BGA Venting Thread ;)

Out of curiosity, how did they mess up then? I mean Obviosly you're right, all GPU's are BGA, only difference being they have either their own PCB or not. Yet I'm interested what your thoughts are on to why the soldered on CPU's and GPU's get hotter than external ones.

 

It's not BGA CPUs and GPUs being hotter than LGA CPUs and GPUs per se; it's the cooling solutions that come with the BGA CPUs and GPUs being worse than LGA's (which goes back to my point that BGA is ok, but the marketing and implementation of BGA need to be better)

 

As Darkarn says, it's not that BGA is hotter than LGA in any way. It's that they're inevitably being put in machines with lesser cooling systems.

Back in the Haswell days, most of the concern came from HQ chips not overclocking as well as MQ chips. That mostly came down to binning (HQ chips were probably lower binned to maximise profits).

I think a lot of the "BGA is crap" mentality that exists now comes from current BGA cpus (45W) being unreasonably compared to desktop LGA processors (91W) since there's no Apples-to-Apples MQ processor to compare to anymore. To be honest, the TDP ratings are also all over the place. The 91W set for the 6700K/7700K is higher than it should be (although maybe to compensate for overclocking?) and the 6700hq/7700hq is too low at 45W.

The fact that a current 7820hk processor is in fact equal or faster than a 6700K, should be evidence enough that whether it's BGA or LGA doesn't really matter from a performance standpoint. I'm sure I'll get jumped at with the overclocking argument but that is rather beside the point.

 

Please compare apples with apples and not oranges. Stock vs. stock or max OC'd vs. max OC'd. And please could you show me all your findings of [email protected] or higher in all sorts of benchmarks. Thanks

 

7820HK is about 80% of the 7700K , including OC capabilities. Of course 7820HK performance depends heavily on OEM implementation (thermal paste, cooling system). I would say 80% performance for 55W vs 91W is decent. Still , I wish the 7820HK was socketable.

 

And you expect exactly the same voltage scaling up to and with maximum OC'd clock speed? + that the BGA chips will continue to have same low BGA TDP with increased clock speed?... or hope for same scalability of CPU package power up to max overclock? Oh' well

 

I mentioned that I'd get jumped on about the overclocking. It's irrelevant. They're different parts which just don't compare with each-other. Nobody should expect a 7820HK to overclock as high as a 7700K.

A true apples to apples comparison would be a desktop chip and mobile chip at the same clocks and the closest pair I can find is the 7700HQ and 7700T (the low power one, to nobody's surprise).

Given they're identical architectures it should come as no surprise that if you clock them the same they perform almost the same. The only difference comes when you go to the absolute limit of the chips and that is probably entirely down to TDP. A 6700K can be stressed to 100W under stock, nevermind overclocking. It's completely unreasonable to expect a 7820hk (with it's 47W TDP) to have the power delivery for that kind of power built into it. For all we know a 7820HK could run at 5ghz if you actually had the power delivery to do it (ie. it would probably have to be nearly triple the rated spec), but alas, they don't. But is that the chip's fault? Or the ODM? Is it even a fault at all? The 6700K/7700K can be "better" than the BGA chips without everything below them automatically being "crap".

But for comparison's sake here's NBC's review of a 7820HK machine which comes in a hair behind the 6700K:
https://www.notebookcheck.net/MSI-GT73VR-7RF-Titan-Pro-Notebook-Review.189710.0.html
Then a 7820HK machine clocked at 4.3ghz shoots straight past it (as expected):
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Acer-Predator-17-X-7820HK-FHD-GTX-1080-Laptop-Review.207172.0.html

NBC appears to be having a bad time atm though so you may have to wait for their servers to un-break themselves.

 

i found these tests
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews...i7-7700k-i7-7700-i5-7600k-i5-7600,4870-9.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews...i7-7700k-i7-7700-i5-7600k-i5-7600,4870-8.html

what's power consumption for i7-7700T?

 

I can see that. 874cb score in cinebench R15 with 4.3GHz is totally crippled as expected. And all the 4.3GHz Cinebench scores is crippled in one form or another.


[email protected]


BTW this is from [email protected]


[email protected]


[email protected]

 

I don't see a good reason why BGA chips get the 'it's not fair to compare' card now. It like praising a F2 car can keep up with a speed limited F1 car in the straights just to spare it's feelings.

I see this all the time and it bugs me to no end. Before this BGA crap was pushed the chips going into performance laptops were essentially desktop chips. 2600k = 2940xm, 3700k = 3920xm and so forth. They were factory delidded OEM K chips. There were no excuses for lameness then.

 

This ↓↓↓ was the old standard for mobile chips!! And now... Finally could we get a unlocked BGA chips in the Hk silicon, LOL



Credit @Mobius 1

 

Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about! And that's exactly why not comparing 'high performance' BGA filth with a 6700/7700k in a laptop is nothing more than running up the white flag and demonstrating how bad things have become.

 

Wait, what?

I didn't know that BGA chips can clock to m4.3 GHz nor that the R15 scroe is lower

 

is there a difference in costs production for bga socket and lga/pga socket?

may be that intel judge better using a bga cpu because they sell also a chipset for the mobo for each cpu?

with pga or lga you can reuse a mobo for cpu upgrade so they sell a less number of mobo chipsets?

 

That's because the CPU wasn't even at 4.3 GHz when Cinebench was running, it was running at 3.5 GHz and according to NBC:

This literally just goes back to @Stooj's and @darkarn's point that it's not the chips themselves, but the power delivery, the AC adaptor used, the cooling apparatus etc. If the ODM hasn't provided for enough power to the chip, or doesn't cool the chip well enough, is that Intel's fault?

Furthermore, BGA itself isn't the issue. the 4xxxMQ CPUs are all rubbish with power efficiency—my 4710MQ is currently rendering a very simple Premiere Pro project, and it is drawing 51 W, when it's TDP was 47 W.

Once again, yes, it's not fair to compare an airliner turbofan with a Saturn V rocket engine.

 

Note the extreme editions were also 2-3X more expensive as well and not all of them were binned well.

 

Ah, yeah, 4940MX, the fire-breathing Balrog.

 

I can't help but feel that some people here completely lost the whole idea behind a "Notebook". People here comparing a BGA chip that is meant to be somewhat efficient and having decent performance with a Desktop CPU that is eating watts and craps on the battery but is a powerhouse.

And yet are suprised why people here tell them you cannot compare them.

 

Desktop replacements.

We are talking about truly strong notebooks and if you want a power efficient laptop, you might be in the wrong thread

This is made to underline the problems with BGA and why it is not powerful enough for our needs.

 

If you want performance, go for a desktop. That simple.

You won't notice a difference between a 7820HK and a 7700K as a user, even when doing something that is heavily CPU dependant like rendering. The only difference you see are numbers on benchmarks and well...battery time.

The whole point of a notebook is to have something that is portable. If a person buys a notebook just for having it sitting home all day and do stuff on it, then he has issues, serious issues.

I want you to prove to me why a 7820HK is underline not powerful enough for your needs compared to a 7700K.

 

engineering is not always in the same place. work is work
https://knowledge.autodesk.com/supp...e-recommendation-for-Simulation-CFD-2016.html

" CPU
CPU clock speed has a significant influence on solver speed. The faster the clock speed the shorter the runtimes.
It is important, however, to know that the Sim CFD solver uses CPUs (or cores) in a 2^n order. This means 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, etc... For instance, if a machine has 2 8-core CPUs (i.e. 16 cores) the solver will use all of them. If it has 20 cores, the solver will only use 16. The solver will only use physical cores (it ignores hyper-threading so keep this in mind when looking at %CPU utilization in Task Manager). "

so a ryzen or a cannolake 8-core could help

we have a laptop which is available with bga and also lga cpu

msi gt62vr 7re with i7-7700hq, gtx1070 and 75 Wh battery has 4hours 6 minutes battery life in wifi surfing
http://www.notebookcheck.net/MSI-GT62VR-7RE-Dominator-Pro-Notebook-Review.197272.0.html

eurocom tornado f5/msi 16L13 with i7-7700k, gtx1070 and 75 Wh battery has 3hours 36 minutes of battery life in wifi surfing
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Eurocom-Tornado-F5-Notebook-Review.189496.0.html

i don't know battery life with a 7820hk but i think it could be really close with 7700k

 

Well, some of us need to relocate from time to time.

I need every drop of power I can get. a 5% difference for me will mean that my render times go from 600 minutes to 570 minutes. That alone matters

 

When we want AMD to do something, but things be like



Also, I found a video that @Mr. Fox would like to see but I'm not sure if I can share here. How can I share it with you, @Mr. Fox ? I don't seem to be able to send you a direct message

 

I like this guy. Subscribed.

 

Power + portability + and here is the part that people really stick on: ability to replace the CPU. Firstly, if a newer CPU with the same socket comes out, you can upgrade instead of buying another machine. Second, if the CPU fails you can replace just that without replacing a motherboard. Those two things are extremely important to some people.

 

@Danishblunt

... or you could read through the thread and get clued in

Lol... great find!

 

Thanks @hmscott , he linked it originally.

 

If you truly need every drop of power, you would opt for a PC with a E5-2630v4 or similair. The 7700K will seem like a bad joke compared to the xenon in terms of rendering something.

The thing is, the reason why most brands don't have dekstop CPU's in their notebook is simply because of the fact that it's not needed. They didn't make weaker BGA CPU's because they where restricted, but because they simply couldnt add in more performance without sacrificing to much of the battery life. It would also require most companies to spend more money on a better cooling system and a bigger power supply instead of a proper keyboard or other things.

Most people buy their gaming notebook for, you guessed it, gaming, where the CPU's don't have that much to say anymore since bottlenecks rarely happen especially at 4k. I am not saying that BGA CPU's are wonderful, I'm not saying that it's superior to desktop CPU's. All I'm saying is, that the Notebook versions are more efficient and are better for the average user. If you have a business and you consider the costs and overall outcome the 7820HK is better than the 7700k in terms of production.It will make the company be able to sell their Notebooks at a more reasonbale price.

Now here is the next thing, I agree with you that the CPU shouldn't be a BGA one, NOT because it's inferior performance wise, but because I would like to have the freedom to replace my CPU for something else, I do personally not want a desktop CPU in my notebook, but would be really happy to see 7820MQ's for instance. I don't know why there are people here hating on BGA to the point where they have signatures saying that BGA itself is dogpoop etc. without really thinking about what their signature is actually implying. I mean if there would be no BGA, there would be no GPU's and no southbridges. I would understand people complaining about bad implenemtation of BGA chips or BGA CPU's not being replaceable, but hating on BGA itself is in my oppinion downright ridiculous.

 

Nah, I get your point. Maybe this still isn't the best thread to say this, but yeah.

I had no idea at the moment of purchase that a Xeon renders faster.

As for battery, I still need to relocate from time to time. I don't care about the battery. I do care about the possibility of taking everything in a side bag

 

Oh definitely, I think no one would care about this BGA debate if such an option were available. People take it too far for sure but the lack of a socketed mobile alternative is a problem.

 

Scary Xenon Scores

Xenon CPU's are really scary.

I know this one is a top end 4k USD CPU, but looking at the cores, cache etc. makes my mouth really watery. Not to mention that there are servers out tehre running 2 or even 4 of these monsters.

Top End Xenon

Not to mention that there are nice budget Xenons out there as well:
Xenon 2620v4 octacore 430EUR
MSI X99A RAIDER board 200EUR
Board has 8 DDR 4 Ram slots
and the board has 3way SLI.

I'd say that is totally affordable and probably cheaper than a notebook. Not to mention that if you upgrade up to 128GB DDR 4 RAM and have 3 way SLI Nvidia GPU's in it the performance will destroy any notebook in terms of performance, rendering etc.. If you look for actual performance and want rendering performance for a reasonable price i'd go for a configuration like the one I made above.

So to me when looking at a notebook I always look at the actual price/performance and performance/watt in case I do light stuff like only browsing the internet. That's why I like having notebooks with switchable graphicscards like the MSI GT 72.

However I do know your argument, but at that point I'd say if your time is actually important to the point where 5% really matter that much and you cannot afford to wait long times for rendering and stuff, i'd defnitely invest in a xenon build. The differences are rather big.

 

Thought this was a Notebook forum, Oh.well

" Engineering on the go" Is obviously a very unfamiliar concept for some here. The same applies to Why Someone Wants maximum performance. Or the possibility of upgrading their hardware. And not be screwed with welded on hardware.

Such statements like this "The whole point of a notebook is to have something that is portable. If a person buys a notebook just for having it sitting home all day and do stuff on it, then he has issues, serious issues." As someone post here....!! Does not belong in a forum-on the web or any places!!!

 

While I agree, I should correct you: "Engineering on the go" Is obviously a very unfamiliar concept for the overwhelming majority of notebook users. Being able to replace/upgrade CPU/GPU is a much more valid point since that should save replacement cost for all users.

 

I can put in this as well. Not all overclock their hardware due need for max stability. Why buy lower performance? And you can have your expencive hardware aka your processor 1. gen longer due more power (+ Upgradeability aka normally 2 gen on same socket). This is also a topic that many forget!!

 

Agreed again, I think I've mentioned it here before, buying over your requirements is a great way to get more life out of a machine, especially when it's unlocked.

 

It's like you blend out every information that doesn't suit you and keep missing the point while somehow thinking you're right.
I seriously cannot understand how people can take you serious at all.

Just a sidenote,your southbridge is a BGA chip, your GPU is also a BGA chip on a small PCB. So according to your signature "BGA must DIE!!" I'd suggest you rip that "filthy" southbridge of your board, and take that graphicscard out and throw them in a bonfire. Your "BGA RAMPAGE SLAUGHTERING MACHINE" has BGA chips inside of it, make of that what you will.

I don't understand your irrational hatred towards BGA chips and probably never will, but if you can't stay objective and keep getting emotional about BGA chips, then I strongly suggest you just stay out of BGA threads in general.

@hmscott:
Yeah I noticed, thanks for the heads up tho.

EDIT:
And you think desktop is the entire solution for everyone if they need powa? OH'well.

I think our definition of power is VERY different.


Mind showing me a notebook with equal power? Oh...you can't.

And that's not even close to a "high specced" xeon build.


So to answer your question, yes.
If you need and want real power, desktop is the only way to go at this point of time.

 

I'm curious...
By that logic you would also imply that nothing but the top skew CPU is "worth it". No i5s, no i3s, nothing but the 7700K.

Logic doesn't work in the echo chamber mate. You should scroll back to earlier in this thread to see some of the flat out crazy rhetoric that goes on here.

The dumbest thing to me, is that anybody who does any ACTUAL work requiring large computation power offloads it to 1 or more servers or at least a desktop because it's just that much faster and cost-effective. Having a notebook that sacrifices significant weight so it can compute, maybe 30% faster, is ridiculous when the same task can be done on a proper server in the region of 400-500% faster. Nobody in the real world cares if you can get 1000 points in Cinebench when even a middle-low end server with 2x 8-core xeons can double that.

The great irony is I've suggested multiple times that if people want a no-compromise tank of a machine with X99 or similar, then they should lobby with ODMs to make one via kickstarter or similar. Literally nobody replies to that particular statement I've made several times. Probably because they'd quickly find out making an entire system is actually hard and it'll cost $10,000 per unit to produce due to unreasonable requirements.

 

If battery life is important and performance is not, buy a cheap disposable turdbook that you can use for a boot scraper when it dies or use a smartphone, or a cheap tablet. BGA has a valid purpose, and those are nice examples of what BGA is good for.

Nobody needs to prove anything. Those that require it are blind or have another agenda. The results stand on their own. Those that despise BGA have an overwhelmingly well-documented basis for it and shouldn't feel compelled to burn any calories casting pearls before swine. It is understood that some people are OK with owning an anemic piece of garbage. It should be likewise understood that others are not. The existence of garbage and the tolerance some have for it is not the problem. The problem is when all but a couple of the options left are garbage and there is almost nothing acceptable available for purchase for those with higher minimum standards. Thank goodness there are around 2 or 3 decent options left if you are looking for a 2016 or 2017 model laptop. If you don't like those 2 or 3 models that are actually worth owning, then you're out of luck because the lowest common denominators are now in the majority. The OEMs have figured out they can make more money catering to kids and suckers than they can selling quality products to discriminating customers with high standards.

That sucks, but so does bad behavior. Check the title of the thread. Pooping on the carpet when you are a guest in another man's house is uncouth and boorish.

Spoiler: From a variety of threads

Spoiler: Answers his own question about BGA filth.

Hmm... I think I see a pattern, too. But not the same one.

Probably should check out the Forum Rules. Especially the first bullet.

 

So... Xeon can pull better scores in R15. I use the same machine for both work and play. Does xeon works as well for gaming too?

 

This is a notebook forum. You can't get better power in laptops than you can have from oc'd 6700K-7700K. Desktops isn't the topic.

 

I used many Xeon based servers with GPU passthrough to VMs and they work fine for gaming. I can even use it as a roughly bashed together form of Nvidia GRID server if I want. I've actually had a thought about setting one up in my office to run instances of Civ5/6. All connected permanently to a multiplayer game and you can just RDP/stream in and it operates like a big persistent game (a replacement to the old email-per-turn used in CIV2 days ). Could jump in via phone/tablet/laptop or something like my GPD WIN on the go.

Fact is, very few games actually need much CPU power, or only see decent gains at very high frame rates. That's why people have been getting away with keeping their old Sandy/Ivy Bridge gear.

The point, is the PURPOSE of the machine. Getting a CPU to 5ghz needs to come with a reason "why", and just getting a benchmark number higher is NOT something most users care about.

As a series of gaming laptops, extending performance in that regard is almost nonsensical. In terms of compute/rendering/calculation it also fails because you don't actually need to carry that power when you can offload it remotely.

Round and round we go again!

 

I was actually asking because at the moment I need a notebook and portability.

I do a lot of gaming, but I also program, write, compile, render and such. So render times are quite important as well.

With the budget for a single machine, I guess that getting a 6700K + 1080 GPU should do fair judgement to the whole purpose.

I was curious more along the lines what if or what if I also buy a secondary machine. Render times on 6700K can extend to ~100 hours even for a 5 minute video...

 

#932 and #934 is still valid. Not all is about OC'ing.

See also the so called "high performance i7 BGA chips" as NBC always tell in reviews(NBC reviewers say this for all mobile H chips).

Spoiler: BGA IN ACTION

 

Entertaining indeed...

I should pull up an older post of mine and perhaps repost it here...it had some good neutral, inarguable points...

There is a very fine line here and the whole topic needs surgical precision when talking about the what and the why's, because to generalize all bga being crap is a very weightless statement; not to mention quite contradicting when we all use some form of bga or another.

However, to keep it simple since we're talking about gaming laptops, there are several branches to this argument as well, because some points hold to be very true, while others are flat out do not.

We can all feel strongly 'for' something, but if we forget to be wise and practical while doing so, one only contradicts himself. Full loop. Back to square one.

The reality is, when it comes to performance, since the introduction of Pascal and Kaby Lake, the gap has narrowed a lot between mobile bga and desktop chips. We can see how this is true with some DTR's outrunning some desktops. Heck even some bga GTX 1080's perform on par (graphic score wise) than some desktops. It's a new era..

What was impossible back then is no longer impossible.

If a double edged sword or catch 22 had one definition only, this whole bga rant and with where the industry is headed would define it pretty well. There are two sides to it...

The way that I see it, although the performance of some bga machines are respectable, this is no excuse for consumers to remain complacent just based on that fact, because the catch 22 is that you'd also feeding the mouths/thoughts of them shareholders that are sitting at the desk that barely knows how to turn on a computer. Let alone condoning the direction of where the industry is headed.

It's a very tricky subject, but certain FACTS can still be extracted from this whole thing with bga / industry / shareholders / retarded designs etc...

--

Ex. Of why we're seeing such craziness in this industry of ODM's calling HQ CPU's and such as being, "Powerful etc..." *face palm.*

1. Ignorant consumer base. The majority of the consumers don't even know anything beyond the word and letter i5 and i7. Heck if it's a HQ then it must be better than a K right? More letters means better? *ignorance*

2. The other day I went to ship out a computer and the guy at the cashier said, "Oh I just bought one of those."

Me: "Nice, which model?"

Cashier: "Umm not sure I think it was the one with the i7 graphics card."

Yes...no joke.

So you have ignorant people like this that is ruining it for the enthusiasts.

3. Shareholders... It's all about the $$$.

--

On the flip side, we also have to keep in mind that there are much more "shtuff," that goes into certain things when it comes to multi million dollar companies. It's easy to yap away here, but we are still the minority who want a dtr segment.

The kickstarter is a great idea and that will shed a lot of light to how much work goes into the business side of things...

But at the end of the day, it's about keeping the current companies alive who are still offering dtr's and being thankful that we still have the option.

 

Yes. Anyone who does serious work, i.e. uses his computer to make money for a living doesn't bother with notebooks. Either

a) They're in an office environment with 10GBASE-T UTP connecting their workstations with a server room, or,

b) They're in a SOHO environment, and still use dedicated, stationary hardware that isn't meant to move around.

Discriminating customers with truly high standards don't even bother with the P870KM. They get Xeons and workstation-quality rackmount hardware from companies like HP and Dell, with decade-long warranties. Upgrades and repairs are carried out by on-site technicians rather than the users themselves who have real work that they're paid to do, or make a living out of to worry about, not chasing a 3DMark or Fire Strike score for the heck of it. As @Stooj says, so much of our hardware today uses BGA that it is narrow minded to say 'BGA is rubbish', when it is usually not BGA that is the problem, but the unrealistic assumptions of customers or lousy functional and design decisions made by hardware manufacturers, such as Razer with their Blade. I tried to push 4 GHz (i.e. desktop frequencies) on my 4710MQ and it started drawing 90 W of power and thermally throttled literally to hell. It is a socketed machine, through and through, but it has next to no benefit, because I cannot upgrade to Kaby Lake anyway. Does that mean I have a crappy machine? In absolute terms, sure, a P870 will trample all over my W230SS, but for my use case, it works fine.

I also questiion Eurocom's decision to call the P7/P8 series workstation hardware. They are enthusiast, certainly, but workstation is an entirely different ballgame. For one, Core i5, i7 and the Z170/Z270 chipsets don't support ECC RAM.

 

There are also small businesses that don't afford buying all that and will need a workstation. Furthermore, small businesses that require something strong but mobile. Imagine having to relocate between two main headquarters but not having the budget to invest in two computers. That is where one of those strong notebooks comes in handy.

 

For rendering I would only take a 6700K/7700K system due to better cooling. Code compilation times for programs and such aren't all that long anyway for small projects. The actual performance delta is around 30% or so which in a relatively small project (lets say ~5 minutes compile time) is not going to make a huge difference. I usually work in Python so traditional compile times aren't really an issue. The closest I can think of that I do would be kernel compilation times which I almost never do and usually only takes 3-5 minutes anyway.

For anything with long compile/render times (ie hours or more) the main concern is heat-soak and the question of your notebook no longer being portable for X hours if you start a render.

 

I still wouldn't buy a Clevo; a HP Zbook or a Dell Precision with Xeon, ECC SDRAM is what I'd use.

 

I actually relocate at a 2-4 weeks intervals, not daily.

Render times vary widely, anything from 10 minutes to 20 hours to 100-200 hours of render time.

On the other hand, the render engine sometimes has some problems and won't render at full speed but will rather use the CPU at 60% thus the render heat being somewhere close to the idle temps since I have an external cooler.

Those do look interesting, but the price of one is really high considering that for games a Quadro is equal with a GTX with the same number of GPU cores / frequency and same generation

Do we know if those workstations cool well or if they overheat though?

 

Overpriced BGA Intel Xeon Processor E3-1575M v5 vs. 7700K), at almost 3x the price. In addition, you are locked into NVIDIA® Quadro® or AMD FirePro graphics (which are not particularly cheap for the power you want).
I understand very well that some of those who want portable Workstations, nor want something completely different than overpriced BGA Workstations and rather select Eurocom's models.



In addition, the selection of hardware for these BGA Workstations are quite limited(Also limited models - aka types of models or brand). Limited BGA Intel Xeon's you want in your machine, smaller amount of RAM (limited to 2 ram slots) and limited storage slots. The performance from these 45W chips can also be discussed. + BGA means buying maximum (best) support / warranty. The benefits(support of additional administration and security features like support for ECC-RAM) are minimal for what you pay and get.

Stock performance from 45W TDP BGA Xeon vs. LGA.