BGA vs PGA continuation

You can't increase your two TB power max settings either

 

Yes I have that slider, it's called the turbo boost power time window. But my Clevo basically ignores that slider, as I can set it to any arbitrary value yet my 4900MQ will hold at the desired clockspeed unless it runs into a thermal or power limit. I have Prema's unlocked bios before anyone asks.

 

Yeah, those options don't work. That's the entire point. Set them to 200W if you want. Your chip WILL NOT draw more than 47W under sustained load.

I direct you to the MSI GT80 Titan, because MQ chips ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO PURCHASE OR BE DESIGNED FOR ANYMORE

No, not anymore. You can't buy MQ chip laptops anymore. That's the entire reason the P7xxZM series from Clevo exists, and any existing MQ-using laptop has not had any refreshes or overhauls in anything except changing a GPU since last year august (see: SM-A series from clevo, W230SS and W3xxSSx also from Clevo, MSI GT60 & GT70). It is not a matter of choice anymore, and choice has been replaced by low- & locked-TDP CPUs... which also happen to be soldered to the board, in case you ever wanted to upgrade one later for any reason.

4700MQ == 4700HQ price. 4980HQ == 4910MQ price. 4870HQ and 4980HQ chip upgrades in laptops that sport them (MSI GT72, MSI GT80, Clevo P6xxSx depending on vendor, Gigabyte & Aorus laptops depending on retailer) cost JUST AS MUCH as the old upgrades in MQ laptops did.

No, we can pretty much lay the blame on Intel here.

lolwut? Wanna explain more here? Are you talking about virtual machines or something else?

No, they can't adjust it. The slider means nothing. You could set it to whatever you want. It does nothing. I've done FAR more research on this than you have, asking multiple Alienware, MSI, ASUS and Clevo owners to test for me, with varying notebooks, and BIOSes (even unlocked ones). Those sliders might as well not exist for your HQ chips.

I don't, and I can still do it.

 

octiceps, they aren't locked, and I can increase them, but they don't matter as my Power Boost Window is fixed at 28 seconds.

 

D2 Ultima, nice, discussion over. Enjoy the HQ CPU's from here on out.

The HQ's have been working just fine, applications, games, etc - no problems.

Besides all that, the game is changing with new CPU's coming out. MQ's are likely gone to make way for something else.

I am sure the new CPU's will be just as enjoyable to argue about, late into the night

 

But can you even draw over 58.75W/47W in that 28s time window is the question...

 

It doesn't do anything. Adjust them however you want. It makes no difference.

You don't exactly get to dictate when you've said your (wrong) points and nobody gets to reply.

Sure. They work great. For YOU. And for other people. That doesn't mean they work great for everybody, namely me. Or video render machines. Or streamers. Etc. Like I keep saying: if a car existed that's designed to hit 105Mph and it shuts down at 90Mph but you buy it and never cross 80Mph, it doesn't mean that the problem is "fixed" or "nonexistent". It just means you don't experience it. The problem shouldn't exist, period.

MQs are gone to make way for desktop chips in laptops, and for HQ chips everywhere else.

 

Nice with new upcoming garbage bga processors from Intel. Even worse.. Maybe with maximum 37 or 42w tdp. And all laptop producers making Trottle point at 80 degrees because of new and even thinner laptop's. LoL.
Desktop processors is the future..

 

Papusan, the higher TDP might not be needed for higher/same performance with the new generation CPU's. I expect they will perform better in the high end models.

We need to wait until the new CPU's actually come out and we get a chance to run them, before we get depressed about them

 

What is the point to have new processors that give the same power as previous models ? Only with better iGPU. Intel is a joke. Only desktop processor next time.

 

What's alarming is that Skylake has a higher TDP at a lower frequency than Haswell, and it's on a smaller process which means higher thermal density. Could it be a repeat of Ivy Bridge to Haswell? No. It could be worse.

 

Papusan, sorry, really not interested wasting time speculating on things that don't yet exist. Like I said, lets wait till they are out and we actually have something to discuss.

 

Papusan/octiceps, sorry, really not interested wasting time speculating on things that don't yet exist. Like I said, lets wait till they are out and we actually have something to discuss.

Checking out of this discussion, it's been fun

 

I think I know the answer it's been worse.

 

Only a better iGPU. Need higher tdp for that. Next year a new "Devil canyon" with higher clock speed. Same garbage but better than a soldered processor aka BGA garbage.

 

You're not answering people's questions. What TDP can you maintain on your HQ CPU? What clocks can it maintain in Prime95 and also when you're gaming? I'm curious, and it will be interesting to see if it fairs much differently in Prime95 vs a CPU intensive game, obviously the latter carries more relevance.

 

Robbo99999, I already made my point.

You want to change the discussion around to why MQ's are better than HQ's. But to me, and 99% of the people that are enjoying their HQ based laptops, it just doesn't matter.

I am being polite and responding to you, but only to tell you I don't care about those answers, they are academic and don't affect my performance needs.

I don't need to spend all that money on a platform and a CPU to get just that little bit more performance in edge cases that don't exist for my needs.

My point was that BGA's aren't garbage, they work great, and I wish you all wouldn't trip out in a public forum frothing at the mouth on how MQ's are great and all BGA laptops are trash and garbage, and how Intel sucks cause they canceled MQ CPU's.

Really. Just please stop.

If you didn't notice, the topic is:

"Nvidia clockblock: vBIOS (unblocked in 347.88, reblocked in 350.12)"

Back on topic, the 350.12 driver works fine on my G750JH, OC works and no thermal or gaming glitches so far

 

Yep, I realise it's off topic, but I was genuinely curious what CPU clocks you can maintain in a CPU intensive game - that's where it matters in relation to gaming. That carries more weight than Prime95 or whatever. So, I'm not just going ahead and saying your HQ CPU is crap.

 

Unblocked = Mx/Mq _ rebloced = Hq

 

He's too stubborn to admit the truth. Hence, the constant ducking and dodging.

 

No, you really didn't. All you have said is "hey, I have these options here, and my laptop works good for me, stop bashing BGA processors because I like mine."

Nobody, NOT ONE PERSON, has asked if YOU care about more performance. You have sat here and claimed, in many roundabout ways, that the HQ chips lack problems that we say they do... problems the MQ ones you have admitted DO NOT HAVE, and you have yet to "prove" your statements, but rather would "bow out" of the discussion, and say that we are rabid, and essentially circle-jerking each other about MQ CPUs.

Here, let me summarize the last few pages for you:

Hmscott: "BGA processors have no problems at all, and skylake is gonna be even better!"
Like five of us: "Uhh no, BGA chips have problems here, here, and here. MQ/PGA chips don't, therefore HQ/BGA sucks."
Hmscott: "I'm not comparing $1000 chips to my $315 chip"
Like five of us: "Neither are we. *provides information about $315 - $650 chips for BOTH MQ and HQ lines*"
Hmscott: "Look, I like my BGA chip, so that's that. End of discussion."
Like five of us: "Cool. You haven't admitted to BGA having issues, or proven that they don't have issues. We're waiting."
Hmscott: "Look, stop it, don't get off topic here, everybody likes their BGA chips except you all."
Like five of us: "Ok, cool, glad you like it, but we're waiting for you to prove us wrong and back up your own statements."

Did you see anywhere up there where you made any points?

 

Guys, give it up.

You're Discontinued laptops with Discontinued MQ processors are old news, not worth the discussion when they were shipping, completely pointless now that they are not.

And, yes it is ducking and dodging, like when you get stuck in a pointless conversation at a party, and they keep droning on and on and on about some pointless point of high trivial importance.

Moving to the next room, hoping they don't follow

 

I see you tripping out, nothing else.

Again, I don't care. It is all old news, like years old. These discussions have been gone through time and again.

Now that the Alienware laptops are like all the others, and the MQ processors are no more, what's the point?

I don't need to prove one is better than the other, they are both fine. My point wasn't which was better, my point was it doesn't matter.

 

Papusan, points for trying to bring it topical again

Never was blocked, still isn't blocked, works the same as it always did.

 

1. It matters
2. You haven't made a single valid point
3. For god's sake, learn how to multi-quote or edit posts instead of stacking them. Can't teach an old dog new tricks?

 

LoL. Hope you dreaming about my words under my avatar. True words from me to you

 

Asking someone to back up/prove their statements = tripping out.

You must be a Trinidadian. That's basically what 99% of my country does.

 

Just for reference, CPU is stock everything with my i7-4710HQ in my Clevo P650SE, ran Cinebench R15 and this was the result.

 

Holy crap you guys argued till 5am??

That's actually not a bad idea, if only we could settle just once and for all how much BGA sucks compared to PGA. Don't matter if 99% of the people are happy with their BGA and don't care, we here on NBR are in the 1% so we don't care what the 99% thinks.

 

Aaaand this is why we got BGA/soldered/HQ chips in the first place.
Intel is too afraid to try this move on desktops. There won`t be 99% supporting Intel there

True notebook enthusiasts are outnumbered. I feel sad :/

 

See that's why market segmentation exists. Only the 1% can afford a Ferrari, but just because the other 99% can't afford/don't want a Ferrari doesn't mean they shouldn't continue to exist. Same idea here. I have no problem with BGA at all as long as PGA existed alongside to cater to the enthusiasts. Let's face it, someone dropping $2000+ on a laptop IS going to care about performance, and PGA vs BGA IS going to matter to them.

As far as desktops go, probably not 99%, but I guaran-damn-tee that number is 85% or higher. The only people who would care about BGA on desktops are enthusiasts, and to a lesser extent mobo manufacturers. But I'm sure if Intel really wanted to ram BGA through, they'd find a way to do it. At this point let's just pray that Zen is a major win for AMD, otherwise hold on to your Haswell PGA laptops and Skylake LGA desktops for dear life.

 

It wouldn't surprise me to see Intel test the waters with Skylake on bringing BGA to desktop by offering low end chip and board combos. I actually could see them being popular with first time system builders as it is one less thing to worry about in a build, especially if you are buying a barebones bundle like Newegg offers.

I wouldn't have a problem with BGA if they performed the same as their PGA counterparts. I have never upgraded a laptop CPU and I've never had a laptop CPU (or any CPU for that matter) fail on me but there is no excuse for systems costing the same or more with a BGA chip that can't compare to a PGA chip. I've experimented with my 4940MX and found that it actually does turbo clocks higher at the same locked TDP, around 220MHz higher turbo when it comes to the 4712HQ running at the same 37W TDP and 53A current limit. There just isn't a justifiable excuse for that in my mind. We all know that Intel doesn't really bin their silicon as performance is all over the board. My 4940MX is actually inferior to almost every 4810MQ I've seen for example. If I had a golden chip, I wouldn't be surprised to see 300+MHz higher turbo at 37W. If Intel wants to shove this stuff on us, they need to actually bin their silicon.

 

Ironically, I think 4910MQ might be the best binned chip in the entire mobile Haswell lineup. I mean think about it, from 4700MQ to 4910MQ the TDP cap stays the same at 47W, yet single core turbo increases from 3.4GHz to 3.9GHz, a full +500MHz. That's gotta be some fine binning right there. 4930MX actually has the same stock speeds as the 4910MQ, yet the TDP is 10W higher. It's pretty clear Intel pulled a quick one with mobile Haswell and reserved the best binned chips for 4910MQ instead. Would also explain why the MX chips are so inconsistent this time around.

Now if only Dufus could crack the locked multipliers on the 4910MQ, I'm sure people could do amazing things with it.

 

^By "people" you mean "I". Just admit it, you want it for selfish reasons.

 

lol it would be nice and help to burn some time yes, but I turn on my Clevo about once a month these days, so I won't be doing much with it. D2 Ultima however...

 

My opinion is that i7-4930mx is a better binned chip than 4940mx. Find that more people have(had) more problems with overclocking the latest model than previous Hotwell extreme. Does anyone have an opinion on this or is it just that I have not seen all about overclocking of all Mx processors?

 

4940MX overclocks just fine. If Clevo had power circuitry that supported high voltages, I could have pushed mine past 4.3GHz easily but the system shuts off somewhere around 1.3v (I don't have liquid ultra anymore so I don't remember the exact voltage but it's lower than my 4790k needs for 4.5GHz and I have it at 4.7GHz at 1.39v).

 

Yes, I still want your 4900MQ and am willing to trade my 4800MQ for it mister 4GHz stable at -50mV

 

whoa don't go green from all the excitement

I'm *almost* certain a 4910MQ would fare better, since they should come from the cream of the crop 4900MQ dies.

 

I know XD. I just like to tease you about it XD.

Actually, with how the 4940MX chips are down to about $800 on amazon and stuff, I think getting one of those might very well be the best idea. If nothing else, it's likely to be more stable, and at max OC bins when I have to pump voltage, I'd rather a chip designed to clock high than find out I get a dud that shuts off near its max OC bins *glares at own 4800MQ*

If I get a chance for a 4910MQ though, I'm taking it.

 

Just the other day someone posted about their 9377 that has a 4910MQ... It was a horrible chip. Again, I don't think Intel bins these. His 4910MQ TDP throttled 200MHz more than my 4940MX does at 47W. It really is the silicon lottery, there are chips all over the board. I've personally seen two bad 4910MQs and one good one. The 4930MX seems to be a great chip when it is tuned. If I had an Alienware cooling system, I'd probably have my 4940MX at 4.3GHz 24/7 with ease.

 

Honestly, if you ever get your GPU heating situation figured out, you might find the EM heatsink setup more valuable to you. Your 980Ms are unnaturally hot, but if they weren't, I'm dead certain you would probably be happy to take stock clocks most of the time and keep your CPU chill and clocked high.

 

Welp.

Now I'm never selling or parting out my Clevo, EVER.

 

I thought it was going to your parents

 

It was, but they seemed to think it was too fancy or something, plus the P370SM is somewhat high maintenance. So I gave them the Toshiba instead, which believe it or not was still a decent upgrade from their C2D HP Envy they bought in 2008.

But at some point I'd like to buy them a decent, hopefully non-BGA modern laptop with a high performance SSD. I hope Clevo continues the ZM line and makes a Skylake LGA laptop with NVMe. That would be a truly worthy upgrade.

 

vs BGA processor's
Cinebench 11.5 and R15 test from the new highend i7-4980BGA in AW17R2

 

That's pretty interesting; it reads the 4980HQ as a 6MB L3 cache chip... I thought it was supposed to be 8MB, like a BGA- and Iris Pro iGPU- version of a 4900MQ. I guess that even further cements the fact that the 4900MQ and 4910MQ were better. The 4980HQ should cost a lot less if it's basically a 4810MQ with higher OC potential.

 

• Intel® Core™ i7-4980HQ Processor
  (6M Cache, up to 4.00 GHz)

 

Yeah, I know, but I didn't realize it was that. I had (mistakenly) assumed it to be 8MB.