Alienware 18 BIOS A10

Was that 1.4V the lowest you could get for wprime at 4.5GHz?

 

Hello guys, I'm still running with A09 and it is fine. I would like to know from those who have tried A10 if there is an advantage on upgrading!!

 

Mine kick in, but whenever I flash my bios, for a couple seconds they kick into major overdrive!!. Even when I control them manually using hwifno, I can't get them to go as fast (and loud honestly) as they are when its flashing the bios. its weird.

I dont see adaptive voltage and I do not have a voltage mode tab in my bios and I am updated to a10

 

That's because Alienware artificially capped fan speeds, presumably to make the machine run quieter. If the Alienware 18 functioned correctly they would run like that when you max with out with HWiNFO64. They run full speed exactly like that with the M18xR1/R2 when you force them full blast. It's a real shame Alienware thinks it knows what is best and makes decisions for us like this.

 

Maybe Dell's technicians adjust the BIOS so the fans can go full speed as they are intended, if many complaints of overheating due to the new overclocking profiles which increase the actual voltage too much.

 

One of the top 3dmark (firestrike ) scores on futuremark!!!! Taking Mr. Foxes and a couple of your others posts into consideration and shut down some programs running in the backround, and updated to overclock 3 in bios. however changed the cores to 43, 43, 42, 42.

scored a 13081 for firestrike !!!!!!

here is the link

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M video card benchmark result - Intel Core i7-4930MX,Alienware 01W2J2

 

Something is wrong with the test results. Run it again and see what happens.

Look at the numbers for each test and you'll see what the problem is.

3DMark Score 13081
Graphics Score 25461
Physics Score 11069

Combined Score 2991
Graphics Test 1 58.74 fps
Graphics Test 2 959.8 fps
Physics Test 35.14 fps
Combined Test 13.91 fps

 

Graphics Test 2 959.8 fps :thumbsup:. This was somewhat of a score. I want myself such a result. But there is something wrong with the score on cpu test. All too low result in physics core = 11000p with the so-called new overclocking profile(42-42-43-43).

 

Yep, the benchmark flipped out and that is a software error. Test 2 results are reported about 900 FPS higher that what they really were.

For a factory setting, 42-42-43-43 is actually a really decent overclock. If the machine runs stable that way, it's respectable. I haven't tested it because it is lower than my normal everyday overclock, but I should at least test it.

 

So Mr. Fox, what is your expert opinion of A10?

 

Sorry I am a newbie
I plan to upgrade the 980m on my laptop but according to the e-bay seller instruction I have to flash and unlock bios at 1 step, is this one the official or unlocked one?

 

So far it seems to be indiscernible from A09. I haven't had any problems with either one, and see nothing (so far) that makes A10 better. It may have resolved some issue(s) that I have not encountered. But, I generally use my own custom overclock settings with XTU and ThrottleStop. It might be more stable than A09 was using Dell's factory overclock settings. Since I don't use those settings, I haven't checked. I probably should, just for grins if nothing else.

 

So after 3 days testing my system with various scenarios I have actually run into some issues.

I have OC LV 1 enabled in my system and thats all I did in my bios. However since then I have had some strange occurances.

CPU tempo spikes to 73c Before my fans wake up to kick in.
When using Chrome/IE it would simply stop and hang wouldn't load the webpage. I'd have to unplug and ethernet cable and plug back in again.
1 Blue screen with an error I should of wrote down but I forgot like a muppet.
Random software freeze's itunes, Outlook, Excel, spotify.
Corsair CUE software (RGB keyboard) would take a month to open.

I have now turned off OC LV1 and all seems fine again. Though in AIDA64 I am seeing temps rise to 58/60C instead of 48/50C when I was bios A09

Edit: Temps with Just chrome running now seem stable 43/48C Idle as type this and rising to 54c when I open a new tab or youtube it.

Edit1: Under Intel XTU if I simply increase my multipliers by 2 on all settings 39,38,37,37 Everything is fine. Even my Temps are close maybe +1/2 degree's. Seems OC LV1 just isn't liked by my 4800mq.

 

By Overclock on 42-42-43-43 shall score be around 11.850p on physics test in firestrike and not 11.069p. My normal 24/7 Overclock score in Physics Test on a 4x42 is 11.830p. The score is about 6.6% too low with the New overclock profile. Test out the new overclocking profile in hwinfo, check out uncore, volts and watts under firestrike test. It is not certain that's a right uncore (cashe ratio) in the new overclocking profile from Dell. It is also added too high a voltage on Vcore in the new profile. I still come and use xtu and trottlestop instead of this Overclock profile.
Those using the new overclocking profile should test with Cinebench 11.5 and Wprime 1024 (with 8 threads) and 3dmark vantage, to check the temperature and stability on their PC. If they have a bad thermal grease (applying) and uses an too high voltage on its processor, they can have big problems with this new overclocking profile in the Bios. :thumbsup:

 

Take a test with Cinebench 11.5 and Wprime 1024 for and test the stability of your Alienware. Follow temperatures with hwinfo64.

 

Before this 4810MQ, I had the 4800MQ and that thing was very bad at overclocking unfortunately. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, not saying all 4800MQs are the same, but mine didn't like to be overclocked at all. My 4810MQ although is a minor change from the 4800MQ has more room for overclocking it seems.

 

Normally it is better and adjust all the overclocking manually instead of a ready-made ​​overclocking profile. It is easier and tweak overclocking manually for a good result. All ready-made profiles are often too high voltage on processor and it increases watts = heat. All Intel's i7 processors have a higher voltage than is needed, because the actual voltage also will fit the inferior processors. Some need high volts while others need far less and act at a given clock frequency.

 

in my case it was the opposite bro, the manual overclocking I did was not so stable and didn't give me any performance increase when benchmarking, but the preset OC Level 1 did and was stable

 

So do you think t his is a good upgrade for people who don't overlcock? Or for people like myself who are terrified of overclocking again?

 

indeed, no settings to fiddle with, set it and forget it.

 

Awesome. I was starting to get pissed last night when I was seeing frame drops in ing WoW of all games. Hopefully this remedies that.

 

A 200 MHz. overclock in CPU won't remedy it. Your bottleneck lies in either:

1) your GPU is too weak for the settings you chose in the game
2) your GPU drivers are not updated

a 200 mhz increase in CPU clock won't fix a stuttering game due to an underpowwered GPU

Oh wait, I just saw you have an 880M SLI, you do know about the issue with the 880 throttling after they hit a certain temp don't you?

you will need to get an unlocked VBIOS for your GPU to increase the throttling threshold to fix that stuttering in game

http://forum.notebookreview.com/alienware-17-m17x/758228-880m-gtx-throttling-issue.html

That thread is about the 870M I don't know if the same vBIOS should be used for 880 but I doubt it, do some research about this bro

 

Uhh, there's something else.

Your game may actually be drawing too little power, and one card is downclocking and the other is remaining at high speeds, and you're getting stuttering and framedrops and your util is still "low" for the game. I wrote about that in my guide; you should watch your clock speeds to make certain of what's going on with it.

 

There are several computer manufacturers using i7-4700mq in their laptops with the most powerful GPU setup. Alienware 17 also uses i5-4210M without the performance of the graphics fade. A very weak new modern cpu slows down performance with only two to three frames during games. A new modern i7 processors is no bottleneck in games on a laptop.

 

I used an updated VBIOS a while ago when I first got my laptop and when I dabbled in even very modest overclocking settings, everything went to hell. After 2 service calls and a lot of support calls they ended up shipping me an entirely new system. As a result, I'm VERY paranoid about doing any non-oem-supported modifications and especially overclocking. Will simply using the unlocked VBIOS increase that throttling threshold?

I will try and monitor that. What guide are you speaking of? I haven't been on the boards in a few months.

 

It's kind of like breaking a horse. If you let him buck you off and then run away, he owns you. If you come back again and again, and teach him you're the boss, the horse is going to fall in line or die in the process. If you're terrified, don't do it and just let your beast own you. If you want to live life to the fullest and extract every shred of the performance your beast was born to give, sharpen your spurs and get back in the saddle.

OK, so now it's more official. For anyone starting out fresh on their first overclocking efforts, this going to most likely fail. You're going to need to use XTU to disable the lock that is hidden in the BIOS. It will remain disabled unless you reset BIOS defaults. Pictures are usually more effective than written explanations, so follow along with the screen shots. This is not a new problem with A10. It is a problem that existed before and still hasn't been fixed. Final verdict... upgrade if you feel like having the latest BIOS version, but don't expect anything different or better than A09. It seems pretty much a big to do about nothing.

<iframe class='imgur-album' width='100%' height="750" frameborder='0' src="//imgur.com/a/luejw/embed"></iframe>

 

I've said this a long time now, this overclocking profile is just sad. Did you have a look at my post 65? :thumbsup: Give me feedback .But what is going on with your score on 3dmark11 physics? This must be something strange, you should have a higher score than this, but it is more right for 3dmark firestrike.
Ps. In my xtu there is no package turbo power lock, so I do not have this nonsense.

 

I get the point you're making completely. I just, as I said, am very hesitant because I went through roughly 2 months straight of near-constant issues and they all started immediately after I dabbled in overclocking. I hate feeling this way too. I've grown up learning everything I know by trying things, breaking them, and trying to fix them. I'm just scared that fixing my problems may end up costing me money if it's found out that overclocking is what toasts my hardware.

 

He thought maybe this: http://forum.notebookreview.com/ali...mperatures-game-benchmark-screen-display.html

 

The SLI info guide in my signature. It explains that clock-speed problem and stutter/framedrop issue, which seems to exist only in Kepler cards. Until somebody sends me a pair of maxwell chips, I couldn't test if it happens with them in the same way.

 

I think you forgot to add the link and/or image XD

 

It could be something different with the AW17 motherboard. Even if you have it, once you disable it this will stay disabled even after re-flashing the BIOS. The only thing that will turn it back on (as far as I know) is resetting BIOS defaults.

Nothing is going on with the physics score it 3DMark11. It is exactly what it should be (sucky) running Windows 8. This is always the case... Windows 8 hinders CPU performance in many things.

Here's a example of exactly the same behavior under Windows 8 on the M18xR2.



To make matters even worse, you cannot actually trust benchmark score with Windows 8. They are often skewed results, and as such, many score on HWBOT.org are disqualified on systems running Windows 8. (Their results are reported to be better than what they actually are because the RTC is messed up with Windows 8.)

Nope, I accidentally deleted the JPEG I was going to upload, LOL. So, I had to do it again... I deleted my old post that you quoted.

 

Possible, but my score on the physics test in 3dmark11 is over 10.150p with a lower overclocking than you. I use Win 8.1. This Wprime32 test is not spesial low with your overclocking.

 

I have none of these tabs in my a10 bios. Do you mean setting those voltages using intel xtu? Or if it's in the a10 bios can you show me how to get to it. Thanks.

 

I am running Windows 8.1 Update 1 as well. What is your 3DMark11 physics score with your AW17 at 4.5GHz?

If I ran it a few times and tinkered with the settings, it might get a little better (that was just a one-shot attempt after flashing the BIOS and not trying to dial it in). I wasn't going for a high score. The point is that the factory BIOS is messed up and the machine requires user intervention to circumvent firmware engineering defects. The secondary point is that Windows 7 is a better OS and Windows 8 messes up a lot of things where CPU performance is concerned. Johnksss and I have tested it extensively and in all but a few things Windows 7 comes out ahead of Windows 8. Sometimes by a little, and sometimes by quite a bit.

I've more or less given up on trying to do amazing things with the Alienware 18. It's a waste of effort because it has functional limitations that make it a much less desirable machine than my M18xR2. That's why you don't see me posting much with the Alienware 18. The CPU works fine, and Haswell cooling is no longer an issue with Liquid Ultra, but the machine can't support the combination of extreme CPU and dual GPU overclocking, which basically makes it almost worthless to me. It's a great gaming rig, but it sucks at extreme overclocked benching. If I wanted to overclock just one GPU, then I would go buy an Alienware 17. With the Alienware 18, you're pretty much limited to extreme overclocking using just one GPU. That really sucks.

In this screen shot, I rebooted my M18xR2 into Windows 7 and used an identical CPU overclock as the previous example using Windows 8. As you can see, the score is much higher at 11357.



Even Fire Strike gets a better physics score under Windows 7, but the graphics score is a tiny bit better with Windows 8. The main trouble with Fire Strike is you can have a downright horrible physics score with a relatively lame CPU and still get a better overall score than a beast with a banshee CPU if the graphics score is really high on the machine with a wimpy CPU. It's a benchmark made for GPUs and, unfortunately, largely ignores CPU awesomeness and give almost all of the credit to the GPU score when calculating the overall score. See example below...

 

I have not tried anything other than 4.3, but use my 4.2 clock and which uses the score in 3dmark11 physics = 10.160p up to 10.195p. And firestrike physics = 11.830-11.900p. Wprime32 score er 5.539 What I reacted to was that you got a score below 10.100p with an overclocker 45 in 3dmark11 physics. But that your score was more appropriate in 3DMark four strike. And Your score in wprime32 just under 5,500
At the same time I saw that many people used the new overclock profile in the new bios, scores were very low even though it was so called 43.43.42.42. That's what I wrote about in post 65.

 

Haswell seems to get less powerful at higher clock speeds. Remember, it's "efficient" rather than "effective" LOL.

Those examples going back to post #65... just because the settings are there does not mean those machines are running at those speeds. The album I posted shows that the BIOS settings are worthless. I think that relates to the point you were trying to make. Setting core ratios doesn't guarantee the CPU is going to run at the set speed. With Haswell, this problem is worse than it ever has been before. Compared to prior Core i7 unlocked processors, it requires way too much time and effort to find settings that achieve good results. It's not really worth the effort unless a Haswell CPU is all you have to work with, in which case you do the best you can with what you have. You and I are very lucky and our 4930MX processors seem to work much better than most of them do.

 

I am much afraid that the newer processors from Intel are going and have similar problems like this "Haswell" processor. Everything should be as energy efficient now that I start and be disgusted. This also applies to graphics cards soon. All the talk about battery efficiency comes soon the entire computer industry.
All this talk about th NEW Alienware's overclock capabilities of the processor is just babbling. Dell did not manage and fix overclocking or a decent fan profile.

Edit: You and I are very lucky and our 4930MX processors Seem to work much better than most of them at do.

When I bought this Alienware 17, it had a i7-4900mq. I only had problems with the processor, when it clocked down during virus scan, so it would not clock up again. It was hot no matter what clock speed I used. I used also good thermal grease, but nothing helped. I complained to Dell, but they had no more i7-4900mq in stock, so I demanded and get a 4930 as they had in stock. And the i7-4930mx I got home delivered to my door. So these Hotwell processors are unusually unstable quality.

 

Yup, I agree. This focus on power efficiency is very disturbing. That's why I am skeptical about the new tech. The focus of the industry is shifting emphasis onto stupid things like longer battery life and using less power now. I say stupid because we should be exempt from being influenced by that if we value performance most, but they are wiping their poopy tail end on everyone. When I saw the new tool for battery life in the GFE it was instantly displeasing and disappointing to me. Thankfully, it only works on 800M and 900M series.

 

When people buy so energy-friendly thin laptops, it is for them to bring their laptop and surf the internet for hours at the coffee shop, and not for heavy use and gaming. That's how PC manufacturers envisions sales in the future.
In Europe we are not allowed to and buy us a vacuum cleaner at over 1200 w, new rules coming now.

 

Now I personally do not hate power efficiency. I think at one point, power efficiency is required to advance. Kepler using Fermi's level of power would have flopped, probably. Maxwell shows that core-for-core, clock-for-clock, architecture improvements can really benefit effective power.

The problem is that people are not attempting to improve the high end within a certain power limit (I.E. getting an improvement in power drain/heat with a solid cap, like 195W TDP or something for desktop chips) but they're trying to make last-generation's high end work in smaller factors, and call that the new high end. It's the same with all the people wanting super strong laptops with super thin machines that run super cool. If we took maxwell's chips and made them equal a working 880M in power and called that the 980M, we'd probably get a 50w chip that could use a single tiny fan for the kind of effective cooling that we get out of a MSI GT70 for example... throw two fans on a haswell i7 and you've got a thin form factor. This is what people want... but this is not progress for anyone really. This is just shrinking what's already there. It's what I was explaining to someone on a comment section a while ago. That 50w chip should be a midrange chip. Let the strong tech advance, and advance properly, then make the lower-end chips to suit. But people don't realize the difference there, and that's the dangerous part.

I wish they'd fix haswell with broadwell and release things socketed, upgraded and cooler. But it looks like intel doesn't get it. They're not fixing what isn't "broken" as far as per-clock-performance goes, but they're increasing power drain and heat output in exchange for what, extra iGPU power? *sigh*. Intel needs some competition. Same for nVidia. I think that's the only way these things are going to get fixed. If only AMD would RELEASE SOMETHING ALREADY

 

If AMD and Intel are going to compete again, They Will only compete on who has the strongest and most power efficiency iGPU. Intel has tried and catch up AMD,on the internal graphics card. :laugh:

 

Well if AMD makes a CPU that beats intel clock for clock (and uses the same tech with APUs, but keeps a separate desktop line like the FX series currently has) and makes them cheaper than intel's line... then Intel is going to have to work on the CPU side of things. Even if the AMD is a bit hotter or draws more power; they've had hardware 8-core CPUs for YEARS before intel did. Now imagine if those things (and speeds) were on a great architecture for per-clock? Intel would have to haul their rears for their i7 line. They have been for the last few years in a sweet spot because they've consistently been better than AMD in heat, power drain, stability and efficiency (per-clock calculations). But if they lose the performance aspect, even if not losing heat and power drain victories, they'll likely steal a large share of the market from intel. Of course it'll suck for mobile chips on the AMD side... but since intel makes mobile chips FIRST, and those who fail to bin well enough for mobile chips get turned into desktop chips (which are built to handle far more heat and voltage etc) then by default us mobile chip users will benefit greatly.

 

It looks like the tab core voltage mode in the new bios is not in the bios of Alienware 18, but it does it in bios to Alienware17. Are you going to try and overclock, it is only in Xtu you get it.

 

No, it is not gone. If you use XTU and change the core voltage from Adaptive to Static that menu will reappear in the Alienware 18 BIOS. It only disappears with Adaptive core voltage.

The BIOS photos I showed earlier were taken after setting BIOS defaults, before I applied new settings with XTU. Here is what it looks like after making changes with XTU. As you can see, the BIOS reflects the some of settings I applied with XTU. (Other settings applied with XTU are on menus Alienware has chosen to hide from us.) The reason I reset BIOS defaults it to show others what they can expect (poor results) when they try to overclock for the first time using nothing but the BIOS. It isn't going to work out for them because the BIOS is still screwed up. Using XTU initially is unavoidable because of that nasty lock that needs to be broken. Once things are unlocked, you can use ThrottleStop to automatically implement your desired settings at every boot (which is much nicer than having to use XTU for everything).

 

Why in heaven's name does Dell do this? They advertise that their Alienware laptops are factory overclocked, but we have no option and make changes that work properly on our computers. What did people who bought motherboards from known manufacturers that are designed for overclocking said, if they could not made ​​changes in bios that made their computers worked best? Dell will soon need to start and understand that not all processors are of the same quality, and that we must have the opportunity and customize what is best for our computers.

If Dell had made ​​some serious overclocking profiles in their bios, then many people had dropped to use different software for fine tuning of Overclock on their PC. Many are skeptical and doing changes on their computers with Xtu tool (afraid to destroy his computers), and must live with a useless Overclock on an overclocked machine that they were promised by Dell.

 

oh wow, im gonna try that and see if those options show up in my bios. So your saying go to XTU and disable that setting you talked about earlier and then reboot and go to the bios? I'm gonna try and set my bios to the same settings as yours, except lower the multiplyers down. Would me settings my flex vid override, power limit ect. to what you posted work with lower core ratio limits? Or should i lower them since I was gonna lower the ratio limits?

 

You should at least not be at a higher voltage than 1.200mv (1200) on a overclock (up to 4x42) in tab flex vid override. Try 1.200mv. Without a good thermalgrease, the processor is get awful hot with too high a voltage on the processor. Use also Hwinfo64 to monitor temp. :thumbsup:

 

ok I will try that . So that voltage should be good for 4 x 42? that is really fine for me, I don't need my cpu to be cranked out of control. actually to be honest i am happy with 40 x 4.
Im a newbie with overclocking.

I used to have a i7 990X extreme idition 6 core CPU. that thing was a beast and i had it running at 4.4ghz daily and i had no idea what i was doing. it just friggin worked and was awesome. before that i had a i7 965 extreme edition. When i found out the 990 could drop right into the CPU socket i grabbed it and man, that thing crushed everything i threw at it.

But thank you for your help. I have no clue what im doing other then chaning the mulitplier, thats why i bought the extreme edition cpu, but unfortunately the 4930MX isn't the bad , noob friendly the i7 990 was. lol.Same thing with the video cards. I just cranked up the voltage and fans and was just pushing the sliders up until my computer crashed. lol.

 

1.200mv is a good starting place, then you do not risk NO BOOT during startup of your laptop. When you feel confident about how things should be done or that you think your processor overheats, try lowering the voltages of your processors slightly. :thumbsup:

Remember that not all processors that are as good overclockers. Some need high volts, while others do not need such high voltage. Hotwells processors is not at easy and work on that earlier processors.