*** Official Clevo X170SM-G/Sager NP9670M Owner's Lounge ***

Aorus 17x w.e. seems not bad thermal and screen wise, mobile cpu plus 200w 2080super

Also runs on one cable with reduced fps, but shipping and availability idk

 

‘You would think that, but to varying degrees having to tweak and modify gaming laptops is a tale as old as time. I think it is part of the fun and I’ve done it since my first Alienware m-ALX 19” behemoth laptop.

Sometimes it comes down to the vendor you purchase from too and what levels of tweaking and optimizing they offer.

When you go with a place like HIDevolution or soon I suspect like zTECpc, they are specialized boutique shops that really dig in there and fine tune each system both hardware and software with enhancements and mods. Maybe a shop like that is more to your liking. You might want to wait for PremaBios too to help dial in the settings even more.

I’m a noise snob and early reports put this system at or greater than 870TM/DM2 noise levels. I would be all over it hardware and software wise finding the sweet spot for performance vs noise.

Is it the noise or the performance you don’t like?

 

Noise and performance should go hand in hand, performance is great, sound is not. Also having to downsize promised stats is nyeh. Of course the chip can take 100 degrees, but at which cost?

Everyone and their mother will tell you 80 degrees is the limit of good. So why can a stock setting with undervolt cpu+gpu still hit 90+ degrees at maximum decibel when it was said that the fans can keep the tdp under control? Not even mentioning the throttle. Especially at such a price?

 

That is due to Intel launching the 10th gen with full on molten metal loads of power to make it faster. My 9th gen on my desktop when watercooled still hits 90ish when benchmarking, the 10th gen is even worse. That said, not sure why you are getting such high temps on the cpu with a proper undervolt while just gaming. I hit 70ish while playing most games, only going up to 80-90 when benchmarking the cpu, did you replace the paste properly?

 

The paste is still the one that XMG applied. Not touching it within return window

 

If you are looking for a truly tweaked and optimized system cooling wise, like I said earlier, you might have to look elsewhere at the HIDevolutions and zTECpc's of the world to get a company that will take stock Clevo hardware and really poke and prod it to eeeek out performance and enhanced/optimized cooling.

These systems are cooling absolute furnace 14nm+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ desktop CPU class silicon. There is going to be noise if you're wanting to push performance out of them or you will need to settle on an acceptable fan curve and contain your system frequency and optimize cooling (delid, tweak BIOS/XTU/TS/CC settings, optimal HS:CPU pairing, etc...) to achieve that goal.

Even watching de8auer's review of the X170SM-A and hearing those fans on the BIOS screen was a deal breaker for me.

If you're not willing to roll up your sleeves and get to work fine tuning it and the fan noise is going to be a problem I agree your best course of action is to return it.

 

Been tuning it forever now, however if tuning means castrating it to a mobile cpu then might as well get one, the 2 companies you mentioned are not a option in europe

 

Always surprises me when someone wants to buy a V10 monster and expect it to run silent. That's just how gaming laptops are. If someone wants a silent laptop, then a desktop replacement which sports desktop class CPU/GPU is not suitable.

 

So 80-90 degrees plus on stock is not surprising?

 

Nope. But what do you mean exactly on stock? as in stock thermal paste or when idling?

 

How long do those laptops plus paste live? If i set PL to 80 im still getting that temperature cap of 80 degrees, also undervolted

 

Thermal paste should last 1 year to 1..5 years then it would start deteriorating in performance and the temps rise which means it's time for a re-paste. Liquid Metal if applied correctly will last for the lifetime of the laptop (3 years) before needing a repaste.

Here is my i9-10900K which is Delidded with Thermal Grizzly Conductonaut between the CPU Die and the IHS and GELID GC Extreme Thermal Compound between the CPU and Heatsink running at full clock speeds with NOD32 Antivirus doing a full system scan in the background and a few apps running as well:

 

Thats a completly change of original barebone tho, as stated by xmg it should cool 125+200tdp without any change, however even if you infact tune it, you still get ridiculous temps to the point you have to do physical changes to it, thats pretty bad quality, maybe im wrong, always up for informations

Stock is what i meant by gaming with stock paste, in my case Grizzly Kryonaut, no OC at all

 

Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut is the worst thermal paste that I've used. It starts pretty ok then within 3 days the temps start rising more and more to the point where the laptop becomes unusable. See more proof here:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/thermal-grizzly-kryonaut.790919/page-10#post-10261106

http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...s-before-i-start.741745/page-65#post-10249996

http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...iquid-metal-paste.812596/page-2#post-10660500

A new Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut Extreme is out, that one should be better I hope. We have or

 

Which paste do you recommend without delidding or anything? Since im still in return window i wonder if i shouldnt just return it.

 

What I am using now, GELID GC Extreme Thermal Compound

 

someone some time ago asked to post stress test results : full cpu + unigine heaven, top temp is shown, average was between 88 and 90, room temp is more human , undervolt and total power consumption are also shown. I'd say it's not bad for being just a kyonaut repaste.

 

That’s odd, I’ve used Kryonaut for the last 2 years on both desktop and laptop with not real issues, just repaste once a year. I think the key to it is to use more paste then you normally would, about double, as per the instructions for it, gotta really coat it about a half mm across the whole chip.

 

These laptops kind of remind me of Espresso:

If you go to a coffee shop, you can pay a ton for a premade espresso every time you go, or, you can buy an espresso machine for a lot of money.

Once you buy the machine though, it’s really a hobby itself, you can’t really just make a perfect espresso first shot, it requires testing each time you start up that machine before you get it right.

 

10th gen chips run hot in notebooks. Desktop or mobile chips doesn't matter. It's what it is. For desktop chips... Delidde it and use liquid metal, check out that pads fits properly. A custom made IHS with even surface also make wonders. Same if you can remove the c-clips to make the pressure higher on the IHS.

Try out Phobya NanoGrease Extreme, Thermalright TFX or Cooler Master MasterGel Maker if you don't want to try out liquid metal.

This will depends on the Heatsink quality. Warped/uneven heatsink who is the normal in notebooks combined with high temps and Kryonaut is doomed to fail.

Kryonaut used on proper cooling in desktops (high pressure and proper even cold plate) is meant to last 1 year. See also http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...ers-welcome-too.810490/page-803#post-11037924

 

Yah, reading around about it, what would last longer then, Gelid Extreme or Cooler Master MasterGel Maker ? Also thinking about replacing the thermal pads but I think that might be overkill.

 

Liquid metal done properly. Regarding replacing pads. Most important is the fits. Perfect imprint from components. Not too much or too little. Don’t expect thermal paste to last more than 2 years. Can stay longer but the heat transfer will be worse after the months go.

ICD thermal paste is the best solution if the heatsink is warped/have uneven fits on top of the lid.

 

Tuning = software and hardware. You can move PLs and UVs all you want, but at a certain point, you're going to need to make sure the hardware is phyically optimized.

I know there's this (and rightfully speaking to a point) mentality of it should come from the factory absolutely poked, prodded and tweaked for optimal performance and cooling but that's just not how it works for the vast majority of resellers.

I have yet to receive ANY laptop that can't benefit from tearing it open, testing the silicon, analyzing the cooling, heatsink, thermal compound and pairing and making changes. Sometimes the changes are radical. Sometimes slight, but always positive.



I think in summary, either you accept it as is or prepare to get under the hood yourself and get to work to get it running as cool and fast as possible within your sound tolerances.

 

Sound is one thing, 90+ degrees is another.
Quite curious if this thing could last the entire german warranty of 2 years going this hot at maximum fan speed during everyday use, since its advertised for gaming after all.

Battery saving mode btw runs at 15w and is still 62 degrees, how is 125w suppose not to fry? It's still a 10700k, wonder how bad this could be on a 10900k. Temps should be configured broadly with a bad chip not even making it out of a resellers benchmarking.

Right now im limiting the PL to 60 which is 50% of its stated purpose and max out at 78-80% degrees.

If you advertise it as a desktop replacement, it should be closer to the standards of a desktop not of a oven.

As you can see theres people with better temps, better chips or heatsink, neither of that should be a thing if quality control was a thing.

You could argue that the price comes from the parts, however a desktop plus screen cost still less than this, alot less tbh.

The laptop casing isnt perfect smooth so theres saved money also the software is 50/50, bios locked and all is fixed for free by their users.

Not trying to bash the laptop, it's the people behind (except few handselected good people) that don't care about the customer and the hardware and that is a industrial problem which is happening almost everywhere.

 

I cannot comment about the other things you said because I have much to learn about tweaking computers.

However, I think it’s worth pointing out that at the end of the day, whether you get a laptop with a BGA mobile i3 or a desktop i9, you’re still getting a *laptop*. At the end of the day, you’re paying for the ability to shove it in a backpack and bring it with you without needing a car or a trolley. In the end, everyone here, myself included, is paying for feasible portability and miniaturization, and *all the compromises that entail them*.

Now, I’m not saying this to defend laptop manufacturers. I agree that there is always room for improvement and that manufacturers could do more. However, unless someone can defy the rules of physics, backpack portability will always be a compromise.

 

Flight sim is a heavy system load.

 

At 60% useage? What about 100%? 100 degrees?

 

That usage indicator is not the most reliable thing but you can test with heaven benchmark and a CPU stress test.

 

Anyone in here has experience with changing thermal pads on the heatsink for the GPU/CPU of a laptop? Would Fujipoly pads make a huge difference or not really any on a device like this? Trying to figure out if its even worth replacing the stock pads.

 

Go for the cheaper and softer Gelid 12W/mK GP-Extreme pads. Fujipoly pads is stiffer/denser and on top more expencive.


http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...st-thermalpaste-pumpout.833872/#post-11040456

 

soo... what is I told everyone here I fixed the monitor and the anti-ghosting issue completely?

I can game at 60hz no ghosting at all, I can play at 10hz, no ghosting, I can play at any hertz. The monitor was never the issue. Gsync is working fully and completely with no issues whatsoever.

 

Switching down to 60 hz from 240 hz is not a fix to the problem it is just swiping it under the rug.
It is not the game's fault if it was then it would display ghosting at 144 hz too with b173han03.1 panel too however with that panel (which has the same response time as the 240 hz b173han05.0) games are fine.

The 240 hz panel+Gsync when used together is defective. Period. Several people confirmed that even you.

Using the panel at 60 hz to avoid the ghosting issue is plain stupid.
Maybe it hides the issue however it does not fix it.
Something has been messed up with the edid or driver. It happened before and it was not just the panel manufacturers fault.
There were cases where different brand laptops with the same panel were released however one had the issue while the other did not.
The issue was most common with the 75, hz LG panel a few years ago (one 120 hz auo panel also had it) however not a machines had it.
For example Clevo 75 hz+GTX 980 p775dm1g = yes
75 hz+gtx1060 Asus g752 = no
75 hz+GTX 1060 Acer g5 = yes

Etc etc

In other words Clevo messed up something and it is no surprise because on the HW side it's a solid built machine however on the software side it is a rushed garbage. Buggy and limited bios, unstable voltage and GPU core settings in vBIOS , buggy Clevo Control Center so a Gsync issue like this would be no surprised if it slipped through "testing".

Clevo is probably already focused on the 300 hz b173han5.1 panel since it is far better then the 240 hz one (significantly better response time and higher refresh rate for almost the same price), not to mention the rtx 3080 cards, so a fix to this issue is close to 0%.

As I said limiting the panel to 60 hz is not a fix it is just a way to hide the problem and to reduce buyers remorse .

If you were to buy a Ferrari and you take it out for a ride however when you pass 50 mph you start to hear a clicking metal sound from the engine (which is confirmed by other users as well) , what do you do?
1) you limit your rides to max 50 mph and claim that the car is fine and it's probably the road's fault

2) take it back to the dealer and demand an explanation and a fix ?

By chosing 1) like you do actually can do a lot of harm . I know that it hurts accepting that you payed a lot of money for a machine which is manufacturing defective however you need to face the facts. If you just accept 1) you can do a lot of damage regarding the future because
A) your machine will never be fixed because Clevo will not look into it
B) Clevo will not identify the issue because of your actions and you risk the chance of it being carried over the next machine released

 

Im not having any troubles what so ever with Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 and CPU temperatures. Always stays in high 60s low 70s with my 9700 non k R1.

 

3) you don't buy a ferrari because they're an incapable bunch of copy pasters who have the engineering capabilities of a tea spoon, feeling generous.
automotive engineering student within "enzo ferrari" department in Modena's university here, sorry, got kinda triggered

 

Sorry to ask you a favor, how much watt does that cpu pull? Hwinfo64

Addionally i noticed, going by joes screenshot that once you reset config in ccc at performance mode, it changes your PL2 to 250 and core ratio to 52, while i see on his 125 top and 48 ratio

 

Intel Core i7-9700 = Lower clock speeds, 65 w TDP and no HT. Of course it should run colder. And if you swapped to the less powerful 35w Core i7-9700T chips you could even run it a lot colder. Many ways to reach lower Cpu temperatures

For the records. X170 as in OP comes with 10th gen chips.

 

Nah, I have an actual fix. But since you wrote all this, I Really don’t feel like sharing. If any of the reps want to pm me for it let me know. Played Skyrim for 2 hours last night at 60hz gsync no issues. And no, it’s not setting it to high refresh rates, it’s not a workaround, it’s an actual fix.

Tested it in 6 games at every Refresh rate possible with gsync on and off, no ghosting in any. The fix is an actual fix, the monitor was never to blame,

 

An actual fix which makes ghosting permanently disappear even if Gsync is active with 240 hz?
Interesting, what is the fix that you believe to be working ?

If you don't feel like sharing it to the public then that is an interesting decision but we have to accept.
Just a fair advice, with this kind of thinking you actually go against the spirit and goals of the Notebook Review Forum.
This community is about sharing knowledge to help others.

But do as you wish.

 

I like to know how you fix the ghosting issue
If you can send me the information I appreciate it thank you

 

Yes, you are right. Hard not to take things personal on these forums, haven't grown the skin to deal with the toxic nature that sometimes spills over quite yet. Not sharing the knowledge will hurt the community more then help it so here it goes:

The problem is within Gsync itself, not sure if its the module or the software but its a bug for sure, and that is what we are seeing. I was able to reproduce said bug on 3 other Gsync displays (one desktop two laptops).

The bug is this, if you have a display set to native refresh rate (240hz) and a game engine calls for a drop of said refresh rate to say 60hz (such as the skyrim engine does), then the anti-ghosting in the monitors still think the display is at 240hz/144hz or whatever the display actually is. The problem here is that its a combo bug of game engine/Gsync/monitor and the lines get crossed somewhere in the pipeline, the monitors kick in the wrong values for anti-ghosting instead of going variable and boom you see trails off of mountains or clouds or anything else on the screen.

Now good news is that if you know all this you can fix it very simply. In all modern games this will not happen, you can play with gsync on and as long as the game doesn't kick the display down to some weird refresh rate before the game starts, dropping from 240hz-20hz you will see no ghosting and everything is working as it should. You can go test this in games such as WoW that have a frame limiter built in, or Risk of Rain 2, or basically any game windowed or not (I tested in about 6 games all same results and any frame rate, ghosting is not present). You can lock the fps in these games to 60 or 50 or anything and test the Gsync, there is no ghosting, no trialing, proving the display has no ghosting problem at low refresh rates and the problem exists within the driver/game engine.

The fix for games like skyrim then the engine causes this weird bug is to play them in window borderless with gsync on. This stops the game from kicking it to an odd refresh rate, unlocks the refresh rate for the monitor and completely stops the ghosting in its tracks, but allows for gsync to fully work and lock to 60hz which the game is locked at with no trailing on the mountains or anywhere.

As you can see, and anyone can test this, the problem is a bug in Gsync with high refresh displays and limitations with certain game engines such as skyrim / gears / division. You need to make sure the games are set to 240hz refresh rate and if not, run them windowed borderless.

Hope this helps some people in the future and I hope one day the wires uncross, but I doubt it, as its been actually an issue since the Rog Swift days since I could reproduce the same issues on that monitor and 2 other laptops.

Its a stupid and re-producible bug for sure, but with any tech outside the norm, it cant work 100% all the time in every game engine with no hiccups.

The display is fine, and it seems to be a Nvidia driver / game engine issue. The driver is just feeding the display the wrong values due to buggy / old game engines that only support up to 60hz in fullscreen.

Edit - One last thing, make sure you are running the displays at the native refresh rate as well in windows, I know most people know this, but sometimes its overlooked. If you are running it at 60hz in windows, this bug will also be present.

 

Kaelib, do I understand correctly that the problem also occurs with external monitors that are connected via a cable? And the fix will also work for those?

 

Yes

Yes, this fix works with the external monitor I tested it on. It seems to be an issue with gsync itself, not really any one monitor or system, also seems to only effect newer Gsync displays, not the older flickering ones.

 

In terms of the internal screen there is no module, the GPU is directly manipulating the controller on the LCD.

 

Yah, that’s why I tested on both mobile and desktop. It’s probably a bug in the Nvidia driver, but it’s very easy to dodge now that we know how to.

 

This is after an hour of gaming BF5. No undervolt applied.

 

Well you are half right about the NVidia driver.

By my experience with this G-Sync ghosting issue on laptops throughout the past years made me come to the conclusion that mainly the reason behind it is the laptop manufacturer and not NVidia.

For G-Sync to work properly the laptop manufacturer has 2 options:
1) Fine tune it on firmware level
2) Fine tune it on driver level

By fine tuning I mean is to optimize G-Sync for each and every panel supported by the laptop manufactuter.
This is mandatory or else issues like flickering or ghosting can occur.

Obvously the best and fastest option is 1) option because then the manufacturer just need to fine tune it once and not do it each and every time when a new driver needs to be released. This besides saving a lot of time and resources also make it possible to use drivers released by NVidia and the user is not limited to the drivers made by the laptop manufacturer because in many cases the laptop manufacturer release drivers very slowly or even may choose to not release any updates at all.

Unfortunately the issues in most cases is caused because the laptop manufacturer does not optimize Gsync in FW level and also fails to optimize it on driver level.

NVidia could optimize it, however they will not. The reason behind this is that as I said they would have to optimize each and every laptop for each and every panel supported. This would mean that they would have to source each and every GSync laptop with each and every panel variant for testing purposes which would not just take up a lot of room but would cost a lot of money. However this is only half the reason, the other is that if NVidia would have to optimize GSync to every available laptop display 1 by 1 then that would dramatically increase driver development.
Because of this NVidia expects laptop manufacturers to optimize G-Sync on firmware level.

However as I said many laptop manufacturers failed to do this in the past and this time Clevo also failed with the X170.

I have tested many many GSync laptops and there was only 1 time when I found an example where the manufacturer did not optimize on FW level but did it on driver level.

Amongst the many I have tested 3 laptops which used the same panel, AU Optronics B173HAN01.1. Compared to panels used nowadays this was a pretty slow one (30 ms response time) however it was the first G-Sync certified 120 Hz IPS panel for laptops. (For reference the 144 and 240 Hz panels in the X170 have about 15 ms response time and the 300 Hz panel has about 6 ms response time)
The 3 laptops with this panel that I tested were the ASUS G703VIK, GL702VS and GL702VI.

I started with the latest available driver and lo and behold, all had ghosting with G-Sync (it was even worse than the one the X170 is producing). I tried many drivers but all had the issue.
Then I tried driver 376.06 made by Asus for the first laptop built with this panel, the GL702VS and it worked! The ghosting was gone !
The INF file only had IDs for the GL702VS so the NVidia installes did not allow installation on the G703VIK and GK702VI, however I had to try if it was just a fluke or the driver is really working. So I manually installed the driver through device manager on the other laptops.
Not all NVidia components installed but every core component did. I loaded up some games and voala, no ghosting!
In short, ASUS like others did not optimize GSync on FW level for the B173HAN01.1, however they did in the first driver ever released to a laptop using this panel.
Unfortunately ASUS completely forgot about this and no later drivers released for other laptop with this panel had this optimization so they had ghosting. Unfortunately using 376.06 was also not an option because many games, like Batlefield 1 refused to start up because it detected the driver to be "too old".

In other words Clevo could have optimized driver 443.31, however they did not because just like other manufacturer in the past they are negligent.

NVidia could do it, but they wont because it would take up too many resources and Clevo is not a so huge partner that it would justify their time and resources.

I will be honest, I only tested and confirmed this G-Sync issue regarding the X170 using the 240 Hz panel only, I was lazy to hook it up to my desktop monitor because I was fed up with Clevo with bringing back this problem (the issue is not as bad as it was before however Clevo still brought it back).

Yes back, because some manufacturers actually pulled themselvese together and fixed the issue, even Clevo. For example this issue is not present with the P775TM1-G using B173HAN03.1 144 Hz panel.

The 240 Hz B173HAN05.0 panel was only used in a Gigabyte laptop before and it did not have G-Sync certification there. Clevo was the one who pushed a G-Sync certification since no other vendor did.

G-Sync certification is a long and hard process and not all panels are capable to pass because many fail on some levels and can not hit the quality which NVidia requires. It maybe just a conspiracy theory however I can even imagine that this panel is not actually as good for GSync as Clevo thought so in order to make it work and to it barely pass the NVidia test they implemented some extra tweaking or overdrive features on FW level to make the inverse ghosting (black ghosting and oversharpening bug) disappear however they missed that this is causing a much smaller, minor bug (white ghosting when G-Sync is very aggressive in the background).
I believe that after the release of the laptop even Clevo discovered this issue and just gave up on this panel becuase even after their optimization it just does not work perfectly with G-Sync. This would also justify why no other vendor ever used this panel beside Gigabyte and why did Gigabyte not G-Sync certify it.

This would also explain why Clevo marked this panel end of line only after a few weeks of release and why did they replace it with the 300 Hz B173HAN05.1. The B173HAN05.1 panel was G-Sync verified by ASUS at NVidia and ASUS has a much bigger experience with laptop panels than Clevo. ASUS was the first manufacturer who pushed 120 hz, 144 hz and 300 hz IPS panels for laptops and they were also the ones who G-Sync certified them.

I mean what other explanation would it be for throwing out the 240 hz B173HAN05.0 panel not even 1 month after release? I doubt its because AUO stopped manufacturing because they would have known about this right from the start when they decided to chose this and if they knew that they are going to have sourcing problems then pushing back the laptop 1 month to go with another option would have been the rational option.
The only explanation I can think of is that the B173HAN05.0 panel does not have good enough quality for G-Sync however Clevo was determined (for some reason) to go with it, no matter what so they implemented some black magic tweaking in the FW which was enough to barely pass it on the NVidia test. Clevo released the laptop however after the release a lot more people were able to test it and were able to detect the minor issue which passed the eyes of people at Clevo and NVidia: a minor ghosting when G-Sync is utilized.
It would be no suprise that this issue was not detected by Clevo because this laptop was obvously rushed. Perfect example is that right before release they detected another issue which caused the release to be pushed by 2 weeks.
After the release a few customers noticed the ghosting and notified Clevo. After noticing it Clevo had enough and completely dropped the panel because they accepted the fact that its not perfect even after their optimization.
Since the issue was detected early on they fast sourced a newer panel, which was G-Sync certified by a much more experienced manufacturer and marked the old one EOL and even removed any trace of it from the product page.
Since the bad panel was removed fast only a few people detected it which is not enough to cause a huge uproar in the industry so I imagine they just keep quite and will not bring the reason to public of why they marked the panel EOL so fast after release. The laptop was available earlier in China than in the EU and US so Chinese customers could have reported this to Clevo.
This would also explain the reason why Clevo was experimenting 2 weeks ago with the B173HAN05.1 panel, just a few days after the global release.

tl;dr: In short my theory is that Clevo pushed G-Sync certification to an unsupported panel (240 hz) with some really hard core firmware tweaking or overdrive to save some money (they probably were able to buy a lot of these panels cheap since nobody else bought them). However after release they noticed that , the panel is not 100% issue free so they had 3 options:
1) remove G-Sync and face lawsuit from users, loose a lot of money from returns and be the laughting stock of the industry

2) do a complete recall of the laptop and loose a lot of money and be the laughing stock of the industry

3) quickly buy the license of a newer panel which was G-Sync certified by a much bigger and much more experienced company (ASUS) and loose less money than option 1) and 2) and after that quictly mark the bad panel EOL and remove all traces of it from the product page while holding a poker face hoping that noone will realise this and the company will not be humiliated.

I am dealing with a lot of liars and schenanigans day by day due to my work and my first guess would be that Clevo if pulling a 3) here.

The B173HAN05.1 panel is a perfect option to extinguish the fire since it is faster than the 240 Hz one and it was certified by another company. Not to mention that AUO had an exclusivity with ASUS but that has ended (for this panel). The only thing that worries me is that ASUS is not using this panel in their newer Zephyrus laptops and the 300 Hz G-Sync panel they are using are Sharp made and not this AUO. I hope they changed because licensing issues and not quality issues.

 

Did anyone else notice that the RAM (in my case Samsung 3200mhz)

Only provides 2660 if placed under the keyboard?

No wonder my scores are lower.

 

I would not be surprised.

 

downloaded and installed xmg's bios and the appearently updated control centre, bios has a bit more options like in the chipset control, disabling camera or microphone there was also a nice touch. It looks to me as if the overclocking feature is a bit more stable ( the fabled -100 mv applied without hiccups for instance) , nevertheless, our great lord and savior light bar is still on and shiny at every single reboot, which still tilts me.

 

Asking as someone who has only recently begun to pay attention to desktop replacement laptops like this model - is this kind of QC and BIOS limitation a regular sight among similar laptops?