*** Official Clevo Sager NP9155 / P750TM-G / P751TM-G Owner's Lounge! ***

IMO keeping it below 90C is fine. It throttles at 91C anyway.

 

Well, guess I'll aim for anything lower than 90 then. Thanks man!

 

it looks like its limiting on VR current, whats the best way to fix that?

 

Probably need a Prema mod. I have it too.

 

yep, anything below 90C long term is fine for CPU and GPU. short term u can even get away with up to 95C, at which point thermal throttle occurs (CPU).

 

Actually scratch that, now I'm seeing a 5-7C drop on the CPU after doing my own delid with the copper IHS and with the toothpick mod.

Spoiler: Before

Spoiler: After

Room temperature is still 70F, the main difference is that now I'm at sea level instead of 8200'. Does air preasure/elevation affect temps? Sorry my physics knowledge is rusty at this point.

 

Did you relid your CPU? Did you make sure to clean off all the residue?

 

Yup

Spoiler

 

so fresh and so clean CLEAN

 

Denser air should improve cooling by the way, so yes.

 

That makes sense.

 

Also what are those marks on the CPU package, did you old school razer blade it?

 

Which ones, the copper? Those got exposed from sanding the super glue. I covered them with clear nail polish before putting the IHS back on.

 

Oh wow you really did get every trace, a finger nail should be sufficient and helps keep the package flat. I am glad you did not go through the first copper layer!

 

scary

 

Ha, tell that to several broken and bloody fingernails and credit cards trying to get that tough ass super glue off to no avail.

 

i wouldnt think to do that to any CPU.

 

Did you super glue originally it back on?

 

No, my reseller did that.

 

Interesting, I suppose you can make the seal thinner that way.

 

More like out of laziness.

 

My latest annoyance with this machine is that anytime I quit a DX9 game while G-Sync is enabled, my desktop gets locked at a really low refresh rate (sub-60Hz according to testufo) even though Windows/Nvidia still says 120Hz. It feels like crap because everything--mouse pointer, scrolling, animations--stutter. I have to either turn off G-Sync, or launch a DX11 game, to fix it. I'm assuming this is an Nvidia driver bug and it has happened on every driver since 391.

 

is there a difference between p750tm1 and p750tm1-g?
and does both of them have gsync

 

The "-G" denotes G-Sync as far as i know.
For the P775, TM means 1060 and 1070, while TM1 means 1080.

 

what about gsync in both of them?

 

-G models support g-sync on the internal display, both will support external g-sync panels.

 

Again as far as i know, Gsync is only supported on models with "-G" for the internal display.

 

This is correct, the -G models have an internal G-sync ready card and are paired with a known G-sync panel for the model so that it all activates.

 

I've had my P751TM1-G for exactly a month. Here are some videos of the performance on various games. @Danishblunt

Settings used are in the beginning of the video and/or video description.







In Day of Infamy, I was getting intermittent spikes to 100% on all cores with my i5-8600K overclocked to 4.7GHz. Pretty crazy CPU usage for a Source Engine game!

Next week, if time permits, I'll post videos of Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, Doom (2016), and Rising Storm 2!

 

I would prefer you do not make your own options but use presets instead because else there is nothing to compare it to and nobody knows if you're performing well or bad.

 

GPU clocks, temps and performance consistency are very valid still however. Plus you don't know what other points in the game others are using.

 

Sleeping Dogs: Definitive Edition was the only one that had a built-in benchmark. I did link the result for that benchmark, run at max settings including Extreme AA (4x SSAA), in the video description.

The problem with maxing out settings is that it makes most laptops with the same GPU look the same because it becomes solely a GPU test at that point. But where a Clevo LGA system separates itself from the masses of low-clocked BGA CPU systems with basic RAM is at high refresh rate gaming and in CPU-bound titles.

In those multiplayer games I was playing, a bog standard system with a 6700HQ/7700HQ and single channel DDR4 2133MHz CL15 or 2400MHz CL17 couldn't dream of hitting those min FPS, I don't care what GPU it has.

Case in point:

The lowest I saw in the middle of Market was about 120 FPS (at 2:47 in this video). 120 FPS versus 75 FPS is a huge difference.

There are tons of GTX 1080 notebook max settings gameplay and synthetic benchmark videos out there, but very few showing real-world high refresh rate gaming in CPU-intensive titles with detailed performance metrics and such.

 

Any full review would have both sets of numbers but the lower settings always do get blury between sites because there is that choice of which options to tone down.

 

Well no, the point of buying a GTX 1080 notebook is to not having to lower the settings in the games in the first place.
Also you have the same FPS drops as I had on the start of market, not as low as the 6700HQ, but also in the 2 digit FPS, but if yuou're playing a source based game and you need high FPS an high clocked I5 is the way to go.

I noticed your benchmark on maxed settings in sleeping dogs is very low, is this because the definitive edition is somehow more demanding than the original?

As a guy who played quite a long time CS 1.6 and later Early CS:GO on a semi competitive level, the only thing worse than very low FPS are unstable FPS, I mean wow, 103 - 320FPS is an absolute nightmare. Most, if not all profesional players lock their FPS and put their resolution to ~720p (some even lower) because of the problems fluctiations cause. So there is that....

 

Well no. Frame rate isn't the only reason people lower settings. Reduced input lag (settings that affect input lag without altering FPS), or reduced visual clutter for a competitive advantage, are also common reasons.

How many recent games can run maxed out at a minimum of 120 FPS at 1080p on a GTX 1080? I guess I'll find out with Doom and Rising Storm 2 next week, but given how they ran on my previous 980M, I think there's a good chance. But I know for an absolute fact that Deus Ex: Mankind Divided will not even come close to that, not even on a 1080 Ti for that matter. Lots of settings need to be lowered for 120, and MSAA is totally out of the question given how badly it tanks performance.

The security forces beach spawn is the worst spot on Market and probably the entire game. You'd be getting a little over 60 FPS there on a 6700HQ because that's what my previous 4720HQ at 3.6GHz did. So 100 FPS in that spot is still a great improvement.

It's much more demanding than the original due to all the rendering and simulation/physics upgrades in the Definitive Edition.

Edit: Here is a comparison between the original and Definitive Edition benchmarks from a few years ago on a different laptop.

I challenge you to find anyone with a good rig that does not have those fluctuations with unlocked FPS in Insurgency and Day of Infamy . It's not because of the GPU (barely used), it's because those games push Source way past its limit. I usually lock games at 117 FPS for G-Sync unless there's a benefit to having it unlocked, for example a noticeable input lag decrease, or in the case of PlanetSide 2 better damage output because the RoF/DPS of guns is tied to frame rate.

 

That's bad coding is damage is tied to fps, just saying.

 

Tell me about it. Literally P2W, given how poorly PS2 runs.

 

As you pointed out flawlessly in your previous post, CPU doesn't matter in most new AAA titles. And you're absolutely correct, the FPS have a lot to do with recoil and inputlag, especially when we talk about the source engine, hence pro players down their resolution to 720p and set their cap to 144fps (same as the screen), but having high but unstable FPS causes this exact issue as well.

To answer you question, on 1080p a lot of games can run the "magic" 120hz fps number even maxed out, as long we talk 1080p. DOOM does run around 120-200FPS on maxed 1080p. Rising storm also runs around 150-250FPS on maxed settings 1080p.

There are games such as Deus ex mankind devided and Mafia 3, that will run garbage no matter what, but this is a CPU thing, and both games aren't exacly competitive, so you probably would want visuals over FPS on those games anyways, since they are rather cinematic to begin with.

About the challenge, I'm not going to attempt that because I know that already as well. My point being, that if you play source games competitively you usually put down settings to 720p, lock FPS on 120/144hz (depending on the monitor) and u're done because even a desktop CPU like yours will fluicuate really hard. My point being, if you have a weaker CPU in sourcegames, you actually get more stable FPS due to the nature of the CPU, while the minimum isn't that much lower. When I'm on the startingpoint with a crappy 6700HQ, I get around 85-90FPS, while you have 95-105 FPS (and a very specific place in the market is a point where FPS goes down to 75FPS, you have to position yourself to a very speicifc place and look in a very speicific angel, i can find it again and make a screen so you can test urself, possibly caused by some kind of bug), considering that your CPU is FAR and byond my very outdated 6700HQ, the difference in FPS is in terms of min FPS not even that great, all you have is a much higher flucuation.

I'm pretty sure if I would try to game on my 4940MX and OC to 4.5ghz or something I would probably ahve the same same performance as you, despite ur CPU being far superior, hence I don't like source games in general as benchmarks, especially since you can tweak those games and make a crappy I3 beat the snot out of an I7 CPU.

 

I never said CPU doesn't matter. CPU matters a lot in AAA titles when you're trying to push minimums well above 100 FPS. Assassin's Creed: Origins and Far Cry 5 both have really good CPU scaling, and Origins might be the most CPU-heavy game currently on the market. You have old standbys like BF1's multiplayer, Novigrad in Witcher 3, Geothermal Valley in Rise of the Tomb Raider, Welcome to the Jungle in Crysis 3, etc. that also have great CPU scaling. What I actually said was when you max everything out and games run at really low FPS, then CPU/RAM doesn't matter and it's all about the GPU. CPU usage is directly related to FPS.

I was talking about graphical settings (usually postprocessing) that affect input lag without changing FPS. Like SSAO in Deus Ex: Human Revolution or Graphics Quality in PlanetSide 2, you can increase them while keeping FPS locked using a limiter, and input lag still increases.

I was talking about Rising Storm 2, not Rising Storm 1. That performance is not accurate for Rising Storm 2.

When you're not CPU bottlenecked (the built-in benchmark is a GPU test), Deus Ex: Mankind Divided is brutal on the GPU. Not even a 1080 Ti can average 120 FPS at 1080p Very High (one step below Ultra), much less minimum:

Spoiler

Settings don't matter in Insurgency and Day of Infamy. Like you said so yourself, you were getting the same performance in Insurgency regardless of lowest or maxed settings with the 6700HQ. No amount of settings tweaking is gonna make a slower CPU outperform a faster CPU in this game, that's just nonsense. All that matters is how fast your CPU/RAM is. It's a great benchmark because it shows that separation between slow and fast CPU/RAM, unlike most game benchmarks these days. And yes I know that a stronger CPU raises min/avg/max FPS across the board and can cause there to be a greater fluctuation range with unlocked FPS, but you can fix that with an FPS limit. The min FPS increase is what's important.

I would disagree that min FPS isn't much lower on a weaker CPU. If you want to see an extreme example of this, here is my old i7-3630QM with DDR3 1600MHz CL11 getting 40 FPS on Market. Compared to the 100 FPS you saw the i5-8600K 4.7GHz/DDR4 3000MHz CL16 do in that same spot, that's a massive 2.5x increase.

 

If you are chasing the 144hz dream the high single thread speed is going to help reduce hitches and as you said minimum FPS. That's not to say the mobile ones won't run decently but to get the true cream of the crop experience then a clocked 8600k/8700k is the way to go.

 

It was a typo on Deus EX and mafia, I meant to write GPU. Both games will max out the GTX 1080 TI even on a crappy CPU.

Those FPS are also for Rising 2 vietnam beta.

I just went into the game and made a screenshot of the same place you were on. And the result.... Well lets say I think I remembered wrong and yah.... My point seems to stand

Spoiler

Only thing I find interesting is that the game looks different on each system.

I think the reason for your very low FPS on your older system is caused by your SLI.

 

The CPU is important in DX:MD but the built-in benchmark does not show that.

Beta ran better and was on one of the less demanding maps.

The game looks different (no cache on the ground) and the FPS is higher because that's a different game mode with a different player/AI count.

Same FPS with SLI disabled and at 4K.

 

Is there a reason why my 8700K runs at 4695 in game and not 4700? Just seems weird.

 

Because you have Spread Spectrum enabled in the BIOS.

 

Any settings you recommend to turn off.

 

Like I said disable Spread Spectrum if you don't want fluctuating base clock. I don't know what else your BIOS has.

 

you know what section that is under in PREMA bios?

 

Idk, I don't have Prema.

 

should be under advanced - BCLK