BGA Venting Thread ;)

Sorry, since I started this thread I just wanted to throw some flame bait on the coals and see if I could restoke it. I think I succeeded.

This feels like a chicken and egg problem. Are phones turning into laptops or the other way around?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

Devices will always converge over time as technology advances.

 

i say you have a good point, which is why we are constantly asking clevo/msi to improve, because thats what we really want, but they are not giving it to us. you're making it sound like if its not good dont buy it or dont complain, well these guys OEM and intel have dumb down the term "enthusiast" for the longest time and it is not okay for them to get away with it, of course we'll b****.

and guess what, they made those high end laptop to be capable of overclock, and that means they should expect people will try to push as much as possible to compare, its only normal.

further more look at what intel has done. 8600k 6c/6t at 95w, 9600k is rated at 92w for 6c/12t. normally HT will add 10-15w need extra cooling, in this case 10nm+ is likely more efficient at its optimal frequency than 14nm++ which offset some of the power consumption by adding HT, which is fine. but now going to 8700k 6c/12t 95w to 9700k/9800k 8c/16t 10nm+, i bet intel will rate it at 92w and OEM will design heatsink base off those arbitrary TDP value, which ruins our overclocking, as we know adding more cores will need more cooling, going to 10nm+ helps but not enough especially 14nm++ performs better than 10nm+ on the higher frequency end.

anyway hope you understand a little of what we b****ing here, theres always a good reason for it.

basically people have different opinions, and at enthusiast level, even a tiny bit counts, saying them dont matter is simply a joke at high performance level. i got my friends to bring their laptops, one has sager 6700k the other got 6820hk and turns out to have both of them run above 4.4ghz, 6820hk end up using more power thus runs hotter.

people like u wouldnt understand it tho, talking about clevo laptop with desktop CPU overheat, but turns a blind eye to the fact that we overclock and says BGA dont over heat. double standard boy

 

Let me see a proof of the 6700k and 6820hk at 4.4ghz with the 6820 using more power and I will believe you

 

Right! As much as I greatly respect the opinions of many people here I would say that I lean more towards being an optimist. I do think consumer demand will ultimately lead to better hardware as expectation go up in terms of user experience and down in terms of user pricing. This is assuming there are technical advances on the horizon that could change things dramaticly. The smartphone and console couple push thing in that direction.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

I have seen them all. Awful reading!! Mind you, I have posted a few reviews of laptops with 10xx graphics on the forum. 3.8 and up to 3.9 GHz instead of promised 4.3GHz during Cinebench R15... What's the point? Rather lower the promised overclock... Than screw the buyers.

I'm sure you won't see many 6820hk manage to run 4.4GHz. It will will require very high voltage for most part of the chips. See... Higher Voltage equal Higher watt. And higher heat due high volt means as well even higher wattage or power as you said on top. Near 100w package power with Wprime and 4.29GHz ain't nice. It's disgusting!!

 

And the pessimist retort is based on history.

Marketing has incredible influence over what consumers demand. Compare how ubiquitous thin-n-lightness is mentioned in spec sheets and ads... Where is thermal solution spec? Avg operating temp?

Intel fully sandbagged development in the mainstream in absence of competition and they have billions of cash and shareholder value to show. Nvidia will do exactly the same with consumer graphics.

Making smartphones and laptops cheaply and in large volume (and paying Chinese peasants dirt to do it), works in the opposite direction of high quality and repairability.

Manufacturers have little interest in making devices that last far beyond their product lifecycle/warranty. Should a failure occur, give the consumer a replacement. Servicing is too complex and costly, as is admitting to design flaws and recalling under consumer law.

Consoles are not really anything special in my mind. They are superior hardware value for a loss of flexibility, much like the Apple ecosystem (where instead the hardware is expensive). Usually products where the initial sale is break even but made up for by a business model of exclusivity, and if not outright gouging on software and accessories then a subliminal nickel-and-dime.

Pricing is determined by the consumer, and Apple's latest iPhone pricing shows there's plenty of tech consumers for whom "price/performance" is not important in determining value. This is not special though. Ask someone to justify why a Ferrari is $500,000 without referencing exclusivity.


Clevo socket DTRs work against modern trends in many ways. I'm enjoying it while it lasts and fits my needs.

The consumable unrepairable throwaway nature of these soldered products is completely at odds with ecological responsibility though. Any greeny who owns an iPhone where the few parts that survive the teardown (a.k.a. un-gluing) are unusable due to nebulous "security features" making them single-use consumables, needs to be aware of the hypocrisy. Intel does it with sockets. We need to fight for open standards and as much as bagging soldered in favour of an Intel proprietary socket is also a hypocrisy, it's the best of what we have left.

If some technological advancement allows a thin n light to be truly high performance at the cost of repairability and all the rest, the market will shift there. For me its about resistance out of self interest.

 

AT THE SAME VCORE
THEY MUST BE AT THE EXACT SAME VCORE.
You also should set AC/DC Loadline to the lowest NON ZERO VALUE to equalize things.
MSI does Vid boosting if AC/DC is set to auto, which causes voltage to rise under load. If the desktop 6700k or 7700k is *NOT* doing this, then this completely destroys the validity of the result. If there were a vcore sensor this would help things immensely, but unless someone has an oscilloscope or Digital Multimeter and can find the vcore read points on the mainboard, without access to "Loadline Calibration (LLC)--which is NOT the same as AC/DC loadline (LLC functions on VCORE and flattens the vcore curve, AC/DC does NOT flatten the vcore curve--it just BOOSTS the VID under load; if the CPU gets the voltage signal from VID (starting at base set manual voltage), then it wlil also boost the VID under load too, but you will *STILL* have vdroop, but this sort of "counters" it in a bastardized way.

If there were a vcore sensor, you guys wouldn't have to worry about this.
Please listen to me for once.
1) use an unlocked Bios
2) use manual voltage. Set both systems manual voltage to the same.
3) set AC/DC Loadline to 1, 0.01 or the lowest non zero value in both systems.
You can even use a desktop for the 6700k or 7700k (vs 6820HK and 7820HK).

I would use a safe value of 4.1 ghzz, 1.25v (1250 mv) on both systems.

MAKE SURE AC/DC IS SET TO 1.

 

Yh you might not see many 6820hk's doing 4.4ghz but my point is I dont think they will require that much more voltage compared to the 6700k to do it.

And in response to that 6820hk consuming 88 watts for 4.3ghz, it doesn't seem too bad as the 6700k consumes 91 watts for its rated 4.2ghz turbo speed, so if anything the 6820hk is more efficient at the same frequency which kind of nullify's your argument.

and yep I agree, these parameters have to be met for the comparison/testing

 

I admit I am thinking of the very long term. The current state of things is dismal, but I can don't think it is eternal.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

Guilty as charged. It was a moment of weakness - that and perhaps addled with middle age - but I threw in my lot with Google and we'll see where that takes me.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

Who promised 4.3 GHz on the 7820HK? Intel? Gigabyte Aorus? I think not. The CPU has a base frequency of 2.9 GHz. The maximum single-core Turbo Boost frequency is 3.9 GHz. The test ran all four cores at 3.9–4 GHz, a very respectable increase in power draw. The CPU even ramped up to 4.1 GHz during the extended Witcher 3 test. It was so fast that it was hardly behind the 7700K stock. For a notebook CPU running at ~ 55 W, around 60% of the power draw achieving 85–90% of the performance of the equivalent desktop CPU is outstanding, however you want to put it.

 

4.3 ghz is weak.
I can do 4.8 ghz.
5 ghz may be possible if i want to pour devil volts into it and I don't.

 

I expect they mean one click in Aorus' own CPU and GPU overclocking tool

 

Your car has a speedometer readout until 250 km/h—do you think it can go that fast? Like I said earlier... 'cherry-picking', 'hearing what you want to hear and seeing what you want to see'.

The option is there, but they never outright guaranteed you'll get the performance you ask for.

The Aorus can do 4.1–4.2 GHz on a 150 W PSU. Your DTR or desktop requires a fat cooler, extensive mods and voltage changes, and a 330 W PSU at least to hit that 4.8 GHz.

Nothing to boast about. It's like comparing a Tesla versus a Bugatti. But did I mention the Tesla is faster than the Bugatti now? So no performance nut can accuse electric car buyers of being tree-hugging pu**ies—the performance is as good, or better.

 

The mobile 8XXX CPUs are 6 core, or 4 core CPUs?>

 

Cherry picking? It's from Aorus own overclocking software My own car has 250km/h readout and I have already out passed this speed It's tuned you know.

BGA will come with 4 and 6 cores. 45w TDP as before.

Is this meant as a Joke?

 

And you guys said a BGA turd jokebook cant do it.




5 ghz crashed during the render test at 1350mv. Core temp was getting close to 90C (WITH LM) so I'm not going to increase it. It would probably pass at 1.4v but whatever.

 

Nice. Which notebook?

I personally get 95°C on a 13" notebook with a 4710MQ, and even then I only achieve like ~60% of your CB score with all 4 cores at 3.5 GHz... So I think you can push your CPU a little more

 

GT73VR vomitbook @Papusan

 

Be careful, bruh. If something happen today or tomorrow... Make ready your tools, order a new *cheap* MB and hope you win the BGA lottery

 

What cinebench score can you get at 4.9 ghz, @Papusan ?

 

That's just a silly comparison. 6700k and 6820hk are the same thing under the hood, the ones that are slightly better built are it seems binned as 6700k.

That the cost of each +100mhz increases exponentially past a certain point is not news, it's overclocking 101 and applies to all chips ever made. Ultimately until we see Intel's internal confidential data as to what determines a die's binning (as 6820hk or 6700k or anything else) there won't be definitive proof whether the silicon is better quality in the chips that become LGA. But the reality is there's a whole bunch of people who have taken 6700K's past 4.5ghz on air and very few 6820hk's and I'm only not saying "none" to leave myself wiggle room because I can't Google it right now. My 6700K didn't need extra voltage until 4.5ghz in fact I could run it all day at 4.4 at -60mV. And once you fix the stock overvolt Intel put on it it runs very cool and quiet on 4.0 given the large cooling system in the DTR.

Same goes for 7820hk @ 4.9, I forget the exact stat from silicon lottery but some fairly large proportion of 7700K's can do 5.0ghz and over.

 

Around same. 1086cb

Strange, because 6820 is obviously better binned, HeHe

 

I thought it was already established a long time that low bin 6700K/7700K chips were turned into 6820HK/7820HK?

 

More like this...

1) 7700K
2) 7700
3) 7920HQ (failed 7700 bins)
3) 7820HK (failed 7920HQ bins)
4) 7820HQ
5) 7820EQ
6) 7700HQ (Failed completatly - Trash tier bin).
7) Etc

 

They are mostly not binning too hard on any of them. They will all be pretty similar.

 

I broadly agree with this kind of hierarchical list but the issue is where does a list like this come from? Is there any evidence to support the order?

We're never going to shut up people saying pro-BGA things like "they're more efficient" without hard evidence, controlled A-B comparisons, a lot of data points, etc. which only Intel has for *all* the bins.

 

7700HQ has lower Level 3 Cache vs. the BGA brothers + lowest clocks. It's safe to say this is the lower tier in the shelf.
7920HQ It is the top model and the most expencive of the chips + have highest stock clocks. The not very known 7820EQ have lower clocks vs. it's name brother 7820HQ.

I expect higher clocks vs. 45w TDP will count in the hierarchical list as well.

 

Papu, how does a 6820HK feel compared to a 6700K ?

 

A hell lot of 6820HK need +1.32v once the clocks pass 4.2GHz. And many of the chips will struggle to pass 4.3-4.4GHz.

 

My point is at different frequencies these chips perform at their best.

But like I said they all have their niche markets, I cant be logging a P750DM2 to uni everyday, its too heavy, and even my P650RS-G with the 6820hk is reaching the limits to what I would take to lectures everyday. But for the fact that the 6820hk can reach desktop speeds when I get home and overclock it and want to game or do some video rendering is impressive

 

i will not show proof. continue to spend money on bga and soldered filth. there are things irl with logic and simple evidence pieced together, with some thoughts can arrive at the answer. if people always want to see 100% evidence, then may all religion be true as their gospel/bible w/e it is, is 100% truth to them. (bad analogy but w/e)

 

BGA filth you know, yes I agree its not as good but it has its purpose

I also have a desktop with a desktop class CPU but I cant lodge a desktop to class every day can I? kmt

 

from what papusan said, its been forever trend started with intel business/enterprise. because most money is in server side, they prioritize it also need reliability and long lasting, money talk so this make sense and most likely true even though i have never seen an evidence, just judgement on what make sense.

the ones doesnt get passed xeon turn into HEDT or desktop x/XE CPUs, then mainstream, lower end mainstream then entry level. it would probably be wrong to say mobile comes after desktop entry level and used the remaining junk silicon but if you were to draw a bar graph, based on mobile chip's silicon quality they would be around lower end mainstream/entry level.

to further cover it up, intel would say it makes laptop thin, low power and charge a premium like its a new feature. well thinking about it if they going to clock it LOW because people would think laptop will over heat, then it will further helps serve its purpose and covering up the truth, truth of that using crap silicon but since its clocked low, and at it's optimal frequency it still looks like very power efficient. once you clock it past its optimal mhz ghz, that thing turn into pure junk and cant even hope to compete on high end, this is the sad truth.

 

Yes you are right, the premium they charge for such bad silicon is way too much and they are simply just milking the market. And I think another reason why BGA's cant clock as high is because they dont have VRM's and power delivery circuits that are as good as their desktop counterparts as they are made to run at lower frequencies. But then having the power to overclock them to desktop frequencies in such a small enclosure is what I think is impressive

And at least they provide something for use on the go.

 

[email protected] Max TDP 31.9W.

[email protected] Max TDP 28.1W (Not even tweaked core voltage for BGA clocks)


Aka +13% lower power usage.

 

if they can do like 4ghz turbo for like a min on like 2 cores 4 threads on a fanless tablet that is pretty amazing, cpu and tech have come a long way.

what is NOT cool is when people like spreading false knowledge and fail to admit on their own shortcoming. theres already 99% of market out there catered to these type of people and if they wish to waste their money on junk by all means go for it, we dont need them coming in here to tell us thin/bga trash is better on high end, cause they clearly aren't.

those extra few 100mhz that these stupid people would pay $500-600 more just for it, or even pay 4k resolution on a phone and come around say things like 200-300mhz extra on laptop will just overheat and dont matter is simply a joke.

 

Yes they may not be better on the high-end like you said, you might as well go get a heavy P870DM3 if you want ultra high-end peformance, no one is contesting that.

But saying they are trash for what they do, to me is just wrong. Like I said they have a specific market that they target. People cant be lodging around heavy P870DM3 laptops everywhere simply because they have better desktop class silicon. Those things are just too heavy, People would rather buy the 'trash' bga silicon simply because they are far easier to carry around for daily usage and they can still play or do work/video rendering when needed. Having them the ability to clock to desktop class levels such as 4ghz is also an impressive bonus

 

compare to what i want them to do, they are trash not only in performance and also cost, repair reasons etc, everything else is just dumbed down except its thinner, thats it, thinner & nothing else.

also, 99% of market loves thin/bga, so you can expect plenty of dumbo and silly people to contest against us, there are plenty of these individuals around and @Papusan @Mr. Fox we know very well and see them everywhere. we'll have people coming in to say clevo's ultra high end laptop is junk blah blah because BGA is superior blah blah, they simply wont listen lol

 

Yes they are trash for repair reasons, cost and performance but what would you rather happen, for people to carry heavy P870DM3 laptops everywhere they go?

 

Comparison between a fully blown 6700hq Turd vs. 7700K with deactivated turbo (aka the cpu is castrated ). 3.1GHz max turbo boost vs. 4.2GHz all 4 cores = A performance difference around 35.5%. But the result in the end was 54% lower performance. Nice

 

Thats nice but my 6820HK that can clock to 4.0ghz will only take probably maybe 5% longer (isn't that impressive) and its still less heavy and lighter that your golden silicon desktop chip inside a P870DM3, and can be carried around for work/lectures easier so whats your point?

My point is people cant be lodging around 5 kg P870DM3 laptops simply because they have better silicon, they are just too heavy, understand that. What would you rather have them do?

 

I'm not arguing your point but to be fair most of the size and weight in cooling the worst case 'grid' heatsink DM3 is to deal with its ~400W worth of GPUs, not the LGA CPU.

If it were swapped around and the extra weight was used cooling 400W worth of Skylake-X CPU it would be a *lot* more than 5% faster...

Fairer comparisons are with the P775, P750 and Tornado F5 which are within the realms of portable.

 

p870dm is not heavy lol

 

Instead of pointing fingers at each other, nobody is mentioning that it was Intel who started the snowball rolling in the first place by killing off PGA.

 

Heyy guyz lookit me I lyft!!!!

Jest aside, I think few will disagree with me that it's completely impractical to use in a portable manner. They are simply transportable mini desktops. Back in they day when I used them, they were called Shuttle PCs.

 

That's not very heavy to me. I have traveled extensively for business with large 17 and 18 inch dual GPU machines like the XPS M1730, Alienware M17xR2, M18xR1, M18xR2, Alienware 18, Clevo P570 and P870 for many years and had no problem with that whatsoever. Every minute of it was awesome. Even though I had back problems most of those years, even back surgery at one point, it was never a problem. I think thin and light is way over-rated and requires too much compromise to be viewed as an attractive option. 4.0GHz hasn't been viewed as an impressive CPU clock speed (to me) since around 2009. About 4.3GHz has been the absolute minimum acceptable clock speed for me for around 7 or 8 years. For about the last 3 or 4 years, even 4.5GHz has been regarded as unacceptably ordinary, boring, slow and wimpy.

I am totally OK with others having an opinion different than mine, but I think it is wrong to categorize any class of notebook as being "too heavy" and it is all a matter of individual perception. It's not a matter of fact by any means. All of the marketing is slanted toward thin and light, so there is a good portion of the consumer market that has taken the bait and truly believe that compromise is a good thing. The problem with it is that variety has been limited to the point that there is almost nothing available worth buying if you're not in the camp that is OK with the idea of compromising performance in exchange for thin and light.

Yeah, those stupid bastards. They should be ashamed of themselves for marginalizing notebooks with that worthless BGA crap. Finger-pointing is not totally inappropriate though. The advocates and adopters of the thin and light trashbooks are, in extremely large part, the reason the rest of us have almost nothing left to choose from as good alternatives.

 

I put it here

 

Okay fair enough if most of the size and weight of the heat sinks are going towards the GPUS, then a laptop should be made whereby it can be a bit more balanced in the sense that the desktop lga cpu can be cooled but the gpu can also be cooled without it being too heavy and decently thin. Kabish, that would be problem solved but then again that might take sometime to happen.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk