m17x r3 and 680m - inf file issues

Hullos,

I thought I'd put this out there, just in case anyone knows how to modify the inf files.

I successfully installed a 680m. Successfully - in that the hardware is in, integrated disabled and the 680m is still showing a display.

In safe mode, I removed the Nvidia drivers I had previously. I removed too the Intel graphics drivers - both with Display Driver Uninstaller.

Rebooted and it was now showing as a "Standard VGA Adapater".

I've a selection of Nvidia drivers (including the latest) and after trying the latest just in case (which didn't work of course) - tried modifying and downloading modified inf files that would match my setup.

Tried disabling driver signing too but that didn't help either..

Nothing works so far - after a couple of hours of trying, my head hurts


This pic shows the hardware ids - I've tried matching those with entries in nvdmi (and other ini files just in case) but no luck when trying to install drivers.

I'm doing something wrong but I can't seem to work out what. Even tried downloading pre-modified older drivers but no luck there either.

Any help getting what must be such a common problem sorted would be a great relief.

 

just use @j95's drivers from tech inferno
https://www.techinferno.com/index.p...t-upgrades-driver-support-modded-inf/&page=50

 

I'll try downloading that inf file. I did find j95's older ones elsewhere but not the latest. I'm not a member so had to sign up. Still waiting for the email.

*fingers crossed*

 

Won't let me download - I'm guessing that's because I'm too much of a new user having only just registered.

 

you can subscribe & get downloads or after so many posts it is worth it as they also have svl7's unlocked bios & vbios for 680m witch is well worth it (i used that vbios while i had my 680m) along with @j95's drivers

 

Your screenshot looks like Win7?

That hardware ID 8086 is for the HD graphics, not the GTX 680M which is 11A0.

I think this is your problem with modifying nvdmi.inf file.

I have attached a modified inf file for 365.19 drivers.


Here is a link to the drivers on nvidia's site.
http://www.geforce.com/drivers/results/102381

 

I believe you need to register or register and have like 5 posts to be able to.

 

Jay, LP - I've enjoyed mostly browsing and sometimes posting here checking out stuff so I'll do that at TI too I guess and eventually get there by having the required number of posts etc.

Yup, I'm running Win 7, 64 bit.

Somehow, during this install process - I may have gone too far perhaps. For sure, seeing every inf file mod reference 11A0 as the 680m and in mine seeing 8086 made me think something doesn't seem quite right.

When I made PEG the primary and disabled the IGE, I'd also disabled 'special features' under advanced>video. I assumed I didn't need that as it was for switching graphics which of course was not going to happen.

However, something must have screwed up doing that perhaps as by the time I got to windows, standard vga was reporting the IDs in the image above.

So I went into the bios and on the first page it was showing Intel Sandy Bridge... and nothing for discrete. Worried, I went to advanced and enabled special features under video again. PEG was still set to primary and IGE was still disabled. Rebooted, went back into the bios and on the first page, it was just Nvidia GFX and no Intel Sandy Bridge... a relief.

By the time I got back into Win7 - this time the standard VGA adapter has the correct ID of 11A0 so I'll try installing drivers again with the modified infs and see what happens.

I have modified infs for 368.22 but I've downloaded yours for the older driver and if I have no luck with 368.22 - I'll try 365.19

Thanks for the tips and help

 

A good nights sleep can help, along with the very helpful denizens of notebookreview - for which I'm grateful.

So far - better. Much better. With the modified inf files for 368.22, I managed to install the drivers and now the 680m is showing up correctly after a reboot in Win7.

Stock temps in Windows is 53-54 (just idling, browsing) according to MSI afterburner. Will try a run through Heaven 4 and see what happens...

 

So it works great so far. I prefer longevity over overclock and whilst I may be curious - I want to be sure things are stable before testing for even curiosity's sake Temps stayed 63-65 during the entire 26 scenes of the benchmark. That must be good I guess. Having run it on the 580m many times, the numbers are an improvement of course but visually is where I can subjectively see it's way quicker than before.

Thanks to everyone here for their help and input, including Robbo99999 and to MickyD1234 / 822080zx via PMs - you guys are awesome!

Unigine Heaven Benchmark 4.0
FPS:
27.0
Score:
681
Min FPS:
10.4
Max FPS:
63.5

System
Platform:
Windows 7 (build 7601, Service Pack 1) 64bit
CPU model:
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2760QM CPU @ 2.40GHz (2392MHz) x4
GPU model:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M 10.18.13.6822 (2048MB) x1

Settings
Render:
Direct3D11
Mode:
1920x1080 4xAA fullscreen
Preset
Custom
Quality
Ultra
Tessellation:
Extreme

 

Glad you got it sorted! Thanks for reporting back on your progress. Many leave us hanging.

Sent from my overpriced Galaxy S6 Edge +

 

Haha too true, so frustrating when you spend effort to get someone up and running only for them to 'up and run' without responding anymore.

 

No problem - the least I can do after all the help

I have to go out (PST time here) for errands but ran a quick jaunt through Lord of the Rings Online.

Using afterburner to monitor clock, gpu temp and framerate at 1920x1080 res with very high settings (a couple on medium) and DX11, I was seeing temps staying around 63 and clock at 758. Sometimes the clock dipped between loading screens but that's understandable as it's not being worked then.

Will report more solidly as I do more

 

Just for reference, I'd posted here the scores at stock settings of the 680m but with ultra extreme tes from H4.

Didn't post the last run through from the old 580m. Here it is just for reference (and the 680m again for easy comparison):

580m

Unigine Heaven Benchmark 4.0
FPS:
16.3
Score:
412
Min FPS:
5.6
Max FPS:
38.3

System
Platform:
Windows 7 (build 7601, Service Pack 1) 64bit
CPU model:
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2760QM CPU @ 2.40GHz (2392MHz) x4
GPU model:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M 9.18.13.1422 (2047MB) x1

Settings
Render:
Direct3D11
Mode:
1920x1080 4xAA fullscreen
Preset
Custom
Quality
Ultra
Tessellation:
Extreme

680m

Unigine Heaven Benchmark 4.0
FPS:
27.0
Score:
681
Min FPS:
10.4
Max FPS:
63.5

System
Platform:
Windows 7 (build 7601, Service Pack 1) 64bit
CPU model:
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2760QM CPU @ 2.40GHz (2392MHz) x4
GPU model:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M 10.18.13.6822 (2048MB) x1

Settings
Render:
Direct3D11
Mode:
1920x1080 4xAA fullscreen
Preset
Custom
Quality
Ultra
Tessellation:
Extreme

 

Well, from your temps I think we can safely say a good pad/paste job

Edit: just saw the latest numbers - that's better than 50% increase (I think ).

 

just incase it might be worth you changing from MSI afterburner to HWinfo64 & Nvidia inspector you can still use RTSS with HWinfo64 for on screen display.
To try and with the whole screen killing issue. I know its mostly win 10 but better safe than sorry right?

 

I didn't realise that there was a screen killing issue. Hmm. If that's the case, I'll do that then - remove MSI and install HWinfo64.

 

I believe that was EVGA Precision X that was killing screens, correct?

 

Yes, I believe it was EVGA precision x mainly but in the thread below Prema & another user mention MSI afterburner bricking screens as well
https://www.techinferno.com/index.p...d-due-to-nvidia-evga-precision-x-help/&page=1

I used to use afterburner untill I saw that thread but have stayed away from it since

Further info:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...-1-and-especially-10-bricking-systems.781467/

http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...illing-alienware-and-clevo-lcd-panels.779449/

For a frame rate counter open RTSS and on global
set application detection level to low
enable show own statistics
unfortunately this will always be underneath the HWinfo64 settings

in HWinfo64
under configure settings (from the sensors page click the cog)
go to the OSD (RTSS) tab
click on an entry you want to display tick the the show in OSD box
set the position line & column settings like how you want (imagine it like rows & columns in excel)

 

Thanks Jay - I've configured them so for the things I'm interested in. Just downloading a couple of benchmarks. The ubiquitous 3dmark and also the catzilla one - that seems interesting.

 

That reminds me - if there's any other relevant benchmarks (game or otherwise) for anyone interested, I can run those too. If I need to purchase the game and I don't have it, that I can't do of course.

 

yeah catzilla's pretty ran I've only ever used it on the desktop you should post your scores id really like to see them

i always used to benchmark on skydiver with 3dmark i personally i always had issues with firestrike & the 680m but they are plenty of people who didn't

my best runs with the gtx680m

gtx680m & i7 3460qm firestike 5186
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/5464701

gtx680m & i7 3460qm 17003
http://www.3dmark.com/sd/3196388

its killing me i cant find any tomb raider bench mark screen shots with the settings i used
also that i sold my 680m ocing that card was fun

 

Downloads are ongoing

I'll try to run those and post results.

In the meantime, as a real blast from the way and distant past - here's something for the chuckles. I remember running this when I first got my Diamond Monster 3D Voodoo 1 and thinking "Wow...."



edit: I'm just a bit teary eyed that it's "only" nearly 8 times faster than an s3 virge. For shame

 

Tried Firestrike and Sky Diver so far.

No overclocking yet so scores were:

680m and 2760qm

Firestrike: 4126
Sky Diver: 12579

I'll try this Catzilla now - but also, if you mean the revamped Tomb Raider released (on Steam's date) 4 Mar 2013, then I have that one if I can help with some comparisons. Never got round to playing it but this would give me an excuse.

 

yeah its an awesome game unfortunately i cant find my bench mark scores & settings for it to do a comparison

ill see if i have a stock benchmark for skydiver the one i posted was heavily overclocked

 

That would be cool to see, to compare against the older generation cpu.

Ran the free 720p Catzilla too - this was the result:

 

GTX 680m
Stock clocks are:
GPU: 720 MHz
VRam: 3600 MHz (900)

Skydiver:

my stock run:
14180
http://www.3dmark.com/sd/3147533

my best OC'd run (svl7 vbios)
17003 (+2823)
GPU: 1010 MHz (+290)
Vram: 4416 MHz (1,104) (+204)

Also my worst 980m run is less then a few of my 680m runs

GTX 980m
16119 (-884 from best 680m score)
http://www.3dmark.com/sd/3306510
GPU: 1038 MHz
VRam: 5012 Mhz (1,253)

the 980m was on a stock clocks & vbios but still i expected to beat my oc'd 680m
it beats it now with stock clocks & modded vbios + 330w psu


Firestrike:

unfortunately no stock run

my best oc'd run
5186 (+429)
GPU: 961 MHz (+241)
VRam: 4416 Mhz (1,104) (+204)
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/5464701

I could never get firestrike to even run on any higher clocks than this but i don't like playing to much with the voltage slider

also i would of been on older drivers & we know how good nvidia drivers are for their older products

 

That's not bad at all and kinda in line with what I'd expect from a generational gap.

The surprising thing is that a chip that is 3 series newer can't beat an old OC'ed chip without some effort. That must show how well this 680m overclocks and backs up what everyone seems to say about it eh. Btw - it said 'result not found' for that 980m link.

One question though - on your stock Firestrike run, futuremark lists the clock and memory clock as slightly higher than stock. Does it not record them well?

Also - although Skydiver and Firestrike gave me a result, the page says it was invalid because of a timer thing or something for both. Couldn't be 'verified' or something. I wasn't sure what it was on about.

Anyway, onwards and upwards

 

My apologies i thought it was a stock as they were the only two firestrike benchmarks for the 680m i have run should of checked it more thoroughly ill amend my post.

yeah the GTX 680m overclocks great, the 980m link should work now, i think it must be one were i was having throttling issues i can get a swing of about 6000 ish points just it having days were it throttles & days its fine so I've not even bothered oc'ing the 980m

here is one of the 980m preforming well but theirs something wrong with the reported core clock
22548
GPU "650 MHz" but i don't believe it
vRam 5012 (1,253) MHz
http://www.3dmark.com/sd/4030211

also on a good day the 980m will pass the steam vr benchmark (although it tells me its passed on the iGPU)

Spoiler

steam VR proformance test by JAY8387 posted Apr 26, 2016 at 9:17 AM

I think its covered here https://www.futuremark.com/support/troubleshooting, had a lot invalid with driver not approved (I believe its because I'm using modded drivers but that seemed to go away so I'm not sure)

also i'm have to run optimus with the 980m, were as i was running in dedicated mode with the 680m

 

980m sure does perform well there in that link - but as good as it is, I'm wary too if it's one of those cards as you say that does not like to be pushed. Still, having that kind of score is pretty impressive. I see what you mean about the reported clock - that's one reason I wondered if 3dmark was recording your clock accurately or not on the previous stock result. No need to apologise there.

On 3dmark, the problem it's having is saying my time reading was invalid. Looking at that guide - they are implying I'm doing funny business. This is not the case at all! What reason would I have to do that. Tsk tsk. But it does make me wonder what might be wrong but I'm not going to fret about it too much.

 

Had a decent session on Lord of the Rings online and also Star Wars: The Old Republic.

Just to monitor temps etc. Frame rate was not really an issue

Temps for LOTRO mostly stayed 61-63 with one max of 65.

For Star Wars, temps were even lower mostly - maxed at 64 one time but stayed from 59-62 mostly.

So far, I'm very happy. The 680m is slowly starting to build up my trust in Nvidia again.

edit: monitoring the clock too - I notice the driver must work really hard - as it is often changing the clock to be lower - one time, running along with ultra settings on star wars, things were smooth in terms of frame rate but it adjusted the clock to 620 and even lower for some seconds before going up over 700 again. It's quite fluid and dynamic I guess there. That of course also resulted in temps dipping below 60 at the same time.

 

Also, ran Tomb Raider on Ultimate settings. The only difference I could see from Ultra to Ultimate was the hair quality.

Anyway, the benchmark from the main menu at stock settings for the 680m / 2760qm gave me this when it finished doing its thing:

Min FPS: 24.5
Max FPS: 42.7
Avg FPS: 31.8

 

I didn't expect anything good would come of this - but I tried anyway. My expectations were met No Steam, I'm not about to upgrade - this 680m will last me hopefully to Volta and beyond in normal stuff.

 

don't do it

hopefully either @Swick1981 will be able to make a bios that will mean you will be able to use more modern GPUs or AMD will put out something worth putting in the laptop

i believe this is related to GPU boost

 

Yet another benchmark, this time Alien Isolation. Hopefully, this should be a good selection now at stock for the 680m and 2760qm.

Average FPS,Max FPS,Benchmark Name

59.77----95.28-----tessellation
55.51----101.66----lab_room_flyby
60.01----173.55----volumetric_light
57.40----179.24----large_shadowcaster
60.01----66.02-----lab_room
58.54----179.24----Summary

I did not know how (if you could) to insert a table...

Engine settings (I set things etc to Ultra where possible):

Spoiler

Graphics
Stereo Mode=Off
Depth of Field=On
Level of Detail=Ultra
Texture Filtering=Anisotropic 8x
Full Screen=FullScreen
Deep Colour (30bpp)=On
FullScreen Resolution 30bpp=1920x1080
FullScreen Resolution 24bpp=1920x1080
Windowed Resolution=1920x1200
Vertical Sync=On
Particles=Ultra
ShadowMapResolution=1536
ShadowMapping=Ultra
MotionBlur=On
ChromaticAberrations=On
FilmGrainIntensity=1.0
Planar Reflections=On
Screen Space Ambient Occlusion=Standard
Streaming Texture Heap Size=Ultra
Streaming Model Heap Size=Default
AntiAliasing=SMAA T1x
Field Of View=47
Volumetric Lighting=On
Multithreaded Shadow Rendering=Off
Audio
SFX Volume=10
Music Volume=6
Speaker Mode=Surround
Audio Language=System

 

Thanks for the results man, it's all looking good.

I did find some old results from my R4 in H4:

Stock; It held a boost clock of 758mhz, max temp of 66c, score 676 @ 27fps. So very similar to yours. I leave H4 for about 10 mins before actually starting the bench so it has stabilized. I expect my temps to be higher than yours as I used a stock, brand new HS, with factory paste. Testing it really, expecting to have to re-do it when I overvolted it. Not so .

Max achieved was clock of 980mhz (+230mhz), max temp 74c, score 806 @ 32fps. This was on the max OV Vbios (1.05v IIRC).

The boost clock fluctuations are fixed when using any of Svl7's vbios flies - even the stock one that just unlocks the +135mhz max. It's something to do with the power draw limits I believe so some games/benchmarks trigger it more than others. It's kinda a 'pre-throttle' back to the base clock. If you load up Nvidia Inspector you can see the base and estimated max boost clocks.

Have fun .

 

Hey All,
Yet again, I got hit with pneumonia, and I thought I could work through it. Started up modding again, and within 24 hours, I was down and out, again! So, I'm back, for a second time. Lets hope I dont get hit with anything else... lol
Anyway, I'm so sorry for this, YET AGAIN! Man, 've been so lucky to pickup all these infections. It's like I wont the most pathetic lottery in the world! haha
Anyway, I am finally back, for sure now... IF I haven't pissed ya'll off and ya'll are still willing to test... shoot me a PM! I'm really ready to go... Excited to get back now that I'm at 100% (Or near 100%) heh

Thanks!

 

Hey All...
So, I'm taking the stock bios of the r3 and going to do whatever updates I know that can be done. Anyone interested in testing? I do not believe i can get the 900 series compatibility, but I believe i can get the intel RST, cpu microcode, vbios, LAN Firmware, etc... updated. IF someone wantes this and is interested in testing let me know!! I'm finally back for good now, so I'm back on the horse and modding several bios's at once! heh (Not really at once...)

 

Hmm. That explains things. I thought stock was around 720 - so when I've seen the monitored clock sometimes rising to 758 - that's what's happening. I didn't realise the minimal boost was enabled. I suppose if factory paste does the job in terms of temps, then unless you really want temps to be even lower (no guarantees) then leave that paste job intact eh

980! That's one heck of a overclock. Woah.

Fluctuations - What kind of fluctuations - that it stays at stock and not at the boost or something else?

Downloaded Nvidia Inspector and yup - I can see the base of 719 and boost of 758. Now I understand.

 

I've heard good things about your work. Sorry to hear you were going through all of that. I understand it's totally the user's risk to download and run stuff like that. Is the chance there that it could stuff up a RAID 0 system? My 17x r3 came like that and I never changed that.. bad I know.

Also, I know you said you're unlikely to get 9xxm support (that would have been crazy amazing) but lower gpu support - does that exist more fully? I'll have to hunt on techinferno perhaps to see what the lowdown is.

 

Yeah, the fluctuations from max boost back to base clock. You want to see it hold the max boost all the time. The + numbers you add to the base clock are also added to the max boost (some sort of % thing) and you can see it change in steps of around 15mhz or so. While on the subject we haven't covered GPU memory. You can also OC that. I found that it made very little difference when looking at FPS so I would just add 50mhz for the sake of it. Others may have better experiences?

 

When I feel brave enough, I'll attempt some OC'ing and then shall see As long as temps hold up well, I'll be relaxed enough about it.

 

Ok, I felt brave enough just this one time for now at least to try the +135. I didn't change memory or voltage (using Nvidia Inspector) just added the +135.

I ran Heaven 4. In the benchmark it was actually running a little lower according to the OSD - at 888. Still, the score may have been a couple of points higher, I'd closed my browser down but it must have reopened as by the time H4 was done, I noticed a video was playing in one of my tabs. Temps maxed out at 70.

For me, in the games I play - longevity matters but it was interesting to try anyway.

680m (no overclock @ 758) / 2760qm
Unigine Heaven Benchmark 4.0
FPS:
27.0
Score:
681
Min FPS:
10.4
Max FPS:
63.5

680m (+135 @ 893) / 2760qm
Unigine Heaven Benchmark 4.0
FPS:
29.4
Score:
741
Min FPS:
13.4
Max FPS:
70.4

 

Also tried a memory overclock. Core was not overclocked - just the memory. Stock score was the same as the first time I ran it after getting the drivers working.

680m (memory @ 1800 default) / 2760qm
Unigine Heaven Benchmark 4.0
FPS:
27.0
Score:
681
Min FPS:
12.8
Max FPS:
63.8


680m (memory @ 1920) / 2760qm
Unigine Heaven Benchmark 4.0
FPS:
27.8
Score:
700
Min FPS:
13.0
Max FPS:
65.9

 

The 680M is a very easy card to live with and still plenty capable. I have them in my M18x R2 and they just work.

 

Hey Siphorous and Deadsmiley.

I have the exact same AW with 680M installed. Worked great for a couple of yeears ( although I HATED to be cursed by dell for permanent driver modding).
Recently I got huge FPS drops in Overwatch and I figured it had to be the geforce card. I am not sure what caused it in truth but I am assuming I need new drivers. I have been using 376.xx or something and Tried to upgrade drivers to 382.05 with the modded info files from J95. https://www.techinferno.com/index.p...dded-inf/&page=67&tab=comments#comment-159235

So I was just wondering if you Siphhorous have managed to keep up with the latest drivers and what you have done differently from what I do.
I have followed the steps from J95s but with no success. I get different type of errors. The drivers below 376 initiates and fails with the error "unable to install drivers" but physx, GF experience installs..
The drivers above 382 complains about unaccessible path or permission error.
Might be bad windows update drivers, might it not?

 

Just FYI but I got 'rights' issues some time ago after a driver install failed. I found some folders under the drivers had no access at all. I had to take ownership to delete the failed installation. Second time around it was all good. I did see some others having this problem so not isolated to my setup.

Good luck.