*HP dv6z AMD Llano (6XXX series) Owners Lounge*

Try to overclock the GPU with this:

Sapphire Technology - TriXX Tweak Utility

Let us know if you're successful and once again 3DMarK Vantage score with OC.

 

I ALT+Tabbed out of Modern Warfare 2 to take the screen shot, must be why the CPU utilization was low. I went from live gameplay right to the screenshot.

 

No luck with that software either. It just goes to "Not responding". Need a driver update for sure.

 

Sorry to pester you but do you have any rts games like SC2 or something?

Wanna see how well it can handle cpu intensive games.

 

I think that there hasn't really been any good drivers for these yet, evidenced by the fact that you can't choose the GPU, it dosen't even register the 6750M, and the Vantage scored should be higher, if its on Dual Graphics. Once 11.7 comes out, I think performance will increase drastically.

 

Two things. Try 11.6b.

AMD Catalyst 11.6b RC with mobility (8.862) » Full Software Downloads - Download For All

Also, tried the AMD ones from the site? They're probobly the best, with all the hotfixes.

ATI Radeon? Video Card Drivers

 

I'd like to punch whoever uploaded that driver in 3 parts to some super slow filesharing site..... Downloading now

 

Try this and see if you can overclock the CPU or GPU:

AMD OverDrive?

 

BSOD however when I went into safe mode to roll the driver back it changed the description of the adapters to 6600 series and 6700series. Maybe thats a sign of an update to come?

Failed to start.

 

That's great info, yeah I'm pretty sure it's a sign that Catalyst 11.7 will properly detect both cards and allow for manual switch.

Possibly all overclock utilities previously posted will also work with the HD 6750M and hopefully with the HD 6620G too.

 

So guys.... which is a better laptop in terms of overall processing gaming power... the dv6tqe with 2630qm & 6770m OR dv6z with a-8 3530 & 6750m? The price is not a concern...

 

dv6z: faster gpu once the drivers get worked out
dv6t: faster cpu

 

aaahhh.....thats the worst equation!
but I think I'll stick to the dv6tqe since I believe the dv6z has a shameful cpu... and hopefully the gpu difference won't be a big one...

 

Today and for a few months it'll be the dv6t. Considering that crossfire even with two equal video cards doesn't scale very well (<50%) and it's very game dependent, I'd go with the dv6t. Wait until drivers are released for the Llano system to see if performance improves and it'll be cheaper by then.

 

yayy...! So I have ordered the better one...

 

I gotta agree the DV6T is much better especially for US buyers with coupons, here is Canada the DV6T i7-2630QM HD 6770M costs $1100 compared to a Llano A8-3510MX with HD 6755G2 for $700.

I heard in the US the DV6T i7-2630QM with HD 6770M can come down to $800 with coupons which is only about $100-$150 more than the highest Llano config.

 

once you hit the $1000 or $1100 mark, coupons included, when customizing a dv6t, it becomes kinda pointless

you enter gtx 460m territory with the asus g53/g73 and msi 16f2

$825 is the sweet spot if you compromise on the screen

 

so where do u get an asus g53 for under $1k?

 

i never said it was

g53sw @ $1100: ASUS - Laptop / Intel® Core™ i5 Processor / 15.6" Display / 4GB Memory / 750GB Hard Drive - Black - G53SW-BST6

 

Was it actually ever under any load where the CPU and GPU are both maxed out? The easy way to do this is WPrime+Furmark at the same time (or the unpatched version of Dragon Age: Origins ).

Yeah, but that one has both a lousy display and a lousy CPU. The only thing it's got going for it is the 460M and that costs you battery life. I'd actually take both Intel and AMD versions of the dv6 with the 1920x1080 displays over that.

 

OK, I'm going to bomb this thread with my theories again.

I'm now 99% certain that the A8-3510MX/A8-3530MX has a fully working Turbo Core.

Based on my info from AMD CPU engineers (from my call) and the pricing for CPU upgrade at HP: DV6Z A8-3500M to A8-3530MX = $50, DV6T i5-2410M to i5-2520M = $50

In the case of the i5-2410M to i5-2520M you're getting slightly better IGP (650-1300MHz as oppose to 650-1200MHz), DDR3-1600 support, VT-d Hardware Virtualization and 10% more CPU power = $50 more

In the case of the A8-3500M to A8-3530MX you're getting the same IGP (HD 6620G), DDR3-1600 support and 30% more CPU power = $50 more

Something doesn't work out in the case of a Llano for $50 cause Intel's VT-d is not cheap thus my conclusion is still the MX CPU's have a fully working Turbo Core that could sustain the Turbo bringing the A8-3500M to A8-3530MX upgrade to 40% more CPU power.

I've now lowered down my expectation closer to reality for the A8-3530MX to 2.6Ghz with single core, 2.3Ghz with two cores and 2.1Ghz with quad core.

 

It shouldn't matter if the IGP is under any load, it should still be at least getting up to its TDP ( link). It seems like AMD did lie to us about how Turbo Core works. Even when there is headroom to turbo, like the early reviews and this thread show, it isn't doing it for some reason. At least on the 35W parts. Maybe if could be fixed with a BIOS update but who knows.

As for the hybrid crossfire problem, I seriously doubt that won't be solved within a few weeks. Even if AMD can't go game-by-game and improve the support for it with their drivers, they could easily give drivers that just don't use the IGP for games without support for it. We have seen that the 6750 can overclock just as far as the 6770, so performance it games that don't support crossfire will be a 5-10% difference at most. In games that do support it, Llano will take at least the same and likely a bigger lead.

 

I would choose the dv6z with a-8 3530 & 6750m because it have significantly higher gaming power once the drivers are works out well. Especially if you pair with DDR3 1600MHz RAM's .

 

Right now the A8-3530MX + 6750 costs around $200 less than the i7-2630QM + 6770. With overclocking on both cards, the 6770 will have about 5% better performance. But, with better driver support, the AMD version could have 2-4x that lead. From a purely gaming/price ratio, the AMD is still a better buy.

 

Don't take the marketing slides so seriously. AMD didn't lie, they just presented the best case scenario and you took it as the general state of affairs. Let me give you a toy example to show you how that is possible (note that this is just for demonstrational purposes; I don't know the fractions of TDP consumed by Llano's components so these numbers are completely made up):

----------
Let the TDP of the chip be x and let's pretend that at load, the CPU part takes up 0.50x and the GPU part also takes up 0.50x. Now, pretend you're the AMD engineer in charge of Turbo Core. You don't have the advanced version that allows you to hit intermediate multipliers, so you have to make do with a binary solution: the clock speed is either 1.5GHz or it is 2.4GHz. Furthemore, let's pretend that going to 2.4GHz boosts the TDP consumption from 0.5x to 0.75x.

Now, in the best case Turbo scenario, you have:

0.75x (CPU) + 0.25x (GPU) = x (Hurray! Make a marketing slide of this!)

But here's the thing: the GPU doesn't have to be running at 0.25x. Suppose people on the forums do the test with the GPU at 0.10x. Then you have:

0.75x (CPU) + 0.10x (GPU) = 0.85x

Likewise, if the GPU runs at 0.30x, then the CPU doesn't have the TDP budget to Turbo and you get:

0.50x (CPU) + 0.30x (GPU) = 0.80x
----------

The scenario is an oversimplification, but the point is that you can't have perfect (or even close) TDP matching with a binary Turbo solution. AMD has extra knobs (the number of active cores, possibly the cache, etc.), but that is still nowhere near the granularity needed to be close to the TDP regardless of what the rest of the chip is doing.

Until you run into a CPU-intensive game like StarCraft II...

 

But they are supposed to be able exceed their TDP rating, according to AMD, if they aren't in danger of reaching thermal limits. In the demo for the A8-3510MX we saw it occurring. The power consumption was about at 50W the whole time. Even in your last example, it still should be able to turbo.

Even if it couldn't exceed its TDP, it should still be working better than it is. Even if we assume that the IGP is consuming 10W when idle, which is likely closer to its load consumption, that leaves 25W for the CPU to consume without reaching the TDP. Danube could run all 4 cores at 1.8GHz while consuming only 20W and all 4 at 2.2GHz on 30W.

Let's say, that at 1.5GHz each core is at about 5W consumption, again based on Danube. So that would be 5 x 4 + 10(for the IGP) = 30W. And let's say that a single core at 2.4GHz consumes 8W (5/x = 1.5/2.4, cross-multiply and divide to get x). That 5W difference, even assuming it couldn't go past its TDP, should be enough to turbo 1 core to 2.4GHz while the other 3 stay at 1.5GHz (8 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 10 = 33). And that is with the other 3 at 1.5GHz, under full load. With the other 3 idle, an estimated 2W each based on Danube and the improved power gating, it doesn't even get close to the TDP with one at 2.4GHz (8 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 10 = 24). Heck, even if we assume that AMD set aside 15W for the IGP and that the CPU was not allowed to consume more than 20W, which AMD says is not the case, it should still have no trouble keeping one at 2.4GHz with the other 3 idle. Even given that scenario, it should be able to keep 2 cores at 2.4GHz with the other 2 idle (8 + 8 + 2 + 2 = 20). Even if we estimate consumption a little higher, say 4W per core when idle and 10W for each core at 2.4GHz, and assume that the TDP for the IGP and CPU aren't separate, like AMD says, it should still be able to turbo one core to 2.4GHz with the other 3 idle (10 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 10 = 32). So, even assuming worst-case scenarios, some of which we know aren't supposed to be true, it isn't working the way AMD led us to believe.

The fact of the matter is it isn't working like AMD said it should, not even close. Based on the way they have said it works and the power consumption numbers from Danube, which is basically the same architecture but less efficient, they lied.

Games that are more CPU than GPU intensive are few and far between, though. Even so, performance of the A8-3530MX/6620G alone will be around the N930/950 without turbo on any cores will be about the same as this. It won't have any trouble with Starcraft 2.

 

From earlier postings from a member who bought the dv6z from costco, it doesnt seem like the dv6z can be overclocked

 

@ butthead123

Who are you referring to and please link to the thread and post.

 

user is - xxkinetikxx
Start reading from page 4 of this thread

http://forum.notebookreview.com/hp-pavilion-notebooks/588705-dv6-now-shipping-amd-llano-4.html

 

Sapphire did not work on the last-gen dv6, either, and I am pretty sure ATITrayTools doesn't work on the dv6t, either. AMD GPU Clock Tool worked on the last-gen, it might work.

 

What? I don't think that's how AMD's Turbo works. It stays within the TDP to avoid being dependent on the environment.

Sure, but that 50W is the entire system -- including the display, the motherboard, the RAM, the hard drive and so on and so forth. The display alone is more than 5W.

This is not how it works. It's true that the power consumption scales linearly with frequency, but it also scales quadratically with voltage. If you look at xxkinetikxx's very helpful post here, you will see that in order to reach that 2.4GHz frequency, the voltage must increase from 1.037V to 1.300V. This means that on top of the 1.60 factor from frequency scaling you also have a (1.3/1.037)^2 ~= 1.57 factor from voltage scaling which leads to a grand total factor of about 2.5. In other words, your 5W becomes not 8W, but instead 12.5W.

All of that said, I kind of agree with your general point despite the math being wrong. Before reading any reviews, I personally expected Llano to be able to keep at least one core at the Turbo frequency, but that's clearly not happening. I don't know why this is the case as it would seem that even ignoring the GPU, the CPU alone using 1 core rather than 4 should be enough to offset that 2.5 jump in power consumption. It should work... but it doesn't. That's an experimental fact demonstrated by both reviewers using machines sent to them by AMD and by users with ordinary laptops from store shelves. I suppose the Turbo Core in MX Llanos can be different, but at this point my expectations are rather low.

 

I love AMD and I really hope they make a legitimate mainstream part in Trinity, but if I have to be real about it, these are the facts:

1) At the moment the 6750m + llano does not have greater graphics power than the 6770m, though it is possible in the future. Even if it does happen I don't really think it can be *that* significant.

2) It has significantly worse processing power, so much so that I believe even with the most generous crossfire drivers it will still be lacking. Games like Battlefield 3 are known to be heavily multithreaded, and most traditional games require heavy single threaded processing, so Intel wins out.

Get a dv6zqe for these reasons:

1) You want to save money (spend around 700 bucks, no more than 900).

2) You require long battery life and/or cool temperatures.

3) You require OpenGL applications. Until the 6770m gets fixed this is the one to get.

Get the dv6tqe for these reasons:

1) You require heavy processing power for video encoding, compression, things like that.

2) You require superior gaming performance in DirectX games.

3) Your budget is under $1100 but greater than $900.

Get the ASUS G53 for these reasons:

1) Your budget is at or over $1100. $1099 is the cheapest price I have seen for a well-configured G53. Don't pay more than $1300.

2) This is a complete desktop replacement laptop. You do not need portability or battery life.

3) You want to game on the highest settings, but don't want to spend money needlessly. GTX 460m is the best video card you can get without getting into the area where the price/performance ratio skyrockets.

Replace all of these with dv7t or g73 if you want a 17" screen, but its my personal opinion that it is not worth it.

Also make sure you get the 1920 x 1080 screen upgrade for all of these models (comes standard with the ASUS).

 

I remember reading somewhere, don't remember where, that it can exceed the TDP as long as it still remains within temperature limits. This slide would seem to support that. It may be limited based on temperature to keep chip within TDP, according to the slide.

I was under the impression that those were just the consumption numbers for the APU? If not, the MX APUs seem to be suffering from the same problem as the M-series.

Even assuming that it is recording the voltages currently, which it might not be considering is gives 76W as the max TDP, at 12.5W per core at 2.4GHz should be enough to keep one core at 2.4GHz even if there was 15W set aside of the IGP. Again, based on Danube and the improved power gating, 3 idle cores should not be consuming more than a total of 7.5GHz. Given the information we have from AMD that the IGP and CPU don't have a separate TDP, it should be able to keep 2 there with the IGP consuming 5W.

My point exactly. Judging by the information that AMD has given us and the math, it should be working better than it it. Thus, AMD deceived us. Like I said, it may be fixable with a BIOS update, though.

 

You can get a i5 dv6t with 1080p for ~820 with the 30% off coupon, which will still have superior gaming performance.

The benchmarks so far show Llano battery life (not sure about temps) to be about the same as SB battery life.

 

You have to realize that this is a new product, and there are bound to be kinks. The Dual Graphics will be sorted out in driver updates, and maybe there will be a BIOS update. Also, whoever said that Crossfire scaling is less than 50% is sadly mistaken.

Conclusion : AMD CrossFire Vs. Nvidia SLI Scaling Analysis

Look at the 5850. 125% to 199% on CrossfireX. Drivers for ATI have only gotten better.

 

You're reading that chart wrong. Base performance is 5830, which is 100%. 5850 is 122-125%, and crossfire 5850 is 180-199%. So Crossfire provided (180-122)/122 = 47.5% minimum FPS increase and (199-125)/125 = 59% average FPS increase.

So right around 50% for the absolute best case scenario with two identical cards, the benefits will only decrease with hybrid crossfire. It could be even more limited due to the thermal envelopes in a laptop.

 

Sorry, I did read it wrong. I've been trying to find a recent Toms Hardware article I read a little while ago that showed XFire scaling in the 80% range since drivers have gotten so much better since that article, but I can't seem to find it.

Edit: This one. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crossfire-sli-3-way-scaling,2865-10.html

 

Nice, but unfortunately that test doesn't even have a million selling game except the 4 year old crysis. They need some Call of Duty and UE3 games in there to see how it really effects gamers.

 

Yeah I'm guessing that dual graphics while have around 35-40% scaling with improved drivers, which would put it at 6770m level.

Though if we can't find a way to overclock the dual graphics the 6770m would still be at an advantage.

Edit: maybe around 50, since AMD has improved their drivers.

 

The standard clocked 6770 is only about 15% better than the standard clocked 6750 at best. If dual graphics can increase the 6750 performance by 30-40%, it will be much better than the base 6770. If the 6750 in the dv6z can be overclocked as well as it has been in other notebooks, to about within 5% of the overclocked 6770, dual graphics could possibly beat the 6770 by 30%.

 

FYI if you buy anything from HP.com with a Discover card you'll get 5% cash back, make sure you go to discover.com, and click on 'shop discover' at the bottom.

And if you buy it in your birthday month...then you get double cash back...Im waiting till July to order the new HP

 

I was able to get the 11.6b RC1 driver installed last night.

It allowed MSI Afterburner to overclock the GPU however even at stock clock settings 3Dmark vantage would not run.

Plain and simple there needs to be an official driver update from AMD. And a bios update from HP would be awesome as the settings available are about zilch!

 

Wow this is really good news. Time to return my recently ordered dv6tqe and save $200

 

I would like to try out a CPU intensive game like starcraft 2 but I don't own a copy. Is there a demo available or something like SC2 that I can test out on this system?

 

Got BC2? That's CPU intensive.

 

I think it's wishful thinking. Remember, games utilize a fair amount of CPU. AMD is still so vastly inferior that even a slightly better GPU will not.

The integrated chip 6620G is not powerful enough to give a 30-40% boost. Do you realize that will make it as powerful as the GTX 460M? Not happening...I don't see this happening at all.

The best case scenario for the 6775g2 is that it becomes as powerful as the 6770m. But I don't think they'll milk out that much performance.

This is all speculation....but I think I detect a a bit wishful thinking on your part and on the part of the AMD fans...

 

880 Shaders on 1GB GDDR5/DDR3 sounds alot like a 5850, which is almost equivalent to a 460M. Yes, scaling will make it slower, but who knows? Drivers will improve, and if they improve enough, 460M speeds could be possible. Also, you do realize a 6750M is just a lower clocked 6770M, right? It can be OC'd to be identical to the 6770M.

 

Actually, cf scaling in some cases is surprisingly efficient.

AMD Radeon HD 68xx Graphics Cards in CrossFireX Configurations - X-bit labs

Looks like it can go from 50% to 100+% in some cases, though poor performance in borderlands (UE3) and l4d (source) is strange.

Of course AMD cf drivers have had years and years to mature whereas dual graphics is brand new.

I'd say 50% scaling would be a pretty optimistic guess of the performance a year from now, considering how pitiful scaling is right now (and how it actually negatively affects dx9 games) and the time it took for regular cf drivers to mature.

Though that would mean 50% of the 6620m (assuming best llano chip) boost, which would put the performance of dual graphics at like 10% better than a single 6770 (because the 6620m should be ~55% of the 6750m). However, considering the inconsistent nature of cf, it could very well be worse than the 6770m in some games.

Increasing 6750 performance by 30-40% would be like 70% scaling, which seems like a long shot to me.

Llano is a great value, but it's a shame that it's not reaching its full potential.

And I also have my doubts about if llano can be overclocked or not (like SB), but we'll see.

edit: and as someone said, thats not even including the possibility that games can be bottlenecked by the weak cpu.

 

Yes I know the 6750 is just lower clock

Judging from the benchmarks I have seen at anandtech, it's possible it might be equal to or slightly better than a 6770m with better drivers.

But even if that is the case, the CPU being so weak means that the dv6t will likely still outperform it.

I really think its wishful thinking to believe that an AMD that's almost $200 cheaper could match the gaming performance of the 2630qm/6770m.

I can't see AMD suddenly magically pulling out some huge performance gain with a rewrite of the driver. Technology simply doesn't operate like that

It's important to remember that you are crossfire a pretty crappy 6620G with a 6750m.

 

I have BC2 for my xbox