M11x now advertised at 1.73Ghz OC

I can confirm on the M11x I received today, the BIOS-set overclock shows up as 1.73GHz, rather than the 1.6GHz I'd seen on screenshots on this message board.

This is with my 7300 w/4GB RAM.

 

In what program are you reading your 1.73 from crablin?

 

Are you reading this from windows? If so all the M11xs OCed show as 1.73Ghz.

 

whats the bios version you have?

 

A01 is the only BIOS available. The reading variance, is in part due to how the program reads the CPU frequency. I don't think a BIOS revision is going to give a final answer unless the allow us to play with the FSB. Which won't happen.

 

Yeah thats what i thought (i know it sounds like a noob question) but a couple of people on one of the other threads mentioned that they are getting better battery life with it OCed because the ?voltage actually drops?
:S

 

Quick question for those who are seeing 1.6 GHz in CPU-Z:

Does the number jump to 1.73 GHz if you open up a 3D application or game in an adjacent window?

 

Apologies for the double post.
Just wanted to bump this thread back up.

Prior to pulling the trigger and ordering my m11x I would like a definitive confirmation that the 1.6 GHz (6.0 multiplier) is just a result of intel speedstep doing its job and at load you are seeing a consistent 1.73 GHz (6.5 multiplier).

A couple of people here still refer to their OC as 1.6 GHz which worries me.

Thanks in advance for your help guys!

 

I reseted my Battle.net beta opt in computer to the m11x and ran the system check thingy and it showed it as 1.753.

 

Either way, it is what it is, and your not going to really know any differant. Is 133MHz really enough to sway your decision? Just enjoy it. Don't get caught up in the numbers. Theres nothing that can run at 1.73 GHz and not 1.6 GHz.

 

Yes but we all want the full potential of the gt 335 which is being held back by the cpu, if you ask me every mhz counts here

I do wonder what the max overclock potential for these processors are.. if somehow we could get it to 2ghz it would make a big difference beleive that, also remember 133mhz x 2 pretty much because there is two cores, so you are getting 266mhz more of processing power for dual core applications

 

I do agree that a CPU boost would help the GPU in a lot of instances. I know on my Asus N10J I had, getting 2GHz out of the 1.6GHz helped out the FPS quite a bit, and so did o/c'ing the memory.

 

I'm with dinsum & htwingnut. That 133 MHz (effectively 266 because of the dual cores) does matter in this configuration. That is just over an 8% performance increase per core.

Which brings me back to my previously posted question:

If possible, can someone please report what CPU-Z displays when you have an adjacent window open that is running a demanding 3D game or application?

Definitively confirming the 1.6 GHz being reported by CPU-Z is being caused by SpeedStep and not questionable Alienware BIOS overclocking settings sure would be helpful in closing this issue out.

 

Just played a 1080p video on youtube and it stayed at 1.6Ghz. The load on the CPU was about 80-90%.

 

if you set the windows power scheme to max performance you will stay at the top clock speed

and overclocking made a dramatic difference on integrated gpus (N10J)because the memory bandwidth for the GPU was rising, for this discrete GT 335m the cpu performance will not effect the 3d as much since the GPU has dedicated VRAM

The vantage scores showing about the same number for the CPU and GPU scores indicates that this is a pretty well matched machine - good balance between cpu and gpu

 

However, again, further investigation shows it does run at 1733MHz, just CPU-z is WRONG WRONG WRONG. I'd love to push this baby to 2GHz though.

Then you need to download flash 10.1. It puts most of the load on the GPU, and only about 20-30% on CPU.

 

I am guessing that the boost to 1.73 from 1.6 was simply adding back the .5 to multiplier that dell originally ommitted from the overclock in bios?

Has anyone been able to get the pll and overclock this using setfsb?

Sorry if these are already know, I am just trying to help.

 

I don't see why it couldn't. Safe temps for the SU7300 are 0-105c. May be in the A02 BIOS

 

No, CPU-Z just reads the registers wrong somehow. Actual computed CPU speed is 1733MHz. Take a look for BatBoy's explanation and the program something like CPUSpeed or something along those lines.

SetFSB doesn't support the PLL in this machine becuase the programmer for SetFSB stopped updating it unfortunately.

Well I don't think it would be an issue either, but it's how you get there is the issue. Nobody's been able to unlock it yet. I doubt Dell will support such a thing, it will have to be through a third party app or hack.

 

I suspect voltage will be your limiting factor in cpu OC just like it is in the M17x. My temps are awesome at 3.33 GHz but I cannot go any past that due to not enough voltage

 

Yea, there are tons of programs which I've posted showing it at 1.73 GHz. CPU-Z shows. 1.6 GHz. I ran intel burn test and it stayed at 1600.0 MHz. I'm 99%convinced it's actually running at 1.73. I agree with scook, Voltage will be the main concern when overclocking. But if we could get somone to edit the BIOS, that would be perfect. 2.0GHz would be easy. I think going above that would be unstable.

 

Has there been documents on hacking Phoenix Bios? I've read it was pretty hard.

 

Talk to zFactor, he is my goto BIOS editing guru haha

 

I read this review at anandtech about the ul50vt

http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=3637&p=2

They overclock the SU7300 to 1.73ghz and it scores 3348 in PCMARK VANTAGE

I downloaded pcmark vantage and ran it on my m11x in overclock mode, I scored 3179 pcmark points , too me it looks like its running at 1.6ghz


Ill run pcmark vantage again tomorrow at 1.3ghz speed and see if my score comes to a close match with the score they got in the anandtech review of 2618 marks @ 1.3ghz

If so id say its safe to say that its running at 1.6ghz

 

That is the overall score, so things like graphics, ram and hdd all effect the score as well

 

I'll Run Vantage this afternoon. Scook, what settings do I run at? default settings it tells me it's going to take over 90 min. to complete. Due to ulv cpu? Is there anything that I can turn off? Bought PC MArk Vantage the other day, just never used it before.

 

I actually have never used it haha, have used 05 though

I just know that the overall score is effected by more than the CPU, it really is a bench of the system as a whole where the 3dMark ones are just gpu and cpu for the most part

 

GPU driver ver will also cause a variance in futuremark bench apps. Keep that in mind as well. Even with the same driver, mods can be made to 'tweak' the final result.

 

There is a discussion here regarding the clock generator:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=463095

Basically, software overclock doesn't seem possible with this pll. Seems we are stuck at 1.73 GHz forever.

 

You can't say things like that. How can you prove it? I for one am 99.9% sure the CPU is running at 1.6GHz but I'm not going around saying that the programs readings 1.73GHz are wrong. I don't know for sure.

If CPU-Z is wrong, then explain this. The Asus UL30VT reading 1.73GHz no problem; same CPU, same chipset and same version of CPU-Z that everyone else is using on the M11x. Asus (left), M11x (right).



Also, why are you guys only saying that CPU-Z is wrong? CoreTemp, CrystalCPUID and Intel's Processor Identification Utility all report the speed of 1.6GHz also, and all of these programs are dedicated and trusted CPU reporting utilities.

CPU-Z reports the correct bus speed (unlike Everest for instance), the correct rated FSB, it shows the voltage differences, and the multipliers to show the difference in calculations. Ask any overclocker what he uses to test his CPU speed, and he'll tell you CPU-Z straight off the bat. Yes, occasionally bugs crop up but they're fixed quickly in the next version, it's far more reliable than any other program out there, hence it's loyal followers.

Besides, how can you say that it's due to a bug reporting 1.6GHz, when the exact same program reports the correct speed on the Asus? Exactly, you can't. As I said believe what you want to believe, but don't go around saying it's wrong, when you don't know for sure, and all the information provided actually points to it being correct, not incorrect.

 

FWIW, The Asus also has more voltage. I can't see those pics, but if I remember, CPU-Z had the Asus at 1.07V or something like that. Maybe, if it is running at 1.6, then a future BIOS revision will gain a little more voltage, probably under .2 V, but it would help my benchmarking...

 

There is a new version of CPU-Z available for download (1.54).
Anyone here willing to give it a run and see whether or not it shows 1.6 or 1.73?

 

Same, 1.6... at least on SU4100

 

Same with the SU7300 as well..

 

Thanks for looking into this unreal25 & jsgiv. Maybe an upcoming BIOS will address this under-volting confusion once and for all. Strange for Alienware to market something as 1.73 GHz and have it only perform at 1.6 GHz in reality.

I wonder if this decision was made for thermal reasons, battery life or both?
Maybe Dell is still a little spooked after the whole 8M series Geforce thermal failure train wreck that plagued their XPS line?

 

No, the point is it *SHOULD* be 1.73GHz, but CPU-z and some other programs show it as 1.6. True speed is 1.73GHz.

 

Yeah + the temps are not even close to problematic. Under gaming my CPU gets to max 50-52 C, HD movies on IGP 40-44 C, it's idling at 39 C. When I had it non-oc-ed for like 5 mins when I got the laptop, doing regular tasks in Windows (fixing color theme, setting up backgrounds, etc.) CPU temp was like 32-35 C. (lol!)

 

run the program tmonitor (by CPUID as well) and see if it properly reports the speed

it is by the same people as cpuz so may have the same problem, but is worth a shot

 

Same, 1.6 GHz:

 

hmmmm

but like I said, that may be due to the same bug that cpu-z has as it is the same programmer

 

It's strange that the temps were much higher in the hardwareheaven review. As I have mentioned before, I think they did some last minute changes before the machines got into mass production. More aggressive fan behavior is probably one of them. Perhaps to keep the cpu very cool, and thus stable, at 1.73 GHz + undervolted. I hope they revert some of that though, and gives us more overclocking ability.

 

Check Post #17 by BatBoy (NBR Moderator):

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=5979594&postcount=17

Use the program truespeed that actually calculates clock rate and not reads values (which is what CPU-z does). Truespeed shows 1.73GHz. Seems more reliable check to me.

 

Yep that one shows 1.73 GHz:



On a completely unrelated note, it's interesting how the program is downloaded from geocities.com which, or so they say, doesn't exist anymore.

 

I believe Yahoo bought out geocities, and if you had an account opened, it would remain geocities, but new accounts are at yahoo. Thank goodness for geocities going bye bye. It was spammer centeral. I would never visit a geocities site to save my life in the past.

 

STEAM Sys. Info:



Why Alienware wait so long to get BIOS Update?

 

Possibly because there is nothing wrong with the CPU and its clocking @ 1.73? I am amazed this continues to be discussed since our resident alien posted that the CPU was clocking @ 1.73.

So lets see...

CPU TrueSpeed
Windows OS
FutureMark Apps
Steam

and others report the CPU speed correctly.

CPUz does not. Ok. I understand that. In the end, its going to come down to not what AW or Dell post, what I post or anyone else post. Everyone will have to make their own decision on this 'issue'.

 

Just while we're listing the programs, I might as well list some of the programs that report 1.6GHz...

CPU-Z
Intel Processor Identification Utility
CoreTemp
HWiNFO32
CrystalCPUID

Unless Alienware can offer concrete technical proof in relation to this "issue" instead of "CPU-Z is reporting incorrectly" then I won't be accepting 1.73GHz - As BatBoy said, you will just have to make your own decision. I'm already looking forward to the next revision so I can get rid of this thing for an overclocking solution that is actually implemented correctly (i.e. Intel's Turbo Boost) and hopefully Optimus too so we can use graphics drivers from this decade.

 

I just think it boils down to how the program reads the data. I trust CPU Truespeed mainly because it actually tests the speed of the CPU and not just read register info and calculate it. In the end does it really matter? We're not getting any more overclock options from Dell as it seems, so whether it's 1.6 or 1.73 it is what it is.

 

I couldn't really care less whether it's 1.6 or 1.7 or 1.73 or whatever for that matter... I just posted some results for su4100 since people asked for it. It works GREAT!

 

*Serve*
*Volley*

It's like watching a tennis match ..