Acer Aspire 5740G Owners Lounge

Hmm .... I wanna try the whole full speed fan always on thing here and see how much diff will it make on my temps ... I can't complain about my temps anyway but the less the better ... but are u sure you are not degrading the fan lifetime ???

 

A guy earlier in this thread gave me great words of wisdom:

"Think of it in the long run. Running a fan at max rpm might wear out the fan more quickly than normal, but fans are cheap to replace. CPUs and GPUs are not."

Better having to replace the fan after a couple of years than replace the GPU after a couple of years. And not just that, the extra heat that doesn't dissipate when running the fan at lower speeds will also cause wear on the circuit board in general. Running max fan might increase laptop motherboard/CPU/GPU life by much more than the value of the fan itself.

I don't always run with max fan, but when I do, I drink Dos Equis.

 

Using Catalyst 11.6.
ROFL: 1859 points o.c. (675/995) (720p)... Due to worse CPU? 500 points of difference?!

670/900: as expected: http://screencast.com/t/Whqdu1EEr1h

@*Yawn*..God?:
Thanks for the link. Looks like my problem with BC2 is common and will never be solved

 

I have to admit ... interesting way of thinking ... what do u use to run the fan at full speed I use R/W Everything and I know the fan values in the bios table and set them that way ... is there any easier way or thats it ????

 

RW Everything is also the program I use, and all in all it's pretty easy to use.

A problem regarding my comp has appeared though.

The VGA and the OS are crashing more often than I would like because of...underclocking. I manually underclocked 100/150 for web browsing, and during a YouTube video it OS crashed/bluescreened on me. Some time later, after using overclocking, I selected "Restore Default Clocks" in AMD GPU clock tool, and opened a YouTube video. The hz of the GPU didn't rise fast enough from the lowest system controlled setting, 100/150, and the VGA crashed, but no bluescreen, and afterward recovered. Is anyone else crashing like this, because of underclocking and not enough GPU power?

 

I've also encountered similar behaviour. In my case it was AMD Gpu clock tool which was causing troubles. Closing the app after changing clocks solved the problem.

 

Thanks for clearing that out. Might try replace HDD if everything else fails. Downloading FFXIV benchmark ATM.

Update: 1535 points?! Really? Am I allowed to rage now?

Update 2: Wow, just wow. This time with 600/900 GPU I get 1340. 1340!

 

I beg to differ. Games load to RAM from HDD. If you run out of what's stored in RAM (which you probably won't as it's constantly loading) you will not experience lower fps- it will just stall for at least few seconds.
We're taking about loading textures from VRAM which is capable of 24GB/s (non-OCed HD5650 @750MHz). It doesn't matter if your HDD is capable of 80MB/s like 7200rpm or 200MB/s like an SSD.

 

See? Seems like we are right that there is something wrong with our pc's... This is bad... This is really bad.

Or the benchmark is screwed.

 

FF XIV @670/900 Catalyst 11.6 (default driver settings- no changes in quality settings made)

1871

 

see the link, I have personally checked and is true:

‪Assassin's Creed Brotherhood - Intel SSD performance enhancement‬‏ - YouTube

 

"Industry's first game which takes advantage of Intel's Solid-State-Drives"

As Duke Nukem would put it: "What? There's only one of you?"

 

final fantasy bench:
ati catalyst 11.7 modd. CCC options default.

ati hd 5650 max o.c 750/1080- core i5 460m o.c 3.594 mhz 2321points.
ati hd 5650 o.c 660/1080- core i5 460m no o.c 2.082 points.
ati hd 5650 o.c 650/900- core i5 460m no o.c 1952 points

core i5 430m vs core i5 460m default, only 81 point less...lol

 

And I still have 1300/1500 points, still no clue what is wrong or how to fix it. At least if I knew where the problem is... Only possible solution I can think of is fresh windows install. That or my hardware is mailfunctioning...

 

I don't see a problem- myself, starsay and Sir Ferdek have broadly similar scores if you compare slightly different CPUs and GPU clocks.

downloads' Core i5 430 & 5650 @670/900 - 1871
starsay's Core i5 460 & 5650 @650/900- 1952
Sir Ferdek's Core i3 350 & 5650 @670/900- 1796

No issue here.

TheThomas- you made the test @600/900 which rendered lower score.
I'm going to download it again and re-test @600/900. I expect to see similar score.

EDIT: LOL That- I didn't expect. I run it again @600/900 and rendered 1734

@TheThomas. Make sure that your drivers are up to date, Windows is up to date, no AV nor firewall is working/interfering and that you are not in power-saving mode nor you CPU is limited to anything less than 100% in advanced power settings of a power profile you are using. BTW what CPU is it?

@all

May I suggest we cross-check it all by running another benchmark like Resident Evil 5 all of us at the same frequency?
TheThomas is 600/900 your max OC? I can't get my memory above 900Mhz without artifacts so we're gonna have to stick to this but what's the lowest core clock (that we'll all have to use)?
Unless of course you don't feel like benchmarking

 

downloads: I have Core i5 430m, limit is set default to 100%, running on Max Performance, plugged in, drivers updated however I installed SP1 for W7 just now. Will try disabling AV/firewall.

OC: Highest I tried was 670/950 with no artifacts.

Downloading RE5 benchmark...

 

Strange - I've just scored 1710 on 600/900. It's approx. 400 points better than TheThomas. Just like Downloads...

@TheThomas
Try to restore factory defaults in CCC.

Are you sure this benchmark runs on ATI? I have slow internet connection (256kb/s) and downloading 550MB of useless crap would be silly
ETA: 5 hours

 

OK- so let's stick to 670/900 OC as this is the highest set of values we can all achieve.
Keep the default "high" benchmark settings and run it in DX10 mode.
The only setting to be changed is the resolution- make it 1360x768.

@Sir Ferdek

I'm sure it runs on ATI.

EDIT: My score 63.6 fps Second run 63.3fps

The score will differ slightly each time you run it because it's not heavily scripted and each time the fight looks a bit different but that only adds to realism as AI is being calculated as you go which is exactly what happens in real game.

 

Variable: 50.7 / 51.0 fps (lowest around 25 and highest 70)
Fixed: 31.1 / 31.3 fps

 

It's either CPU or GPU affecting the score. Why don't you run a CPU benchmark of your choosing and I'll run the same one?
If we end up with different scores even though we have the same CPU it will be pretty clear. If we end up having the same scores on CPU alone but different gaming scores that would suggest a GPU issue.

 

OK, here are my test result:

System: 5740G - i5-430m, 5650 and 5400 rpm HDD. Win 7 Ultimate SP1 x64, Catayst 11.6, all default but telessation - AMD Optimized ( I forget to turn it off)

FF XIV 720p - 550/750 - Score - 1102, Load Time - 43474 - 72c
FF XIV 720p - 670/900 - Score - 1298, Load Time - 25388 - 73c
FF XIV 720p - 720/950 - Score - 1376, Load Time - 27623 - 74c

RE5 Benchmark
DX10 - 550/750 - 52 fps
DX10 - 670/900 - 63,4 fps
DX10 - 720/950 - 68 fps

 

i5-520m no overclock, 675/900 overclock. Ya, I know it's supposed to be 670/900 to keep it scientific, but w/e.

FF XIV.

Miqo'te. First test, 1956. Second test, 1966.

Hyru female. First test, 1950.

Since I CBA to run more tests, average is 1957 for FF XIV. Seems pretty consistent with what starsay got (starsay: ati hd 5650 o.c 650/900- core i5 460m no o.c 1952 points)

The stupid RE5 test was the most horrible test to sit though. That "African-dictator-on-a-megaphone" voice was insufferable, and having to watch 100 of the same repeated animations in the crowd was boring as sin. Horrible, truly evil.

DX9c: ~44 FPS after multiple runs. 1360X768, AAX8, motion blur on, framerate limit 60, vert sync on, fullscreen.

DX10: ~44 FPS after 1 run. 1360X768, AAX8, motion blur on, framerate limit 60, vert sync on, fullscreen. Same settings as DX9c.

Not a very demanding benchmark, but it's an older game after all.

EDIT: It's interesting how ka4o pi4a scored so low on FFXIV compared to me, and scored so much higher than I on RE5. And if I'm not mistaken, AMD optimized tessellation is default.

 

So you've not only tested with different frequency (albeit slightly different) but also with different settings for RE5

That's very useful for comparison

 

will puppy linux work on this notebook ??

will i be able to play videos properly in full 1366x768 reso without choppiness ??

if not suggest me an OS which is best to play videos in battery mode for this laptop to save power and run long ..
i tried geexbox but its giving some error and cant boot .. (used live cd) ..

 

downloads
Ummm... could you possibly recommend one?

ka4o_pi4a
Your FF XIV score is similiar maybe little lower than mine (others have quite higher numbers) and your RE5 score is 10FPS more. Weird...

Edit: On unrelated note I downloaded SP1 for W7 and now system thinks I have constant temp of 49° on my CPU core.
Edit2: Laptop doesn't seems to recognize lower temperatures than 49° however he notices higher temps. In other words it won't overheat but fan won't ever turn off unless I use RW Everything. I am wondering if that's good or bad thing.

 

@ TheThomas. I don't know. That's my real score. Up to now I don't have any problems with my playing games, but I play only FPS and Quests.

 

Why would you want the fan to turn off? And are you sure that it WON'T go any lower than 49º C? If I idle my computer, depending on the time of day, I can manage it to reach 24º C (max fan speed). I haven't opened it or cleaned the inside part of the heatsink or fan; I just vacuum the heatsink openings time and again. There's no reason you should have such high temps unless you have ridiculous amounts of bloatware. I reinstall Win7 every 6 months or so, just to keep the OS from accumulating too many errors, hidden unwanted background programs, etc.

Oh right. I forgot about the dust issue. Maybe your vents are completely clogged. If you don't want to open your comp for any reason, like warranty, use a split toothpick to clean out the gills of the vent, and lightly vacuum the dust out.

 

*Yawn*...God?
It was always like this: Fan is off until CPU hits 50° then fan kicks in and push it down to 44° then turn off and repeat. Right now CPU cores have 40° GPU 45° however CPU diod is at 55° according to SpeedFan and 49° according to Everest. And it doesn't lower. I hope it's bugged sensor and not real temp.

I already had this issue - restore OS to week ago solved it.

Edit: Well damn. I don't have restore point from before I have installed SP1.

 

Same fan and temps behaviour here. Fan is never turning off (I am dust-cleaning very often). As far as I can remember, when I bought the laptop, fan was turning off for some time.

 

The fan throttling is part of the system's power management. No surprise there.

Different programs will show different values for temperature because even if they did measure the temperature at the same time, some programs will process the data and show it faster than other programs. I.e. some programs will have a 100ms delay between measuring temp and showing it on the screen, while others might have a 1000ms delay. It's all about averages.

The Thomas and Sir Ferdek:

If you could, you should do this: Set the fan at max speed. Close all programs and let it idle for 5 minutes. It should reach around 30º C, regardless of room temperature (unless it's hotter than 30º C, which I doubt). After 5 minutes, find out at about what temperature it's idling at with max fan speed. We'll then know if something is really wrong with your comp.

Are you always running overclocked? That could be a reason for those ever-so-slightly above average temps.

 

*Yawn*...God?
Temps after few mins idling on max fan level. Normally CPU match CPU diode and they both change pretty fast ranging from 44° to 51° on idle and fan set to "auto". Now CPU feels more "static".

Sir Ferdek
Do you happen to have SP1 as well?

Update: Uninstalling SP1, will see if that helps.

Edit: Yes, Everest.

 

Can you give me a link to that same program please? Your temps are still slightly too high to be idling at max fan speed.

Edit: Sec, it's probably Everest.

Ya, it's Everest, Czech language.

 

@TheThomas
Yes, also SP1 on board.

According to the temps. I am using Real Tem 3.60. Strange thing is that it shows different temperatures for different cores (also speedfan have this issue). Minimum was 34 on first core and 42 on the second one.

Load on idle: 2,6%

EDIT:----
As I mentioned 2 times before, I have i3-330m

 

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e347/Yawn_God/Temps.jpg

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e347/Yawn_God/Temps2.jpg

Interesting to note that Everest notes a lower Core #2 temp, at 28º C, than Open Hardware Monitor, which has a lowest Core #2 temp at 29º C. Interesting, very interesting.

Not much more I can say but close more programs and try to clean out your vent better.

Unless you guys are running i3s and not i5s, which might be hotter running in normal conditions.

 

That's absolutely not true. Air is cooling agent and there is a point where only the air temperature (and CPU load) will affect CPU temperature.
This point is reached exactly when fan works at max speed- there's constant volume of air being moved through radiator so the volume of air is not a factor. The only thing that affects CPU temperature (assuming CPU is idle) is how hot the air is. So saying that it should reach 30*C regardless of ambient temperature is not true.
It will reach 30*C with certain ambient temp but if ambient temps goes up or down CPU temp will also get up or down by almost the same factor as cooling agent got hotter or cooler.

 

Uninstalled SP1 and temps are back where they were.

 

CPU temperatures should reach 30º regardless of ambient temperatures below 30º.

If not, then your cooling system isn't cooling at max capacity (which tends to be 99% of the time for air cooled systems).

Fixed.

 

That's not the case either. If you had two identical 5740Gs doing nothing with both their fans working at max speed and one laptop would be in a room with ambient temperature of 15*C and the other in a room with ambient temperature of 24*C, do you think both would end up with the same CPU temp?

 

Are you nitpicking or something?

"Should reach" is just a number it should be able to attain.

If it's 0º, or 15º or 25º, the CPU temp "should reach" at least 30º. It could go lower. It should reach at least 30º. This is what I meant.

I would have assumed what I meant was obvious. Guess not.

 

ARRGH Unbelieveable!!! You want to tell me that I have to downgrade my system or what? xD

@Downloads:
I think of upgrading my CPU. Is this one worth it? Or better try i7-720QM?
I5-560M NAJTANIEJ!!!!!!!! (1716438595) - Aukcje internetowe Allegro
IMHO the price is reasonable. (I guess you are from Poland )

@*Yawn*...God?:
Unfortunately for you Downloads is right. The lower the ambient temperature, the more heat cooling system will be able to disperse. It's just physics - bigger temp differences mean quicker energy flow.

Anyway - I think everyone understood what *Yawn*...God? wanted to say.

 

Sir Ferdek: Dunno prices in your country, polish neighbor, but that's pretty good price here. Don't know if it'll help, tho. And apparently yes - you have to downgrade.

Edit: I ran that page through translator - does he have 16 of these or what?

Edit2: Can anyone tell me please (I can't find it anywhere) - does he ships to other countries?

 

@Sir Ferdek

It's remarkably cheap. I don't know if it isn't too cheap- <strike>scam or sth.</strike>(checked the history and it looks legit) Maybe I'll buy one too- Core i5 560M for some 30€
I don't need it but I want it anyway- great upgrade. BTW Core i5 560M goes up to 3.2GHz when once core is under load and up to 2.93GHz when both are under load.

@TheThomas Yes- 16 left. I've checked this person's history and he/she sells mainly cheap CPUs. This person started with over 25 of those Core i5 560Ms- some were sold on earlier auctions and the seller got positive feedback. So these seem to be genuine and working. I'm gonna buy one

@*Yawn*...God? My intention wasn't to annoy you. It's just that I want everything to be clear. If you take a look at the main page you'll see that there are many more people reading than writing (at this very moment only 10% of people viewing NBR are registered users). That's why I always try to leave all issues solved for those who don't contribute and are not necessarily tech-savvy but browse NBR in search of a solution to their problems.

 

You are going to buy that CPU?

Is it waste to upgrade from i5-430m to 560m?

 

It depends on whether you want it or not. Just like downloads said; "I don't need it but I want it anyway". People usually upgrade their computer based on their need it or want it. I usually upgrade because I need it but recently I upgrade to eGPU because I want it. I don't play games much, only 3 to 4 hours a week (Left 4 Dead 2, Bad Company 2 & Starcraft 2). Anyway, for me, upgrading from i5-430M (2.26 GHz) to i5-560M (2.66 GHz) is not waste at all. i5-560M have a couple more advanced technologies which I will use some of 'em (well, this fall under category "I want it").

 

I have one i7-720qm OEM for selling. I buy it for my 5740G but once it reach 50 degree temp the fan start at low speed and keep it around 48-52, so I decide to sell it. If somebody wants it I can give it for 120 US Dollars. I can ship it almost anywhere.

 

Wow, my i5 460M idles at 44 to 50. Hits temps way over that (90C or so) when gaming. The more I read about the 5740G the more amazed I am I had never heard of it. There's none for sale on ebay...

 

It always depends on a benchmark but if you compare different benchmarks for Core i5 430M, Core i5 560M, Core i7 720QM and Core i7 620M you'll see that Core i5 560M is one of the fastest overall.
It barely beats Core i7 720QM in 3D Mark06 CPU score, also beats Core i7 720QM in Super Pi.
Beats Core i7 620M in WPrime and barely looses in Cinebench but again wins in 3DMark06 CPU (although again barely).

Now if you take into consideration that with TurboBoost is reaches 2.93GHz when both cores are under load and 3.2GHz when only one is under load compared to 2.53GHz in both cases for Core i5 430M and that while being almost equal in performance to Core i7 720QM it draws 10W less and- last but not least- that it costs only 30€, it seems like a good deal.

On top of that Core i5 560M is basically equal in performance to Sandy Bridge Intel Core i5 2410M. With GT540M being basically on par with HD5650 and Core i5 560M being on par with Core i5 2410M I would spend additional 30€ to bring my currently 16 month old 5740G into contention with what's being sold today.

5740G was available for a short time only. It was Acers attempt to beat others to the market so as one of fist notebooks it offered both new (at the time) Arrandale CPUs and equally new HD5650 but Acer used old chassis from 5738G.
Since Gemstone Blue series (5740G-type chassis) was to be replaced with new series, 5740G was just a temporary thing before 5820TG took over.
The thing is 5740G does have much better cooling system and was cheaper than 5820G but at the same time had a plastic chassis and lower capacity battery.

 

hello, you know if it works a Core i7-820QM on the Acer 5740G?
I suppose that this process must be very hot ...
best prices in mobile processors
http://www.aliexpress.com/store/606208?tracolog=minisite_CI
http://see.en.alibaba.com/

 

i7-720QM working with this notebook, I don't see why i7-820QM won't work. However, i7-720QM already tested & running hot in this notebook. So, quad-core is not suitable on this notebook unless you modified the heatsink.

EDIT: Q3B9 (Intel Core i7 Mobile i7-820QM) is an engineering sample processor. OEM processor (not engineering sample) is SLBLX.

 

@TheThomas

Let's use WPrime to test CPU. Run 1024M and post your time/score.

EDIT: Ignore it. Your 3DMark CPU score answers this question.