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

i wish clevo could drop out AMD version in this chassis. Intel is beaten and pretty much over for now.

AMD also claim that they will have double performance in new GPU. Let's hope that we will see monster from clevo with team red stuff.

• GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (Turing TU102)—13.45 TFLOPs
• Radeon RX Vega 64 (Vega 10)—12.66 TFLOPs
• Xbox Series X (Navi - RDNA 2)—12 TFLOPs
• GeForce RTX 2080 Super (Turing TU104)—11.15 TFLOPs
• Radeon RX Vega 56 (Vega 10)—10.54 TFLOPs
• GeForce RTX 2080 (Turing TU104)—10.07 TFLOPs
• Radeon RX 5700 XT (Navi 10)—9.754 TFLOPs
• GeForce RTX 2070 Super (Turing TU104)—9.062 TFLOPs
• Radeon RX 5700 (Navi 10 XL)—7.949 TFLOPs
• GeForce RTX 2070 (Turing TU106)—7.465 TFLOPs
• GeForce RTX 2060 Super (Turing TU106)—7.181 TFLOPs
• GeForce RTX 2060 (Turing TU106)—6.451 TFLOPs

 

TFLOPS is a terrible measurement of real-world GPU performance.

In actual order of performance:
2080 Ti
2080S
2080 / XSX (?)
2070 Super
2070 / 5700 XT
2060S
2060 / 5700
V64
V56

 

Yep, pipeline utilisation is very important, just look at the VLIW V which could waste 80% of the available processing power.

 

Chances are that 2080S MXM will also be clock limited to 2100Mhz.

 

I'm more interested in the next generation chips now.

 

This apply for both the Cpu and Gpu chips. 2080 Super and Comet is Dead End. Will have a short life.

 

The Intel Z490 Overview: 44+ Motherboards Examined anandtech.com | Today

This is but one example, but depending on memory support, power support, graphics support - all of these mean that motherboard manufacturers can take Z490 in one of two ways. The one that most vendors seem to be doing is to make their boards hybrids - suitable for both Comet and Rocket, but not really mastering one. For users intending to upgrade mid-cycle without a motherboard change, these hybrid designs are probably best. The second option is to make specific boards for the specific chips, despite technically supporting both: making the Z490 the best board it can be for Comet Lake, and then some future board (Z590?) being the best board for Rocket Lake. Personally, I prefer the latter, because I'd like the best out of my processor. However, prices of the best motherboards are matching (or even surpassing) that of the processor, which makes the quandary a little more complex than on first glance.

As I said in my previous post... "Will Clevo make it PCIe Gen 4.0 ready? Or will they force the people over on a possible Z590 motherboard? Aka force them over on new laptop if they want PCIe Gen 4.0".

This will be fun follow up when we will see Rocket coming up. Clevo may do the same as they did with the machines with Z370. Keep it and totally skip Z390 motherboards. The cheapest way to hold down costs. Aka make their boards hybrids as in the anandtech articles.


Intel’s 10th Gen Comet Lake for Desktops: Skylake-S Hits 10 Cores and 5.3 GHz anandtech.com | Today

One big thing that users will want to know about is PCIe 4.0. Some of the motherboards being announced today state that they will support PCIe 4.0 with future generations of Intel products. At present Comet Lake is PCIe 3.0 only, however the motherboard vendors have essentially confirmed that Intel’s next generation desktop product, Rocket Lake, will have some form of PCIe 4.0 support.

Now it should be stated that for the motherboards that do support PCIe 4.0, they only support it on the PCIe slots and some (very few) on the first M.2 storage slot. This is because the motherboard vendors have had to add in PCIe 4.0 timers, drivers, and redrivers in order to enable future support. The extra cost of this hardware, along with the extra engineering/low loss PCB, means on average an extra $10 cost to the end-user for this feature that they cannot use yet. The motherboard vendors have told us that their designs conform to PCIe 4.0 specifications, but until Intel starts distributing samples of Rocket Lake CPUs, they cannot validate it except to the strict specification. (This also means that Intel has not distributed early Rocket Lake silicon to the MB vendors yet.)

-------------------------------------------------------

What Intel now will offer is too thin to make a change.

AMD claims to have a global market share greater than 50% in the Premium CPU segment
By Hilbert Hagedoorn on: 04/30/2020

During its last earnings report, AMD confirmed that it has had 10 successive quarters of growth, and that its global market share in the premium CPU segment has already exceeded 50%.

Read more

 

Intel had to go power-crazy to create the 'world's fastest gaming processor'
The i9 10900K beats both the AMD Ryzen 9 3950X and the i9 9900KS... by drawing ungodly amounts of power.
https://www.pcgamer.com/intel-had-to-go-power-crazy-to-create-the-worlds-fastest-gaming-processor/

So, how does Intel manage to get its 4.8GHz all-core processor to out-perform its last-gen 5GHz CPU, especially when in all the latest Comet Lake marketing material the company is making a big deal about how frequency is far more important than core count?

It throws an ungodly amount of power at the chip so it doesn't decide to throttle back on the potential Turbo opportunities of the Comet Lake CPU.

In the system configurations slide at the back of the latest press deck Intel says it set the PL2, the short-term power limit, at 250W. That's twice the base TDP of the Comet Lake chip, almost twice the base TDP of the 9900KS, and nearly 100W higher than that Coffee Lake processor's suggested PL2 rating.

Intel also set the Tau, the set amount of time the chip will draw that much power, at 56 seconds just so it could beat the rest. Given that there's no information offered as to what the 9900KS was sat at we can assume it was running at the recommended 159W PL2 level and 28 second Tau.

With all that taken into consideration you can see how Intel is touting the 10900K as 'the world's fastest gaming processor' even though you've got to put a bit of effort, and a whole lot of power, to get it running like that.

I wonder how can this be cooled by the current and latest clevo heatsink.

 

It's simple. It can't without massive thermal throttling.

 

Remember routing is harder and more expensive in notebooks. Plus there is practically no benefit to people for it.

 

HOTWELL II: NOW WITH MORE HEAT...

Hard pass for me...

 

The "10th" gen launch is such a meme at this point.

 

Then its time to throw your big 2.5 inch ssd/hdd in another notebook, desktop or just use it as portable backup drive. Or just sell it so you can offset the costs for an new big M.2 SATA drive to replace what you had.

Schenker crams desktop-grade Intel Comet Lake-S Core i9-10900K CPU and Nvidia RTX 2080 Super GPU into XMG Ultra 17 M20 laptops notebookcheck.net | Today

 

ICCMAX is 245 amps.
Not even the best air cooler on the market can cool that.

 

In case you guys didnt notice, this is going for pre order if im not mistaken, LINK, LINK2. Here is the specs listed on XMG site, LINK.

Edit: @ Papusan I just seen you have this linked in your signature, I will leave it for others though.

 

I love how they tout "limitless" storage capability when they just halved the storage from 28 TB max to 14 TB max compared to the P870 chassis:

P870: 28TB (3 x 4TB NVME + 2 x 8TB 2.5")
P775: 24TB (2 x 4TB NVME + 2 x 8TB 2.5")
X170: 14TB (3 x 4TB NVME + 1 x 2TB M2)

Never mind that one could get 18 TB of storage for under 2000$ with two NVME 1TB SSD's thrown in for good measure. Now the X170 maxes out at 14TB and the price for that storage has gone up at the same time. Truly limitless

 

Huh, I didn't realize they were losing the 2.5" slots. That sucks a bit in a 17" device DTR.

 

Good IMO, times move on, m.2 drives will continue to develop and that space can be used for cooling/battery.

 

Yeah, they have to sacrifice some features when they move to thinner, smaller, lighter and the modern narrow bezels (chasssis size as last years 15,6 inch model). Exactly as Apple do for their products. Or better say the Alienware's way... They jumped on 2 ram slots and stayed there a long time and then was saved by Samsung's move to double capacity ram sticks. See, the move mostly gained those who jumped on the refreshed models who come after. One thing for sure, the cooling wouldn't be any worse if they could let the chassis have same volume size as P870 etc. Oh'well, the Apple way do things is inevitable. Next move will perhaps be remove one of the 4th M.2 slot. Aka you'll get 3 slots back because the storage capasity increase for each ssd.

 

Clevo's own site seems to indicate a longer wait than the retailers preorders do - https://clevo-computer.com/en/lapto...intel-desktop-processor-nvidia-rtx-2080-super

 

Important Notice from Clevo Co: " Unauthorized websites"

 

Clevo's site is ONLY this one: www.clevo.com.tw

This is the only official Clevo site.

 

I guess we will see about cooling and they did not have to shrink the chassis that much. M2 form factor manufacturers say thank you for forcing people to buy their more expensive smaller drives.

The battery size increase is meaningless for non-gaming DTR use as unless they change something with regard to graphics switching it will only be usefull as a better USV no matter if it has 80, 90 or 99 watt hours. At least in the P775 chassis it was easy to swap out the battery just in case, let's see what happens to that functionality with the X170.

 

That's a lot of amps! Not only does the 340w heatsink have to share capacity with 10 core CPU and 200W GPU, it also has to cool the VRMs on that board.

 

Will depends on the phase system used. Good system will run more efficiency, stability, and with less heat output. All depends on how Clevo have handled this for x170.

https://www.overclock.net/about-vrms-mosfets-motherboard-safety-with-high-tdp-processors/

 

We have 4+1 on the z370 board, beefy 80a stages. 8+2 for the x170 makes sense.

edit: or is it 8x 40A for the P870?

 

Why not just whack a 3.5" drive in there then? Time to move on.

 

I would rather that the model had a chance of doing best as possible in the market so that the brand can continue, I've been waiting for purely M.2 drives now for years. I've not owned a 2.5" SSD for 5 years, they are ancient now.

 

I have a few 2.5" drives and it would be nice to be able to reuse one of them for storage in a new machine. Now I have to buy same sata drives but in another form factor.

Outside this.. There is more competition and lower prices in the 2.5-inch SATA segment. And it's limited choices for the biggest m.2 sata drives. Can't list many in 4TB capacity etc.

 

Yup, and it just fuels pointless e-waste.

 

Use the 2.5" with external cases. That's what I do

 

Do you mean USB enclosures? I've got a couple of 1TB 850 Evos that are still great SSDs (I use them as game drives), and am wondering what I would do with them if I couldn't use them in a future laptop, since I won't be building a desktop again.

 

Yes its what I mean

 

I already have a few of them Buy a new one (only because Clevo wanted go thinner and slimmer) means even a bigger costs vs what it has to be. See... New M.2 drive and now an extra USB enclosure box on top.

 

Maybe it is instead time to move on from 14nm Intel chipsets and the 20xx Nvidia GPU's, Super or not. And time to move away from expensive product that cuts one corner too many.

As for the 2.5" drives it is interesting that some manufacturers still offer them while others some to have decided that no matter how big the laptop is we do not get them any more. I guess I can vote with my wallet and refuse to sell at a loss and end with 50 to 100% more cost for the same amount of storage.

 

Imagine me: going with my P775DM3-G with a 330w brick, headphones, a 2.5" external case and a 3.5" one too

Now imagine getting a X170M-G with 2 330w and same scenario. It's a NOPE situation for the external disks

 

I like how manufacturers think that making devices themselves more compact and at the same time less capable is all that counts. Not if you still need the stuff they did away with as now you have to pack a gazillion dongles and drives on top of your laptop where before you just had a slightly bigger laptop but it was all in one case.

I also have to question their decision making when they have 660W worth of power supplies with only enough cooling capability for half of that but we have been down that road before...

edit: @Papusan is of course right it is "only" 560W which still seems a lot for a laptop with a cooling system that is rated for 340W.

 

x170 will have 2x280w power adapters.

 

You can sell them and exchange for new m.2 drives.

 

Indeed, I should have bothered to check but the fact remains that with that kind of cooling system it would seem that anything over 450W seems rather unnecessary.

You also got to wonder about the decision to use two bricks of equal size when it would have been possible to have one 330W brick and a smaller one. Depending on which kind of use one would want to get out of the X170 on the road it would be possible to either travel with the 330W brick for (almost) maximum performance or with a smaller and lighter brick if the X170 is not used for heavy gaming on the road.

 

Yes it is time to move on with all of it, I agree, no reason to move backwards.

 

I expect the idea about pack it with the new slimmer 280w psu's was a portable compromise vs pack it with the well known 330w Delta. I wish they would put it with 2x330w bricks. Alienware's flawed idea with single 330w + the weak 180w psu for max portability is a lot worse. The single 180w psu isn't usable at all. At best, maybe useful to hold your lunch warm while you work on the road. And the single 330w brick paired with Area-51m will max out at around 245w due limitation in firmware. Both options as you see is neither fish or bird.

 

I don't thing 560W is going to be too much of a limit for a single GPU in a laptop power envelope.

 

Area-51m (9900K and 2080) 510w power adapter (330+180)


One thing for sure... 10 cores with eat more power. And Dell max out the 8 cores 9900K at 210w. Not much headroom with the weaker 2x280w adapters. I don't like be at the border with power for stock clocks. This is even bad if you have an fully locked down chips.

None should defend flawed design or bad engineering.

 

75W more headroom than that.

 

The above is stock clocks and Cpu power capped. And Core i9-10900K will eat more power. At stock clocks. And only God knows how the quality on this new slimmer 280w psu vs the old trusty 330w Delta. None advice you to max out any power adapters.

 

Correct. Maxing out AC adapters is never a good approach. They do not deliver power as cleanly, and they get hotter when maxed out. They may also be more likely to fail because of that. Always better to have 20-30% more power available than what you need, even on a desktop.

A CPU running hotter also takes more voltage and pulls more watts, so that also comes into play with AC adapters. If your AC adapter is just barely enough to handle the demand under normal conditions, under more adverse thermal conditions it may become inadequate.

 

If power adapters fail it can even take the whole system down in worst case. This means you are pretty screwed after your warranty have expired. See...

 

I am always a fan of overprovisioning except when I need to travel light which is when the Delta power supply is really crazy heavy and almost 2 lbs heavier than for example the 200W PSU that comes with a Zbook G17 5.
Maybe it would be best to have at least two sizes of power bricks so that people can decide for themselves what they want. 220W and 330W seem like a good combination as that would allow for 220, 330, 440, 550 and 660W output with 1 or 2 power supplies.

Although I still wonder how it will be possible to have any sustained meaningful power draw in excess of 400W without throttling when the cooling is designed to cool no more than 340W.

 

It looks like Clevo will use 280w power adapters as the new norm. If so, it will be cheaper with one fits all to save on costs. And most of their models come with Max-Q so there is less need for 330w adapters anymore.

The engineers normallly add in 10-15% headroom on top of rated cooling capacity. We also don't know if Clevo have revised the heatsink vs what we saw from the specs.