Is My GTX 680m Underperforming?

Two days ago, I received my NP9150 Special Edition and for some reason I'm not getting good scores on 3DMark 11. The scores I'm getting are:
Score: 5862
Graphics: 5726
Physics: 7738
Combined: 4948

In 3DMark Vantage and 3DMark (new one that's out), I'm getting similar results as most people that have the same specs as my laptop. I have no issue with those two benchmarks, but with 3DMark 11 I have an issue.

I'm using the latest Nvidia drivers and I have the Nvidia power management to max performance. I have a couple of questions:
1. Are these good scores at stock speeds on the GTX 680m?
2. Does my Sager NP9150 have a defective GPU?
3. Is 3DMark 11 buggy?

I tried out throttlestop 5.0 and it did not work for me. Do any of you have any suggestions?

 

Your graphics score is definitely lower than average. What are your power settings? Have you set it to high performance in the Sager control panel (I think it's fn+f1 or something similar.) And just to make sure, you're not benchmarking on battery, right? lol

 

I am not a gamer but are we really having this talk? Vantage is OK, The most current 3DMark is OK but 3DMark11 is low.

Can I ask? Do you guys play 3DMark11? Is it a game (I know it is not but do you). How are your games playing? Did you buy this notebook to run benchmarks or game? Unless you see issues or low frame rates in games you play what is the issue? I am sorry but like OP I also have way too much time on my hands.

 

Relax ASUS-UX32VD. Low scores can be an indication of an issue. Although it's not the first time I've seen the 3DMark 11 scores drop. I can't run at stock 720MHz, lowest I can run at 765MHz because of my modded BIOS, but I'll show my score. Perhaps you can use nVidia Inspector and run yours at 765MHz to compare.

I'm using drivers 314.22. Try to update to latest WHQL which should be 314.22. Also make sure to hit Fn+ESC and set to high performance and double check in windows lower right corner, power options (battery icon), and switch to "high performance".

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M video card benchmark result - Intel Core i7-3740QM Processor,CLEVO P1x0EM score: P6178 3DMarks

 

im getting P6199 on default settings with no overclock NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M video card benchmark result - Intel Core i7-3720QM Processor,CLEVO P15xEMx score: P6199 3DMarks

ive just run the test again clicking benchmark this time with exact same score http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/6556267

so whats the difference between the full 3dmark11 experience and just the benchmark option?

 

I think -200points in 3dmark11 can be explained by fluctuation (from gpu to gpu). It maybe your gpu in particular scores 5.8k (not too much below average 680m). Most likely driver issue.

@Asus-whatever guy, he bought a machine with 680m, he is interested in high performance as well as benching. Please get that pointless argument out of here.

 

Fluctuations can also be due to settings in the nvidia control panel such as setting FXAA to on or other options.

 

I doubt that.. 3DMark's pretty adept at overriding such settings.

 

Here is my score with the 135 MHz increase from Nvidia Inspector. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M video card benchmark result - Intel Core i7-3630QM Processor,CLEVO P15xEMx score: P6558 3DMarks.

 

Run MSI Afterburner along with 3DMark11 and post the graphs it makes. Maybe you have throttling in some parts of the benchmark that cause the score to go a little down. -5% from the Average doesn`t seem dramatic to me though

 

I tried 3DMark 11 with the Windows power options set to balance and the nvidia power option to max performance and I got a higher score for stock performance and the +135 MHz core increase that was set by nvidia inspector.
My new stock score is NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M video card benchmark result - Intel Core i7-3630QM Processor,CLEVO P15xEMx score: P6037 3DMarks.
The new +135 MHz score is NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M video card benchmark result - Intel Core i7-3630QM Processor,CLEVO P15xEMx score: P6788 3DMarks.

These performance increases came from the latest Nvidia beta drivers. The vbios version my gtx 680m has is 80.04.29.00.01.

I tried the new version of 3DMark with my GTX680M at stock settings, Windows 7 power options to balanced, and max performance in the Nvidia control panel and have these results NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M video card benchmark result - Intel Core i7-3630QM Processor,CLEVO P15xEMx.

 

Why would you set power options to balanced? Set it to high performance.

 

With power options set to balanced, the gpu gets better scores.

 

Weird. Something is definitely off kilter then.

Did you use Fn+ESC and set that to high performance?

 

The settings that I used are:
1. Windows 7 power options set to balanced. Nvidia control panel 3D settings to max performance. Sager HotKey control setting User defined and power conservation to balance.
2. Same as above but the Sager HotKey control center power conservation set to performance.

I'm not sure why I'm getting slightly better performance with balanced power options over performance power options?

 

ASUS-UX does have a point to an extent. Instead of benchmarking out of the box, maybe game a bit and check your temps and your real world FPS. Play around with settings in the Nvidia control panel (or in game) and find out what your card's max potential is. Compare your in game benchmarks with other owner's marks and then you will have an idea if your card is faulty, or being starved for power. You can get a idea of your cards general output vs other cards using 3d Mark, but it won't necessarily translate to in game performance. Some cards that score higher on 3D Mark may get lower FPS in some games than other cards with a lower 3D Mark score. So don't get to fixated on the score and what it translates to just yet. I would also suggest upgrading to Prema's BIOS Mod for your model. It will really unlock your GPU (and even CPU) OCing potential, and give you a bit more flexibility in your BIOS. I am grateful for his hard work and dedication to helping other Clevo/Sager owners. He is a wonderful asset to this community and his work is top notch. Anyways the option is always available to you....

Instead of using the pre set Windows power plans why not create a custom plan? That way you can edit the advanced power settings one by one, especially the processor power management settings. This also allows you to set different values for "plugged in" and "on battery" so you can make it balanced. The power "saving" options should really only apply to when you are on battery anyways. I maintain mine so that when im plugged in there is no drop in performance. For example, under "balanced" Windows had my wireless card set to "medium (or max) power saving" while plugged in, and this was limiting my network performance. Check your minimum and maximum processor states, and your system cooling policy. I would advise setting this to active cooling and not passive. You could also create a custom power plan for gaming only and rotate between it and a balanced plan for battery usage.

 

You don't need to go through all that. Out of the box it should be same as other 680m GPU's or else there's something restricting performance. Balanced mode and power saving mode can hinder performance in some instances. Creating a custom power plan won't do much. You can set to power saver and set everything to 100% and it will still perform sluggishly. Only thing I can think of is perhaps Clevo updated the 680m BIOS and it results in reduced 3DMark performance.

 

I agree with HTWingNut, and it is definitely odd that "Balanced" scheme works better than "High Performance". The good thing is your GPU is performing well in general, with comparable scores with the new beta drivers as well as OC scores too.

 

I don't understand the varying scores with different power plans. Some setting is directly effecting performance. I don't know that the scores he's seeing are indicative of a defective GPU, so that's why I suggested tweaking other options and benchmarking in games. I see slight differences in performance when I change my driver, but I just adjust the in game settings a bit and my clocks to get FPS where I want them.

Personally I think people put to much effort into their GPU benchmarking scores. Results vary from model to model, and even with identical systems. There are so many variables that go into those scores and the software favors certain hardware configs over others. I certainly don't think he got a lemon and it has more to do with variables outside of the actual GPU. My 3D Mark score was a few hundred points below the average when I first got my notebook. Has the OP tested in on any games yet?

 

I downloaded BioShock Infinite today and my GTX 680m is getting an average of 46.29 fps and max 78 fps on Ultra settings with the latest beta drivers on both adaptive performance and max performance. I'm not sure if the fps is good at stock speeds on the GTX 680m?

 

if you are going to cross post between the clevo thread and here then could you keep people updated on replys youve had from support http://forum.notebookreview.com/sag...ition-low-3dmark-11-scores-please-help-2.html