If You Can Solve This U R KING

You run your benchmarks with or without anti virus software? If you haven't, disable your av and re-run. And if your undervolt is near the limit right before instability occurs, you can risk see decreased performance.

 

I suppose that's an option, but I don't know much about the newer HP omen models tempwise etc.

Also the RX 580 is around GTX 1060 performance (unless we talk DX 12, then it's more like a 1060 on steriods).

 

Anything lower means normally bloat run in the background.


[email protected]

 

I don't see anyone else mentioning it, so you might want to check how high you can set the Turbo Boost Power Time Window - currently at 0.25sec, it should be at least 8 seconds, but see how high you can set it in that drop down, I've seen up to 28 seconds, but not sure what the 7700HQ is limited to.

That's why your CPU keeps dropping Turbo Speed, it's only keeping it at full Turbo Frequency for .25 seconds

 

@Unhappy User

Something just popped into my mind

I remember when you launch steam, it warns j00 to turn off the Windows built in DVR Game recording feature as it hampers performance.

If you have Windows 10 Pro, you can disable Game recording from the Group Policy Editor. If you have Windows 10 Home, then Google how to turn off Windows 10 Game recording then after doing the reg tweaks, reboot and try your games.

Be smart... be like Phoenix

Sent from my BlackBerry KeyOne Black Edition FTW

 

The boost refers to the Boost turbo max, which normally has more watts than turbo boost, the value won't do anything really, especially since short and regular turbo are the same in this case.

@Phoenix
I already gave him a link how to disable game DVR and uninstall the XBOX tool with a .bat file long time ago. Doesn't seem to have worked as far as I can tell.

This is the link

 

That's odd that value used to be the key to extending the Turbo Boost Time Window allowing you to exceed TDP, you'd power throttle to 45w right after it expires.

Maybe the purpose has changed for the 7700HQ, but I'd still take a look and extend the Window as large is it will grow with XTU, then see if it has any effect in allowing his Turbo Boost to continue longer...0.250 seconds is the lowest I have ever seen anyone set that value.

Here is a view from XTU of my 5950HQ settings with Turbo Boost Power Time Window at 28 seconds:

A setting of 0.25 seconds has to be incorrect.

 

I don't think the purpose ever changed on that, I know that on 6700HQ systems it doesn't do anything and my haswell 4940MX it doesn't do anything either (provided both values are the same), but then again I have stable clocks across the board. Also you seem to have severe throttling issues going on, at least according to your graph. You might want to try a stable vcore to fix ur temps and power limit throttling a bit.

You can do the test yourself, make the window 3 seconds, make short power 200Watt and normal turbo to lets say 30 Watts, you'll notice that after 3 seconds ur performance will go down the drain, that's how I figured that the short time is related to the short turbo boost.

 

It wasn't supposed to be an example of a successful OC, it was only to show the 28 second window.

The 42x was too high for that CPU, note the 85mV overvolt, even so that was the highest score for that CPU, that was the test power draw graph, not frequency. The test varies, it's one of those easy on short Turbo Boost Power Time Window cpu tests.

I've seen 8 second limits, fixed unchangeable vs 28 seconds on longer duration 100% CPU loads. You should check if your 7700HQ is adjustable, I'm confused on why it would be locked to 0.25 seconds, the lowest I have seen before this is 8 seconds...

Here's another one:

That's for keeping the multiplier at the optimal setting for long (hours) batch jobs.

 

It's a 6700HQ also, that setting isn't locked, hence I already tested and knew that the time window was related to the short turbo boost.

 

But isn't that his problem remaining with the CPU? Not holding Turbo? What happens when you set yours to 0.25 seconds? Notice any changes in Turbo frequency, like his?

 

Both CPU's run stable as can be (mine and his), it won't even drop a single mhz. The setting is related to the short turbo setting.His CPU has perfecly fine score, I even went on youtube, wrote 6700HQ cinebench and posted the video and his image, he has exacly the same score, to the point exacly, which is 655.

You gotta see it like this:
Let's say you got these settings: Short Turbo 200W, Time window 5 seconds and Normal Turbo 30W, basicially what happens then is this:
You start a benchmark, CPU will run at max speed for exacly 5 seconds, since the max watlimit is 200, then after 5 seconds it will drop in performance because it then limits itself to 30Watts.

That's what the time window value does. That's also why the time window is only at 0.25seconds because MSI configured it that way since the short and normal turbo are both on 200Watts.


Here is his score which he posted on his OP:


This is literally the first video I clicked on when searching for 6700HQ cinebench


As you can see, exacly the same score. I don't know why he thinks that his score is low.

 

It's weird, you are saying the same thing I am saying, the Time Window holds CPU power for the time limit, your's is set to 5 seconds and drops after 5 seconds, and mine set to 8 seconds or 28 seconds holds just that long and then drops to TDP limit.

So what do you think will happen when the Window is set to 0.25 seconds? Same as I think, it will hold for 0.25 seconds and drop power to TDP limit.

Look again at his setting, it doesn't have the word "Short" in it, it has the same wording as our setting. Yes, my XTU and his show other settings with "Short" in it and yes that's different, but the Turbo Boost Power Time Window is supposed to be a long duration setting.

Maybe when @Unhappy User comes online he can see what the range is for his "Turbo Boost Power Time Window"

Why you are limiting your Turbo Boost Power Time Window to 5 seconds? What is the maximum length duration available? It should be 8 seconds or more. It's best performing when it's set to the longest duration, or to a huge value / infinity as on the unlocked CPU's.

 

See why the seconds don't matter now and what I mean?

Both values are 200W stock from MSI. Normally short turbo would be like 72Watts and Normal Turbo 57 Watts (stock values from 4940MX)

 

Hmmm, if it actually said "Short Time Turbo Boost Power Window", I might agree

Where is the Long Time Turbo Boost Power Window setting? Shouldn't there be 2 such settings if your premise were true? There needs to be a 8 second or longer value to see, if not set. Where did you set it to 5 seconds?

What does it show when you try to adjust that setting? What is the longest value allowed?

 

I literally marked both settings with a red circle. I even gave it a 1 and 2 and the time it takes until it switches from 1 to 2. it should make perfect sense.

Again, proving this is so easy. Just go to your own XTU and set short to 200W and your normal Turbo to 30 Watt and time window to 3 seconds, when doing a stresstest you'll see that your performance will drop at exacly 3 seconds.

Also there is no long time window, because the short turbo is only meant to "wake the CPU up" from it's stock state. So the "long time" is basicially just the remaining time until it cools down, you'll notice that it takes longer for a CPU to get to it's stock speed from turbo rather than turboing up, they made it like this to make it more responsive

 

What you are missing is that "Turbo Boost Power Time Window" is right across from "Turbo Boost Power Max", and neither say "Short" in them, like the "Turbo Boost Short Power Max" does.

The "Turbo Boost Power Time Window" is in my CPU settings, and I don't have a setting with the word "Short" in it either.

Shouldn't there be a "Turbo Boost Power Short Time Window" setting, specifically for the "Turbo Boost Short Power Max" ?

I find it odd that the value I've seen with the same name has changed it's meaning, changing it in effect to "Turbo Boost Power Short Time Window", without changing the name to match.

What happens to the "Turbo Boost Power Time Window" setting when you disable the "Turbo Boost Short Power Max Enable" option?

 

The "Time Window" setting is the whole point, and we both agree that after it expires, whether it is 5 seconds, 8 seconds, or 28 seconds, that's the end of the sustained power for the power limited CPU, longer time CPU processing maxes out at 45w, and that's where the clock drops from power throttling.

That's why I am saying 0.25 seconds is too short. If you set it to 5 seconds, maybe he should try that too, or both of you can set it to the maximum available value.

 

What are you talking about, it says " Turbo Boost Short Power Max" (this is to "schock the CPU" from stock speed) and on the 2. it says " Turbo Boost Power Max" (This is to run after the shock until the CPU stopped being boosted)

No because the time window is just the time it needs to change it from the " schocking turbo state" into " normal turbo state". If you think about it, it makes sense because the normal turbo state doesn't have a specific time limit, because that would be dumb for obvious reasons. Don't ask me why they named like this, I don't exacly know either.

I don't know if you can dsiable Turbo Short Power, but if u can, then the window also gets disabled.

No, we don't agree, because it will after the time limit literally just take the value set from the normal turbo boost, which when set both the short and normal turbo makes the time window completely irrelevant since both are in out cases 200W.

 

So the 0.25 sec value isn't variable?

They did away with the meaning for that same named setting from previous CPU's?, the 8 second / 28 second or variable limit isn't used any more, instead it's some wildly strange "jolt" time value?

I guess I need to see the XTU (?) popup explanations to help understand this new meaning. It's very odd.

So it did change, and that's cool, that's why I was asking, given the previous settings options that number is way too small.

Thanks for hanging in there and explaining it... I'm still not happy with the answer, but that's life

 

The meaning of the value never changed. It always has and always will have the exact same meaning. It simply tells you how long it will run at short power max before switching to power max, which when both turbo short and turbo are set to the exact same value the time is irrelevant, since it would only switch from 200W to 200W in our case, which does exacly nothing. As far as I know you can set it from 0.25 to 96seconds on pretty much all CPUs that are newer than haswell.

I mean if u don't like it then send complaints to intel

I also told you how to easily prove that it's working exacly that way, which you can do right now on your CPU to see for yourself. It's not like this isn't provable. I mean I don't even know why you thought the time window would stand for actual long term turbo, that would be silly. Did you never wonder how people could run max speeds for hours despite having set the time window to 8 seconds or something?

 

I see. Only on level with the lower part tested on NBC. And Skylake desktop or BGA should score about equal with equal clocks. @Vasudev with his AWbook and 6700hq score near 690cb. Oh’well
But Op poster has already understood this. See his post #48

 

If the meaning of the value never changed, and you can set it to 96 seconds, why set it to 0.25 seconds?

Don't you want the higher Short Term Power - higher than 45w - to sustain as long as possible?

I think you are misunderstanding this, here are the variable definitions:

"Turbo Boost Power Time Window. - the time it can exceed the turbo boost power max and go up to the short power max. "

So, the longer the duration you have the "Turbo Boost Power Time Window" set to, the longer it will exceed the 45w limit of a locked CPU.

Why set the "Turbo Boost Power Time Window" to 0.25 seconds?On a locked CPU you want to set that Time Window to the maximum, setting it to the longest time possible to keep higher power enabled.

Otherwise you are stuck at 45w of a locked CPU after that Time Window expires, right?

Why play with small time windows, when you can push it longer, up to the maximum length possible. That's always given me better results.

• Turbo Boost Power Max - the max long-term power.
• Turbo Boost Short Power Max - max power for a short period (set that higher than the Power Max power setting).
• Turbo Boost Power Time Window. - the time it can exceed the turbo boost power max and go up to the short power max.

So we come full circle back to, why is it set to 0.25 secs instead of the maximum Time Window permitted?

Even if it thermal throttles due to too much power draw for too long, it will still be better performing up to that point. Maybe turn down the Window to just below that point, but that Time Window settings should be way higher than 0.25 seconds.

 

It’s a reason INTEL put in 1.25 x TDP for short burst!!

 

I am confused as to why you don't get it. Go in your XTU right now, set the short term power to 30Watts, set the time to 5seconds, set the power to 200 Watts.

What will happen is your CPU will fun terrible for 5 seconds, then full speed thereafter.

EDIT nevermind, I forgot you can't put the short lower than the normal turbo for the exact reason I explained. So do it the other way, you'll see great performance for 5 seconds, then terrible performance after 5 seconds.

Also when you open HWinfo64 you'll notice that it will power throttle to exacly 30 Watts, the value you have put in your normal Turbo.

The 45W limit you're refering to is set by the normal Tubo speed you set into your own XTU settings.

The "Beyond" 45 Watt is normally a value higher than 45Watts set in Short Turbo.

Do you understand now why the timing is completely irrelevant when the short turbo and normal turbo are both 200Watts?

Hell do it even better, open HWinfo64, set normal Turbo to 20 Watts, Short turbo 30 Watts, and time to 5 seconds, then start the stresstest tool build in XTU, you'll see with your own eyes, that in HWinfo the CPU will run at 30Watts for 5 seconds then proceed to run at 20 Watts untiil you end your benchmark. This is a simple test, try it and see for yourself, this is absolute proof that what I'm saying is right.

 

For my Haswell and Broadwell locked CPU's, not the 7820HK, when the Turbo Boost Short Power Max setting expires - when the Turbo Boost Power Time Window expires, the CPU won't run higher TDP than 45w, no matter how high I set the Turbo Boost Power Max, it's a locked TDP CPU.

Aren't the 6700HQ / 7700HQ CPU's also locked power 45w TDP CPU's after the Turbo Boost Power Time Window expires?

For the TDP locked CPU's when the Turbo Power Boost Short Power Max setting expires at the end of the Turbo Boost Power Time Window timeout, available power drops to a fixed limited 45w TDP power draw limit - ignoring the Turbo Boost Power Max.

That's what the whole point of the exceptional Turbo Boost Short Power Max power setting, to give you an extended Window of higher than locked TDP 45w operation.

So a setting of 0.25 seconds puts you right back at the 45w maximum power draw, instead of running at the Turbo Boost Short Power Max for Turbo Boost Power Time Window (up to 96?) seconds.

To get that greater than 45w power run time to the maximum you set the Turbo Boost Short Power Max setting to some arbitrarily high value - I use 200w - but the CPU only draws what is available for those older CPU's around 65w-75w, and then after the Turbo Boost Power Time Window expires at the locked setting of 8 seconds (Haswell) or 28 seconds (Broadwell 5950HQ), the limit is 45w.

That's how it has worked for me, IDK about the 6700HQ or 7700HQ, but it should work exactly the same.

Try cranking up the Turbo Boost Power Max to 200w and the Turbo Boost Power Time Window to the maximum setting (96 seconds), don't forget to turn up the fans to 100%, and see how hot it gets and how much power the package draws for "96" seconds.

Anyway, enough here for me for now, see you later

 

1.) No the Wattage (what you call TDP) is not locked on those CPU's, infact only the voltage and multipler are locked, for instance my CPU drains on maximum load 26watts. So making a 45TDP limit would be quite redundant. I don't know where you got the locked 45W after turbo short expires from, because that isn't true, I think that's why you thought that the time window actually matters which it doesn't when turbo short and turbo are equal in value.

2.) Exacly that is the point of the window, it has been made so that the CPU can quickly boost up to a high wattage and act responsive. This feature has been made so that manufacturers can keep the CPU cool in the long run but still responsive by giving the CPU for a short period of time more power to get to speed with the short turbo boost, however, this timing becomes obsolete when the turbo and short turbo are the same value.

3.) So since the 45W limit you're talking about is actually the Turbo Power, which in our case is set to 200W, which the CPU never gets due to locked multipler and manual voltage, the time window is irrelevant.

I think you should do some research on your broadwell with HWinfo64, you will notice very quickly that you misunderstood quite a few things. I think you also are confusing the 45TDP specification from Intel, it doesn't mean it's locked to 45W. Here is the definition from intel themselves:

To prove my point even further, turn on HWInfo64, OC your CPU with high clockspeeds and decent voltage, set window to 0.25 seconds, start stresstest, you'll see that your CPU easily is past the 45W mark all the tim and only gets throttled by temperature or insufficient AMP limit.

That will basicially debunk your 45TDP limit theory.

 

@Unhappy User I reckon you have a Optimus based laptop since it doesn't come with GSYNC.
Your cinebench score is average, even mine scored lower 635-650. After repaste and repad it is 687-688. Use throttleStop to undervolt the CPU and enable Speedshift in main Window and in TPL window. Afterwards disable EIST or SpeedStep on both AC and battery mode. I have 2 profiles of undervolts.

1. On AC, -120mV with Turbo boost and PP0 limit increased from 0.010 to 28. Undervolted everything except iGPU.
2. On Battery, -150mV w/o Turbo boost.

Use nvidia inspector and select Overclock option and uncheck prioritize Temp. Save it. Open nvidia inspector profile to tweak some settings such as:

1. Adaptive screen refresh rate is enabled
2. Silk smoothness is adjusted to 0x0..2 or 0x0..3.
3. Power management set to Adaptive.
4. Disable Ansel and other nvidia Geforce experience.
5. Enable battery boost or whisper mode on battery mode only.
6. Follow @j95 nvidia bloated folders removal picture or you can use mine as well Updating Nvidia drivers (17r4 7820HK/gtx1080)
7. Use Killer Control Center and after rebooting disable Killer control center startup app using task manager or CCleaner. {Note: Use Revo uninstaller free version to uninstall any app or drivers}

 

@Danishblunt - here are 2 examples of the power limits in action with the Broadwell 5950HQ.

The first hwinfo64 shows 38x all core multiplier with the maximum power draw for the CPU package during the 28 second power time window: 61.7w, dropping down to 45w after the time window expires.

Same power settings, but with the multiplier limited to 35x all cores, so the power is tuned for just under 45w constant package power:


Now, please show me hwinfo64 with substantially greater than 45w sustained power draw. You should be able to show p95 or some other 100% all core CPU load with around 60w+ sustained if your theory is correct about using 0.25sec, otherwise it will settle at 45w sustained. If you can only manage 26w, then something is wrong, and you aren't even getting close to the 45w package limit.

With Haswell the timeout was fixed at 8 seconds, Broadwell 5950HQ 28 seconds, so if the 6700 is variable from 0.25 to 96 seconds, and since you can increase the multiplier or fix it on all 4 cores, there might be no benefit to increasing the Window, that's all I can think of that might make your experience different, and if the CPU will deliver >45w sustained, it's going outside the same power limit spec as assigned to previous CPU's.

We are seeing what we are seeing, but they are different CPU's, so our experiences are different

If there is no advantage of setting the timeout higher than 0.25sec's, when it's tuneable to 96 seconds, that makes no sense to me either.

Fun stuff. I wish I had a 6700 / 7700 / 8700 to play with, but I don't

 

The GT62VR does have gsync, it's just that MSI for some reason doesn't advertise it. Optimus is reserved for GE series line.

Anyway i wonder if you have checked wether your game was running windowed or not @Unhappy User. As i already wrote in an earlier post here and GT62VR discussion thread, when games like gta v or even pubg are running in windowed mode you may notice a 64fps cap (which you have mentioned in your posts) but also a constant frame skipping/stuttering.

 

And this is why I told you to set a constant voltage.

I can't get the 6700HQ to go over 34W on prime. But I have this:


It's important that you have a static vcore and speedstep turned off, use either throttlestop or the BIOS. Then to the benchmark again

Stable 4ghz, not moving an inch and constant performance far over 45W TDP.

inb4 temps:
I was working on my soundsystem mod so I kinda had to take CPU off and on without repasting since I'll be taking everything apart again, so the temps are higher than they should be :s

 

4ghz and 6700HQ? wat

 

nononono don't get high hopes.

It's a haswell CPU. As i said my 6700HQ can't even remotely reach to 45W so I used a haswell instead, which is basicially the same as broadwell.

 

635-650 or even *sky high* 655cb is lower than normal!! Either thermal problems or heavy crippled by the OEM's firmware/software/bloatware.
If everything works as intended and no bloat running in the background, you all should expect scores around +-690cb in Cinebench R15. Already tested with BGA clocks as you probably know. And @Unhappy User run without bloat.

Intel Core i7-6700HQ-notebookcheck.net


Intel Core i7-6700HQ benchmarks (vs Core i7-5700HQ and i7-4710HQ)-ultrabookreview.com

 

I've heard of a ThrottleStop tweak for Haswell, and I don't have Haswell / Broadwell CPU's handy now to rerun the tests. It would have been handy back then if it worked on the 5950HQ.

It's a bit of a cheat though, as it gets around the Intel short power setting + timeout Window, which everyone has without this tweak. You'd have to have ThrottleStop to get it (or settings in the BIOS which most don't), and AFAIK it only works on Haswell.

You need to find a >45w sustained load for the testing on the 6700HQ / 7700HQ to see if the same tweak works on them, otherwise you are back to setting the longest duration timeout window available to get the longest sustained >45w power runs.

Also, that was only a 2 minute run, the ones I posted were 1 hr or 45 minute runs so the average has a chance to be more accurate.

Your timeout window was also 28 seconds, so power limit would normally drop down after 28 seconds to 45w as it did for me, but if your usage is intermittent the "current" CPU power draw can jump up and down - showing as you do 60w+.

My usage was a constant for the entire run, so my window timeout happened within the first 28 seconds @ 60w+, and then sustained at 45w.

Please add to the XTU graph the power usage package TDP so we can see the unbroken line of package TDP sustained, and please show the thermal and power throttling, in the graph as I did here and run a higher load test for say 15 minutes instead of 2 minutes, 30+ minutes would be better:

For Haswell to sustain over 60w and to stay below 90c is darned good, I would have expected higher temps, even for a 2 minute test.

Thanks for the demo on Haswell, but all these recommendations are supposed to be for 6700HQ / 7700HQ, and you can't get a sustained 34w, so you really don't know if you can sustain >45w on them.

Given the 8 - 28 second window for Haswell showing, and you can't test 0.25 seconds on Haswell - or find a CPU test to go over 45w for 6700HQ / 7700HQ, the issue still hasn't been put to the test yet

Maybe try different CPU load tests? prime95 small FFT ( disable AVX if you like) should do it for a short run. Which p95 test did you select, the default one won't draw as much power as the small FFT. Disabling the AVX might keep small FFT from sustaining >45w.

Once you can sustain over 45w on the 6700 / 7700 even for the 96 second Window duration, it will be interesting to see if the ThrottleStop settings will work as they did on Haswell.

 

HQ chips and their power limitations. Mobile i7 CPU information by @D2 Ultima
The HQ line of chips, while having an allowance for OCing (eg i7-4980HQ's 3.8GHz 4-core base turbo can hit 4.4GHz), are very bad at actually holding their clocks. I've asked multiple users across multiple notebooks to test for me, and I've compiled the information about these extremely weird chips here. Also, the 48xxHQ/58xxHQ chips are almost never sold, so I have almost no information on them. Also, please note that every couple of months, I meet exactly one person that has a 4710HQ that can surpass the power limits indefinitely like a 4710MQ would. This is EXTREMELY rare and does not happen for 99.9% of the other chips. If your chip works like that, then congratz. You'd better hope nobody gives you a motherboard replacement. Also, PLEASE do not tell people that the chips can all behave that way, because they do not. YOUR chip might... but not the other 25 peoples' chips who bought the laptop from Amazon or Newegg or XoticPC etc the same day you did.

47xxHQ/57xxHQ chips: Increasing TDP limits and power time windows via BIOS or XTU do not actually change for the chips (I am unsure about AMPs). This means their max OC is likely not going to happen. In fact, under heavy load at stock boost clocks, there is a high likelihood of the chips downclocking, even at stock, due to haswell being extremely power hungry. There is a slight circumvention to this however. Undervolting the processor and the cache can help reduce power drawn, and if you have a good enough chip, you can undervolt and overclock and mostly keep your clocks... but this is more luck of the draw than ever before, as unlike buying chips standalone, you would need to buy a whole new laptop to try for another roulette. If you have a bad chip like my 4800MQ is (I need stock voltage to overclock; compared to my last one which could do -80mV & +400MHz stable) you're never getting that changed. Good luck with the silicon lottery!

There also seems to be an issue depending on the BIOS of the machine. Most chips lock themselves to their 57W turbo boost short power max value for some duration if load spikes, however some machines (like the GT72 from MSI) lock themselves to the chip's 47W limit 24/7. New information has proven to me that each machine appears to be different... I've seen GT72 owners who can't pass 47W, then another showed up who gets his 57W boost... and it's not the only machine that has shown such varying behaviour. I've seen it in the Alienwares, where one guy gets a 2.5GHz throttle under most loads and another guy is telling me his chip doesn't do that (with screenshots to boot). So now whatever machine you buy, you're playing a roulette to find one that at the least will give you the short power 57W allowance (except Clevos; every Clevo owner has had his short power boost granted to him, without fail). As if the roulette of getting a good chip wasn't bad enough, since undervolting is the only way to make your TDP limits stretch.

This is a serious problem in demanding games like Star Citizen, or other exceedingly CPU-heavy games like other Cryengine 3 titles, Frostbite 3 titles and MMOs, especially in a scenario where the action spikes and your CPU load spikes... if the chip needs to and attempts to draw more power, your $3000 laptop will suddenly start throttling like a piece of crap. And guess what! SLI has a CPU performance overhead too. I've started noticing it a lot in a few recent games like Dying Light and GTA V... the GT80 is even less appealing to me now. Angry about this? Go ***** at MSI, ASUS, Lenovo, Dell, Gigabyte, and Intel (don't ***** at Clevo; they'll happily sell you a desktop i7 in a notebook. With SLI).

48xxHQ/5850HQ chips: No information available. Have had no contact with users owning this chip not met an owner of these chips who has been willing and/or able to run sufficient tests for me. If you own this chip, PLEASE contact me so I can have you run tests. Until such time, assume behaviour of 49xxHQ chip line.

49xxHQ/5950HQ chips: increasing TDP limits and AMPs etc via BIOS or XTU *DOES* actually work for these chips. Confirmed using both Alienware and MSI notebooks. The problem however, is that the CPUs only keep the higher power limits for approximately 2 and a half minutes, just like with the 47xxHQ chips. This is more than enough for most benchmarks however, as anything that doesn't cross the base power consumption for the CPU will hold (such as GPU-heavy parts) and the parts that stress the CPU are usually ~1 minute long at most. When under serious load in gaming, however, such as unlocked FPS BF4 or if you're a livestreamer etc? These chips are not for you. They're not gonna keep their clocks (likely not even stock, unless you SERIOUSLY undervolt) under extended load times.

Now, these issues have been recently proven to be fixable via BIOS hacks abusing intel's microcode. This is the only known way of doing it, and only works on machines that allow you to flash custom firmware easily (MSI and Clevo notebooks). The Alienwares would have been the most likely to allow it in their BIOS, but their BIOSes are both heavily gimped since the soldered machines showed up and also locked down with Secure Flash, preventing custom BIOSes from being used without flashing an unlocked BIOS to a blank BIOS chip and replacing your BIOS chip entirely. Note that while custom BIOSes for the MSI models exist (mainly from Svet) and can be used, they generally do not contain the microcode hack necessary to allow full control. If CPU power is truly important to you, you want either an older MQ-using machine from Clevo or Alienware, a desktop CPU-using laptop from Clevo, or a Skylake 6820HK or 6920HQ CPU in MSI or Clevo machines only. And the reason the last option exists, is...


Skylake is a bit different:

6700HQ chips: No clock adjustments are possible (even turning down turbo boost seems impossible in tested machines; you WILL have 3.5GHz 1-core, 3.3GHz 2-core, and 3.1GHz 3-core and 4-core turbo, or you disable turbo entirely). There is no manual adjustment possible and no free +200MHz overclock granted. I do not know whether it holds its power limits or not... all laptops tested have either overheated before breaking the power limits, or simply not hit the power limits whatsoever. I have no idea whether this CPU can hold over its inborne TDP limit under load, and I suspect that I will both never know, and also that it will never matter; you're probably not going to draw enough from this slow chip.

Speaking of slow, remember that this chip is a 3.1 GHz 4-core turbo lightweight. Every single haswell mobile non-low-power i7 (I.E. ignore the 4702HQ and 4712HQ), if working properly, is at worst, equal to this chip. If you have one of those machines already, this is not an upgrade, and is most likely a downgrade, unless your current chip cannot hold its turbo clocks for some reason.

 

Time to start another thread OP. This one is literal cancer now; it's mutated, has grown uncontrollably into something completely different from what it started life as, and I think is about to metastasise into yet another bga bash thread...

 

Yeah ...I'm not sure what happened here. Closed; OP you can start a new thread if your issue isn't solved.

Charles