way to get a better physics score aside from OCing the cpu.

 

I raised my core by 74 and memory by 150 on the gpu. The cpu was left untouched. These 980m cards definitely have room to work with. Mind you this benchmark was after 2 hours of gaming with the OC set in place. No crashes.

 

Which driver are you using? Did you just OC with afterburner or something?

 

Installed the latest driver which unlocks overclocking again and yes through afterburner. I'm going to play with the memory clock some more today. I should note max temps for gpu were 70c.

 

Yeasterday I had technical intervention, got frontal speakers and motherboard replaced plus the long-awaited 240w PSU.

All I can tell you about the infamous audio issue on this new AWs is that in my case it depends on defective speakers.

This is my FireStrike result:


i7 4980 + GTX980 + 240w PSU
Stock video driver (latest from nVidia should do even better)
BIOS A00

 

Thats a good stock score congrats!!

 

Thank you sir, now I'm 100% happy with my new motherboard also because I just find out that this result was obtained using Balanced power plan.

 

So your speakers sound good now? No problems? How do you find the quality now?

 

Hi everyone,
I've got my Alienware 17r2 few days ago, everything is fine so far. The only problem I've noticed is a screen light bleed in the bottom left corner. Is it something that they can fix/raplace? Or do I have to just learn to live with it? Thanks

 

Screen bleed is common/normal with IPS panels. Just like poor viewing angles are a fact of life with TN panels.

Unless it's major light bleed, it is pretty normal and you just need to live with it.

 

Check the plastic screen bezel in that area for gaps or looseness. I bet pressing or pulling the bezel(where the panel meets the bezel) back a little in that area fixes the light bleed, correct?

 

3DMark Fire Strike is no real test of your pc. Use either 3dmark11, it pushes the hardware more. Very strange that you get higher processor temperature in the combined test than in Physics test. Very strange that you get a temperature of over 80 degrees celsius in combined test .. Something is strange here .. Test also 3DMark Sky diver and post the results in the same way. 3Dmark Sky diver pushes processor even more.
Edit: Compare with my processor temperature and score in processor physics test. See also the temperature of the combined test is much lower than physics test .. The processor has approximately 60 degrees Celsius in combined test. This is 10 degrees lower than in physics test. Which is more normal ..

 

Another Firestrike score worth posting with the only changes made being an extra 50 to memory clock. Now sitting at +74 core and +200 memory.

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/6300289?

 

Are your temperatures fine now?

Is the throttling sorted out for the most part?

 

Well man looking at the log... I don't see any throttling at all. My GPU temp maxes at 70c even with the OC... and the CPU maxed out at 85c. Im seeing clock speeds between 3.6 and 4. Usually sitting at 3.9 unless more than one core is active then it drops, which is normal. So honestly I think I'm where I need to be.

 

run a very demanding game, like crysis 3 or dragon age inquisition. let sit for 15 minutes, and check the log. If you aren't throttling, you are one of the very lucky few! The throttling in the AW17 R2 is not from heat, so temps shouldn't play a role

 

Here's same OC config running Skydiver:
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/6300931?

I don't have crysis 3 but I do have Far Cry 4 if that's good enough. I can run that but I'm not sure the best program to log cpu clock any suggestions?

 

Well who else besides HaloGod had throttling during gaming?
Seems like you are one of the unlucky few.

 

After your question I spent 2 hours comparing audio between my Asus G73JH and the AW17R2, I must say that speakers are the worst hardware component on this laptop, the bass from the Klipsch sub are pretty decent but trebles aren't enough clear in my opinion. Talking about the sound card trust me if I say that you can hear the difference between a Realtek and a Sound Blaster when you plug-in an audiophile headset like the Audio Technica ATH-M50x, the first thing you will notice is the amplification, volume 40 is ok for listening to music on the Realtek, on the Sound Blaster volume 40 with headset on will blow your ears.

This is my Sky Diver:


i7 4980 + GTX980 + 240w PSU
Stock video driver
BIOS A00

 

What I find strange is when I had the 17R2, I compared the speakers to my G73SW with a few different songs and I found the 17R2 sounded better. Once I EQ'd it, I was VERY pleased with the sound compared to my G73SW.

I broke my ATH-M50X headphones a while ago so I never had the chance to test those. I used the sony ones I had, forgot what model they were, I didn't listen long enough to give a full comparison. I tend to not use headphones too much unless I'm recording music, but then I plug my headphones into my DI box.

 

Ok guys I'm curious how far you can safely push these 980m cards. However I will not be the one to push it to the limits! After all the issues with my last laptop I just don't want to risk anything with this one. I am sitting at +74 core and +200 mem... has anyone else found a higher stable clock?

 

+135 core, +270 mem was the highest I tried when I had my R2, it was stable, temps were no higher. Some people have pushed their 980Ms pretty hard, so I wouldn't worry about it if you dial it up slowly

 

Hmm so this is something that could be fixed with a Bios update then? Or are these CPU's just not all that great? I'm thinking they are capable of better. Hate to finally have an amazing GPU with a mediocre CPU.

 

I don't think anyone can fix this but Intel . These manufacturers won't ever care to update the bios for this issue anyway so even a statement or fix from Intel won't matter . The newer version 4720hq in my razer blade throttles much less. Cookies , a member here on the forum , believes Intel could have made some changes to the new revision. I'm still throttling from tdp limitations though so it's all HQ processors that exhibit this behavior. If you want to avoid this issue all together , get an MQ cpu. They are much harder to come by now since most manufacturers are going all soldered on us

 

I'm gonna see what happens with me when I get my AW17R2, if it throttles I'll spend some time questioning and reminding regarding this. Because there is no need of that kind of aggressive throttling, maybe just an over-reaction from their previous generation?

 

Possibly , or the fact that these are soldered onto manufacturers boards now so they take more caution ? No clue , but it's extremely annoying . I haven't notice any performance hits from this but there are a few games out there that can benefit from the extra 800 MHz per core. I wish we could unlock the multi of these CPUs and set the minimum core clock to a specific speed and just ditch turbo

 

Have you tried ThrottleStop? Does it do anything for you?

 

When I had my Alienware 17? Yes I did try it and it didn't work .

 

Arma 3 and Dayz are two games I play that would do well with the extra clock speed... especially DayZ with how poorly optimized it is in its current state.

 

What I would think is the MQ processors, the manufacturer has to built the motherboard to spec in order to withstand and take all the MQ processors up-to the high-end one with extra clock speed and cache.
With HQ, the manufacturer has to built the motherboard to spec just that one processor. Point being, the motherboard VRM is already maxed out and fitted just enough components to handle that particular BGA processor.

IPS screen bleeding and slow response time is just inherent technology of IPS. e.g. Even my high-end Dell U3014 (even though desktop monitor) has some screen bleeding, although I was lucky compared to some other people that brought theirs earlier during the first few revisions.

 

The only difference between mq and HQ is how the processor is soldered onto the motherboard.

Since all HQ processors use the same socket type BGA1364, they all have the same requirements.

Its the socket type that defines the motherboard requirement not whether or not its soldered.

---

Also there is no motherboard VRM for Haswell. It's built into the CPU chip itself. Stupid decision...

 

And this is my 3DMark 11:

Preset: Performance
Run: Full 3DMark 11 Experience

i7 4980 + GTX980 + 240w PSU
Stock video driver
BIOS A00

The result seems good to me, pretty aligned with G751's benchs posted by Ramzay.

 

I think the problem is multi-faceted really.

1. Haswell is just a meh processor from a performance point of view. That's not to say its a bad processor just that I fully believe Intel can do so much better. To understand why you have to understand that competition breeds innovation.

In the low-mid end space Intel has a lot of competition. AMDs APUs are pretty dam good and ARM is destroying Intel in everything but performance. So Intel is going to dedicate most of their resources to combating that. In the mid-high end processor marketplace there's absolutely zero competition. Intel utterly completely 100%edly dominates. AMDs last real chance imo was bulldozer and while that wasn't a bad CPU by any means it simply wasn't close to the i7s of that time. Since then the gap has gotten even bigger and Intel's monetary resources have gotten even larger to the point that I really don't believe AMD will ever be able to catch up so Intel essentially has the market to themselves. I mean AMD makes both CPUs and GPUs and Intels revenue last year was ELEVEN times greater (5 billion vs 55 billion) and their profits were 22x greater (-500 million vs 11 billion).

Intels focus from now on is going to be low power, thin and light computing. That doesn't mean that we won't see any high performance chips from them just that the performance gap between chips will be a lot less than Intel is capable of doing. I mean look at it. Haswell is more focused on saving power, not on performance. Broadwell is definitely more focused on power consumption not on performance. Skylake is probably going to be around the same considering that it's the tock (the best thing about skylake is that intel is removing the integrated voltage regulator...thank you).

2. TDP. I've said it before, a billion other people have said it before and I'm going to say it again. Dear Intel, Please Please Please stop ****ing using your ******** version of TDP. You see originally AMD measured their TDP at essentially maximum performance of the CPU. Intel, however, decides it based on a performance benchmark that they created. So TDP never really tells you how much power is being drawn when the CPU is operating under its maximum load. Just how much power will be drawn using a benchmark that intel uses. Since manufacturers are going to follow the specs that Intel sends them, they're going to build their cooling systems under the TDP. As you and everyone else on this forum has already seen, the TDP for these chips is just not a realistic amount. It needs to be higher...but then making it higher makes Intel look bad. Everyone knew Intel was struggling to meet it's TDP goals with Haswell and I'm almost positive this is the result of that.

3. Voltage. This really isn't something you can fault Intel for because the alternative would cost them a fortune. But basically every single CPU is different. You could pick up 2 4980HQs and they will be different. Each one will actually need slightly less voltage than it's rated for. The reason for this is when Intel makes the CPU they choose a high enough voltage to ensure that every CPU they make will be stable. If its too low then some chips will be unstable and lead to bluescreens, if its too high then the chip runs significantly hotter. Now this is something you can fix by undervolting your CPU. It's relatively safe and you can make your computer run quite a bit cooler (often 8-10C cooler) all while maintaining the same performance and clock speeds. The only downside is the time you have to spend to ensure that the voltage you selected will be stable. Often you'll also be able to undervolt and overclock the CPU all while maintaining the same temperatures but get better performance. Now why is this important? Because it leads to my next point...

4. Heat. Haswells biggest ****ing enemy is Ivy Bridges biggest ****ing enemy. Heat heat heat heat heat. Ivy Bridge (the tick) ran hot. Haswell (the tock) runs just as hot because it was created off the same manufacturing process (22nm finFET) all while shoving 200 million more transistors into the chip. Heat leads to thermal throttling. But even more so was Intels stupid ass decision to remove the voltage regulator from the board and instead integrate it into the CPU chip itself. WHY? Voltage regulators generate extra heat...by integrating them you've essentially made the chip run hotter than it needs to. It was a stupid ass decision all in the name of efficiency but instead you ended up with chips that have far far more aggressive thermal throttling to protect their delicate internals. Thank ****ing god Intel got to their senses and decided to return to their original design and remove the internal voltage regulator with Skylake.

 

How much is cranking up the gpu going to effect the cpu? I know the processor has to work harder as well but will overclocking the gpu cause more throttling for the cpu?

 

I got impatient and wanted to push things further. I have both a new Firestrike and 3dMark 11 score I'd like to share with you guys!

Firestrike:
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/6331188?

3D Mark:
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/9592604

I have to be honest.. I have absolutely no idea how the 980m runs so cool... even when overclocked.