I have an XPS 15 9550 working with a Razer Core. AMA

Thanks trying the core w/the XPS 15 @Eason!

Could you run the steam VR benchmark? http://store.steampowered.com/app/323910/

I am considering that if I want a VR experience, I may want to do an EGPU like the Core, just concerned it might identify the 960m.

 

It can't, because you disable the 960m

It says it's "VR ready". It detects the GPU as the Intel HD 530, actually. Says average quality: 6 (high)

0% below 90fps, 0% CPU bound

 

Of course the 960m is disabled! *facepalm*

That is really nice! You have a GTX 970 right? So 6 is a little under what others got for fidelity with an OC'd with a better cpu, so pretty good over all! Thank you so much for benching this. I am happy to hear about the 0% below 90fps, 0% CPU bound. I guess I will be able to do VR after all.

 

Yes, this is with an Asus 970; nothing special, just the stock card and a 6700HQ.

 

This would be super cool if you could get it to work with the laptop 4k screen! I'm kinda bummed you need an external monitor.

 

Thought it did work but just at reduced performance

 

Really? Perhaps I misunderstood. @Eason can you confirm?

 

It works with the laptop's internal screen, but performance is... Strange. Some games see a 20% performance hit, others see a 50% performance it. It's very strange- I think the bandwidth needed for the 4k screen has something to do with it. For example, I can't get Doom to hit 60 fps, and fire strike gets like 3000 points only if using the internal. The other thing is that games/benchmarks load 5x more slowly. It's strange that loading would be affected, but it is

 

I guess the Thunderbolt 3 stuff is still a little quirky, huh.

ps. Are you running Doom using OpenGL or Vulkan? I actually just started playing this yesterday on the 960m. I think I can get 1366x768 at Medium detail to be acceptable. I'd love to play this fully max'd out though. Going down the Razer Core route is certainly a cheaper option that a desktop gaming PC, if you don't own a desktop PC and already have a XPS

 

OpenGL. I didn't try vulkan yet.

A desktop is was definitely cheaper for me - $350 for the video card, $600 for the core + shipping + customs taxes. That's literally the same price I paid for a decked-out Mini-ITX build.

 

OpenGL. I didn't try vulkan yet.

A desktop is was definitely cheaper for me - $350 for the video card, $600 for the core + shipping + customs taxes. That's literally the same price I paid for a decked-out Mini-ITX build.

 

I'm still getting the Core once it comes out in Japan, but the good news is that other makers are working on alternatives:

Powercolor: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/powercolor-devil-box-gpu-dock,31971.html
Asus: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/asus-rog-xg-station-2-gpu-dock-usb-c,31983.html

This should hopefully impact prices and make them more "sane". I'm not sure a mini-ITX build would be much better at that price, since you still need the PSU, RAM, SSD, cpu/mobo etc. and you lose out on the most obvious advantage - not needing to synchronize any data between your laptop and desktop. You can get a faster CPU though if you're willing to pay for it, and you don't lose performance due to the TB3 bandwidth.

 

I believe there isn't much of a difference with Maxwell GPU's, the real performance gains to be had with Vulkan are for those running AMD cards. Up to almost 50% increase in frame rate.

 

Can you elabourate on this a little? I'm seriously considering picking up the core to go with my 9550 as well, but it has to function as a dock.

I'm not fussed about external HDD or anything but it's got to run a keyboard, mouse and headset. Will it do that?

 

It can run a keyboard and mouse no problem - but you'll need to have the core connected for that (i.e. running with a GPU). There is no headset/audio in, amazingly. That's one of the biggest disappointments.

 

Thankfully my headset is USB!

Are there any situations where you wouldn't want to use the graphics card while the core is plugged in? Seems like that's what you'd normally do.

So have you got it to a point where you can plug-in and unplug the core without having to reboot?

 

You can always plug-in and unplug the core without rebooting, but waking from sleep / sleeping with the core attached doesn't really work.

 

in theory what would happen with a 1070 and the internal screen?

 

I'm not sure - I think it's a frame limit choke or something... seems like it just wouldn't go above 50 fps no matter the detail.

 

Okay thanks.

So I guess my last question for you is a personal opinion. Do you think it's worth it or is the frustration of its flaws enough to make you reconsider?

 

At this point it's going to be a month or so to be able to buy one. The fact you have to wait, plus the high price, makes me learn towards just waiting for one of the other brands to improve on the design. The fact that there are still bugs such as not being able to view youtube fullscreen is quite annoying.

 

Youtube fullscreen not working is kind of weird. Have you tried enabling/disabling hardware acceleration? Tried another browser? Does it impact the Netflix Windows app (etc)? And what other bugs are there beyond getting the initial setup working?

 

Happens in all browsers. Sometimes it works, but usually it doesn't. It seems to just impact html5 video. Other apps, like VLC, run totally fine. I would assume netflix is in this category as well, though I haven't tried it myself (we don't have netflix in Thailand. Well, we do, but it's censored and sucks dick).

Other bugs aren't really existing with the skull canyon. Performance hit is about 10%, but waking up/sleep works fine. Performance was better on my XPS 15, but it couldn't wake up/sleep with the core attached. The XPS 15 also had frequent problems with slow/choppy animations in windows (not in games, though), though the NUC seems to be fine in that regard.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Akitio-Thund...=merchant-items&ie=UTF8&qid=1471809239&sr=1-2

this device is 299 and it was tested with the intel nuc. im almost feeling like its worth it. if a 1070 was 300 and the device was 300 i feel its worth it almost...

 

the egpus are still huge. in general larger than desktops.
thats the next step its needs for me it has to be back pack sized.

 

ok look at it this way....

http://www.xoticpc.com/sager-np8153-clevo-p650rs.html

this has the score of my xps 15 with a 1080 gtx installed. and its much more portable than my xps 15 with a razer core.

a razer core is 500 and a 1080 is 600. its just done to me. especially if i could transplant the izgo screen to a new laptop

 

That's a totally different class of notebook though. To heavy and thick for my taste.

 

While the razer core has lost a lot of its value proposition for performance, it still holds it for tablet and ultrabook users. 1060s and above are still going to require a relatively heavy, thick laptop. Laptops like the XPS 15 will probably get a 1050 (when it's released) and so will definitely benefit from an eGPU.

 

The laptop you linked has a 1070 mobile gpu installed - you're saying that's as fast as 1080 in a Razer Core? I thought the performance drop from using the Core was like 10%, not 30-40%.

An eGPU is also good for avoiding CPU throttling in thermally limited designs by the way.

 

No GPU support, so that kind of rules it out. The price is right though I do agree.

 

But..

The laptop itself is smaller than the Razer core.
I could have a xps for somethings and not have to hook it to a huge block to game

I could have two laptops and they are. Smaller than a xps and a Razer core.

If you have 2 devices might as well get 2 laptops the desktop and the laptop are the same part.
Extremely better than a laptop and a core much more storage etc and a back up

And next coment no that akito box already had tests with a 1080 gtx and the Intel big
That is the egpu they sell and it's 299
I got that Amazon link from their site with the scores from their device.

 

It says right there pcie x 16 half or full double size card.

Thundervolt 3 40 gbs

 

the question is whether or not you need to do extreme gaming at all times. I personally do not, so I'd much prefer to carry a laptop that weighs as little as possible and then hook it up when I want more juice. The core truly targets that niche, so anyone else trying to justify it will probably struggle with it like you are. If you don't mind carrying around a 1.1" thick laptop, then I'd say go for it.

 

Ok so I carry my small laptop at all times.
Then turn on the bigger laptop when I need extreme gaming.
Covers that niche way better
It has not only the gpu but more storage and is much more compact.
Able to carry it along or leave it there.

I wouldn't carry around a larger notebook because I already have a xps 15.
The main difference is I can carry the 22nd notebook and can't carry the Razer core.

So leave the second notebook where the Razer core is. Use it like the Razer core exactly. Cover that niche. Own two.

and it will function a million times better than the egpu because it has a 1070 gtd desktop direct gpu. probably much better for actual gaming

 

But why not just get a slim laptop and a desktop then?

Do you really need extreme gaming performance if you are going on a trip or light travel when you take out the light laptop?

There are only 3 setups that make sense:
1. Core + ultra book
Stealth is great if you actually don't need to game when you take it out. A small business meeting for example.
And back home when you don't need the most extreme of all graphics, just turn off the physics and you get a good gaming machine.

2. Core + slim gaming laptop
Blade for example. You can game on a trip.
Back home plug in for pretty great performance with ~10% performance hit.
That's equal to a blade with a graphics card that would never be possible in the first place, like a blade with 90% 1080 or a blade with 90% volta card

3. PC + slim gaming laptop / ultra book / chrome book
Pretty much explains itself. Game on most extreme of all, easily upgradeable, water cooling and heavy overclocking.
Laptop for travel/business etc

I just don't see the need of a heavy gaming laptop with another laptop at all.

 

Have you had any issues with the CPU throttling?

 

On one of my XPS I did, until I uninstalled XTU. I didn't realized it was still installed and screwing with my system. Other than that, nope. The laptop ran cool and the vote was far, far louder.

 

to CARRY THE DEVICE TO OTHER PLACES

it is also better performance than the egpu huge box, it has almost no niche or use. because you can get a desktop with the same graphics card that is more portable
theres nothing that the egpu does that gives it an advantage over another laptop. many things that have it at a disadvantage

overall theres almost no point in investing in desktop hardware at all unless its stuck in a place somewhere that never moves.

and even then thers almost no use. in a time fram perhaps you could upgrade the gpu someday but at the moment thats 2 years off.

 

Your response is a little convoluted...

Everything has a pro and a con to it.

Me carrying around a large laptop with a 1070 or 1080 would never fly at school. Not only would it be too much laptop with too little battery life, it would look unprofessional.

A desktop will always have more performance. Not many people that I know game anywhere besides their own house.

 

in which case you would carry the small laptop. you have 2 laptops so you leave one where you would leave the egpu????
dont ever carry the large laptop, a laptop can be left right where it is. Where as a egpu would be extremely hard to carry to class.

I never game in my house. almost never. but even if i did the extra whole computer screen and storage would make a huge difference

have a second laptop and never carry it at all only if you want to. Some sort of block prevents you from leaving the larger laptop.
do your there gaming in your house. what is more convenient plugging in the laptop in your backpack to a device powering it up looking at the interface.?

or just powering up the device already sitting there plugged in. laptop in backpack gamer laptop ready to go. covers all niches and uses much better for more people

the 10 series cards themselves are the same desktop or laptop. an egpu does not have more performance than a gamer laptop it has less performance. a whole desktop purchased to scale has almost no performance advantage over a laptop, less now than ever.
If everything has a pro or a con you miss the pro and con to everything in what you posted you are very convoluted and confused I agree with you.

 

I think you're really good at making assumptions. While I don't disagree that gaming laptops are a great thing, I do disagree that it's better for more people.

Desktops are cheaper, run faster (not stringent about thermal/power limitations, I don't foresee a 1080ti in a laptop that is the same as the desktop), can be overclocked more, and are easier to upgrade.

Gaming on the go is a blast, I am glad you get the opportunity to do so, but maybe because I am older no one I know games anywhere but home. If on the very rare occasion I go to a buddy's house, the 9550 is good enough for me.

 

I tested my new Razer Core + 1070 during the week-end, here is my benchmark :
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14460324

Very stable so far, no crash while gaming and as I'm not using the 960M anymore my CPU is @3.1Ghz all the time with no more throttling, max temp is 71°C.

 

I just looked up the 1070... It should be scoring 16000+ (without the core). Damn, that's unfortunate.

 

It's because of the laptop CPU dragging down the score. The graphics score is pretty close to normal.

 

The new Pascal laptops were scoring way higher, I thought. Or did they only do game benchmarks?

 

Pascal laptops should be 5-10% higher just because it's not going through the thunderbolt line. It also might be a little higher if the benchmark was paired with the i7-6820HK. I'm not sure why but that processor and even the i7-6770HQ seem to benchmark significantly better than the i7-6700HQ. I wouldn't think .1Ghz would have a difference but maybe the sustained dual and quad core speeds are better. Could also be memory speeds and even OC speeds.

I'm really starting to dislike the using the raw Firestrike score as a benchmark because it weighs CPUs so heavily, while most games do not. Firestrike Extreme seems like better way to go but not many people use it. I haven't looked into Time Spy yet but I hope it's more like FS Extreme. I guess nothing beats in game benchmarks.

 

I would be glad to post my Firestrike Extreme benchmark if you purchase a licence for me

I think you are right about the CPU having too much weight in the final score. I'll post my Time Spy result in a few hours.

 

I would disagree. I'd say this is fantastic.

Yes, the overall score is 25% slower than 1070 benchmarks (which will use a tiop-of-the-line fast desktop CPU, to eliminate CPU bottlenecks).

But it's also a heck of a lot faster than the discrete GeForce 970m, and performs close to a full desktop GeForce GTX 980. That will be well strong enough to drive the native 3200x1800 panel, or an external panel up to a 34" ultrawide (3440x1440).

I recently upgraded from a GTX 980 --> GTX 1080, running on a 34" ultrawide (3440x1440). And even with the GTX 980, I had a hard time stressing my GPU. I had to specifically go out and TRY to stress my GTX 980, with very little tangible results. And this is exacerbated with a GTX 1080. I'd probably need a 100Hz display to put more demand on my GPU.

Long story short, GTX 980-level performance is pretty damned good; And I'd even claim that even more power than a GTX 980 (i.e. eliminating CPU bottleneck) wouldn't be necessary. More power would be a nice-to-have, but it is wasted if your goal is to have a smooth 60fps gaming on High or Ultra-High settings, at the native 1800p resolution

 

So here they are :

• Fire Strike http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14460324
• Fire Strike Extreme http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14511442
  
• Fire Strike Ultra http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14511716
• Time Spy http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14512081
• Sky Diver http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14470153

 

The other benchmarks are much closer to 1070 mobile solutions. I think that it's just a cap that's affecting things with higher framerates past a point.