L702X - GT555M, GF106 vs GF116

have seen that a lot of people with the newer l702x (A14 BIOS revision) have shown their GT555M is the new GF116 revision (compared to the older GF106 which I have)

can someone with a new GF116 version of the card possibly do a standard, non-overclocked 3DMark06 benchmark and share the results? (of course if you've safely found an overclock for the GF116 already feel free to do an overclocked benchmark also)

atm I'm running the GF106 clocked at 740/1040 and this gets around the 13900mark, can't remember what the original non-overclocked score was but it's likely to be around the 11k score range

would be interested to see if there is much of a difference between this new version of the card and the old one, some websites have reported up to 25% gains with the GF116

thanks

 

Allright, maybe I just can't figure it out. Where do you find this info?

 

I'll endeavor to run 3DMark06 when I've got the chance. I've not used it before, so what would be the best possible configuration for a standard test?

 

Run GPU-Z, and it will show up

 

Achieved with the latest beta driver and the GF116 revision of the GT 555M. (Stock)

 

With an overclocked voltage the 555m (gf106) can hit 14k+ which was tested on a m14x see below

"it is to a certain extent the voltage that limits how high you can go with the GT 555M. This can be circumvented by using a custom BIOS (which no doubt voids the warranty). However, with this tip in mind it was too hard to resist the temptation, and it works. All of a sudden the GPU core clock could be taken beyond 800MHz and with the core set to 807MHz the M14x was stable and produced 14,247 points in 3DMark 06 instead of 13,574. Not a huge improvement and nothing worth voiding your warranty over but an interesting experiment nonetheless." http://www.bestgaminglaptop.net/articles-guides/alienware-m14x-overclocking-gt-555m/

Out of interest what difference does the memory bus size make? 192bit (gf106) v 128bit (gf116)

 

Indeed, however volt mods just don't exist on the l702x... Screenshots seem to show that there isn't a memory bus size difference on the l702x's 2 versions of the gt555m, for all intensive purposes the specs are identical apart from one's the gf116 and the other's the gf106

As we can see from the above post the stock gt555m gf116 is getting 12.5k on 3dmark06 without overclocking, compared to around 10.5/11k on a stock gf106 so there's a significant improvement there! Wonder if the gf116 can be over clocked to the same extent... If so then 15k should be possible :-S


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=51.124153,-0.146834

 

That's the information GPU-Z provides, for those who are interested.

That would be approaching GTX 560M performance, would it not?

 

There are quite a few variants here with 128bit memory bus GPU-Z - Project Search

 

yes, it seems kinda strange that it'd be around the level of a GTX560M, the GF116 is used by the GTX560M albeit with more shaders and faster clocks but NVIDIA are moving towards the 6XX series and the GT630M will be the next card to use the GF116 chip.

It's also possible that the GF116 can't be pushed as far as the GF106 when it comes to overclocking (though I doubt it)

if that's the case then, even though the GF116 is more powerful at stock speeds the GF106 could overclock and surpass it or simply even the performance difference out - god knows I've never had any heat issues from this card, the overclock is limited by the voltage

 

This guy is getting close to 15K in 3DMark06 using the MSI Afterburner software to overclock his GT555M. Check it HERE

 

yeah that was originally with the 900p screen iirc, with a 900p screen 3dmark06 defaults to a different (lower) resolution and you end up with a higher score, ignore his sig that now says "upgraded to 1080p" as that was likely done after he posted these results. I myself had the 900p screen originally and could push 15k on 3dmark06

with the 1080p screen 3dmark06 defaults to 1280x1024 (a resolution obviously not supported by the 1600x900 screen) and therefor your score drops slightly but not by much

 

I've got the GF116 and running at 770/960 at the moment, haven't had a chance to bench yet though.

 

nice, decent overclock there, haven't been able to run at 770mhz since pre-skyrim times xD

 

I had the chance to test side by side two xps 17 with the same config (i5 2430, 4gb ram, 1080p screen) one with GF 106 and one with GF 116 (mine).
I didnt get to benchmark with 3dmark2k6 but I can tell you subjectively they overclock kind of the same (around 740-750 on the core) and the performance SEEMS to be a bit better on the new chip.
What I can tell you for sure is that the one with GF 116 is cooler and quieter (both have A14 bios). It ran about 10 degrees cooler in BF3 and Skyrim (the only games I got to play). I will install 3dmark and chime in later with my scores on the GF 116 (I no longer have the GF 106 one). Also about the mem bus, GPU-z says 192bit and it works just like that (I would imagine the diff. between 128 and 192 would be noticeable at 1080p in BF3).

 

Benches in 3DMark06 would be much appreciated. Also, performance results for BF3 wouldn't go amiss either.

 

3DMark 2006 results for GF116, I5 2430, default dell windows install:
10560 default
12520 overclocked to 750/975.
Using latest nvidia beta drivers (the ones for Skyrim).

 

That's unusual considering my score in 3DMark06 is not far off yours without an overclock. I'm using the latest BETA drivers also.

 

So what is the difference between the two, is the GF116 better? On notebook check it lists the GF116 version as being 525Mhz with 128bit DDR3, that is not as good as the GF106 version they list Dell as using so what is the real specs?

 

Mine is the GF116 revision which is 192-Bit. It's superior to the GF106 revision listed on Notebookcheck, and the 128-Bit version you mentioned.
It's probably the best version available, with the possible exception of the GDDR5 variant featured in certain MSI systems.

 

Cool, thanks. Must not have updated the listing on notebookcheck after Dell started getting these instead. Do the newer laptops always come with the newer revision, or is it just luck? I am ordering one tomorow.

 

Well it's probably the fact have I havent done a fresh install of windows yet. Also I have 1080p so 3dmark runs in 1280x1024, maybe you have the 600p screen.

 

I do have the 1600x900 screen, but according to Jon vMagic, the difference shouldn't be as drastic.

 

thanks to everyone that's posted info on this

Bishie - didn't know you had the 900p screen, that makes me feel a bit better as it looks like the performance difference isn't much between the 2 cards. I used to have a 900p screen and, because 3dmark06 runs at a lower resolution with that screen I was getting about 15,000 when the card was overclocked. With a 900p screen your scores are around the same as mine used to be

I don't doubt there is a performance increase with the gf116 chip but it looks like it's mainly an improvement in power consumption and heat production. After long periods of gaming my card can get to 75degrees whereas it looks like the gf116 is pumping out graphics around 10degrees lower, which can only be a good thing!

I've never clean installed windows, as soon as the laptop arrived I uninstalled bloatware (of which there isn't much) and using the A12 BIOS at the moment as I'm still a bit unsure about updating to A14

the only major changes I've made are to replace the 900p screen with a 1080p screen and replace the dvd drive with a BD-RW drive

overclocked at 740/1040 I'm currently getting about 13800 in 3dmark06, but again this is with the 1080p screen (and the gf106 variant of the card) which runs the benchmark at a higher resolution (1280x1024) and so drops the score compared to the 900p bench which would run at 1280x800 iirc

amihalceanu's score is slightly lower than yours due to a.) he's running the benchmark with 1080p screen and b.) he has an i5 compared to your i7 and possibly that he hasn't clean installed yet

 

Wonderful insight as always.

The fact the GF116 variant runs comparatively cooler leaves considerable room for overclocking, even if the overall performance difference between the two revisions is marginal at best.

I will endeavour to perform a safe overclock and report my 3DMark06 score and any improvement seen in BF3.

 

A14 laptop built this december, have the 192 bit GF116. Havent had time to run benchmarks, but it's overclocked to 780 GPU 1050 Memory (might get higher but haven't seen reason to do it, and have not played with voltage or other settings - don't know how high it will go). Runs all the games I need with excellent quality at 1920 resolution, so I am very, very happy with it. Just installed Crysis 2 and it runs incredible as well. At 1920x1080!! That's a lot of pixels!!

Also running Skyrim at that high res, with high res texture mods, and while it's not silk smooth it is good enough for me. Using FXAA.

 

Out of curiosity, what's your WEI score?

Edit: Results following my first overclock. (750/1500/1000 - Max Temp 61°C during test )



Update: I'm pleased to report I've experienced a considerable increase in performance with BF3! I'm now able to get a solid 30+ frames at my system's native resolution of 1600x900, with all settings set on high except mesh and shadow quality which are set to medium. (4x AF, post AA on high)
Tested on Caspian Border with 64 players. Temps never exceeded 69°C.

For some reason my WEI didn't increase to reflect my overclock. Is there any reason as to why this would happen?

 

Bump.

So this thread doesn't fall into the depths of despair.

 

Pretty nice, score does seem on par with the gf106 when I had the 1600x900 screen, haven't played with bf3 settings in months so might try upping the resolution to 1600x900 :-o

Wei is a funny old beast, depending on what driver I was using sometimes it was low, sometimes high, likely optimus related...think it's 7.1 at the moment with the new drivers but then again it doesn't really mean much to me, would rather have decent game performance than a synthetic benchmark score ;-)

Overclock looks cool tbh man, at 750 with the new beta drivers my gtx card downclocks after a while and it's not heat related, have never seen my card hit 80degrees - unfortunately some games are just sensitive to it, likely a lack of voltage (which we cant change) am still running at 740/1040 without issue




---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=51.124197,-0.146964

 

It's worth mentioning the performance increase experienced with Skyrim also.
Before the initial overclock, the game felt particularly unresponsive when set to my laptop's native resolution, but now it's completely smooth. I'm using the preset high settings, but with shadows set to medium, and FXAA enabled. (AA disabled, 4x AF)

I'll post the specifics once I've had a chance to test it a bit more.

 

Try downloading and running this http://skyrimnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=4387

Needs skse to run but it upped my fps by a LOT and now running everything on high @ 1600x900 with fxaa


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=51.397901,0.476309

 

Im going to try this. Jon have you seen the enb mod for skyrim? Looks nice but us optimus users cant use it without hooking up a external monitor.

 

Yeah loads of the d3d9.dll mods just don't worth with Optimus, am not that bothered tbh as the "important" ones like texture replacements work fine


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=51.124410,-0.147417

 

7.0 with a bunch of programs open (including about 20 chrome tabs) and doing stuff. Will run it clean later (now busy).

 

Would you be so kind as to post a screenshot of your MSI Afterburner settings, and note the drivers you're using?

 

You really should try Skyboost R3. it's based on tesval but improved further. You get considerably higher fps compared to tesval PLUS you don't need skse. You need to uninstall tesval first before applying it. People report 35% gain

 

Tried it... Frame rate was good but something about the visuals just didn't look right


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=51.123962,-0.146524