Papusan

On 30.1.2017 at 1:50 PM, xxax said:

@J95 silly question, we will always use a moded nv_dispi.inf to be able to install drivers? 
because i might sell the laptop (alienware 17 2013) and i should tell the new owner exactly what to do 

If your machine don't come with the graphics orginal or the machine isn't intended for it... Yes

15 hours ago, maestro_jiang said:

Hey guys, how come when I click on the link to download the .inf files it says it's not available on my account?!

 

Whoops, I realised you must pay. All good

You must be approved by Mod before you are allowed to downloading files.

23 hours ago, Legion said:

Well mighty Papusan great score.

 

I personally need something light also for work. I humbly will not compete with you because i'm Wingling not Phoenix! However i think i can get 4ghz/4.1 on CPU + 2000 or maybe 2100 mhz on GPU (will need Prema overclocking lord magics here though)

 

PS

Does anyone seen good guide how to use TS because at first glance it is much more complicated than XTU.

Look into bro @Mr. FoxYoutube videos for TS https://www.youtube.com/user/MrFoxRox2 Or take a walk into http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/the-throttlestop-guide.531329/

The joy of having socket hardware and not the BGA JUNK in Jokebook's!! BGABook,TurdBook,JokeBook... A dear UGLY child has many names!!   http://valid.x86.fr/fs084d

56 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

You did a nice job of explaining it. And, I agree with you. I prefer using 3DMark 11 instead. One reason is that it is a better benchmark tool, but also because it does remember my custom settings. This is useful for testing purposes and having to manually change everything each time I open the benchmark because it does not remember my last used settings is inconvenient.

On 15.12.2016 at 8:53 PM, Futuremark_James said:

Hello. James from Futuremark here again.

We've confirmed that there was an issue with the GUI, and we're in the process of rolling out an update (3DMark v2.2.3509) that should fix the scoring discrepancy.

With this update, overall scores increase slightly by up to 0.3%. Scores from the Physics and CPU parts of benchmark tests may improve by up to 2.5%. These changes bring the scores from 3DMark v2.2.3509 back in line with results from earlier versions that did not have the GUI issue.

 

For context, it is normal for 3DMark scores to vary by up to 3% between runs since there are some factors in a modern, multitasking operating system that cannot be completely controlled. So again, all credit to @Papusan for noticing the problem and bringing it to us.

 

To get the update, just open 3DMark and you should get a notification with the option to install it. The Steam version and Steam demo have also been updated.

Feedback from my testing the new 3DM GUI version .... Success

Downloaded latest UI Version2.2.3509_64.
My setup is unchanged. Only the updated 3DM GUI is new. Fire Strike physics score back to normal for my [email protected] = +15505
Power draw is also back to normal with this updated GUI versions. Nice  Thanks @Futuremark_James
http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/11095260/fs/11049261

Edit.  @Futuremark_James  Can you look at the ccustom settings in 3DM suite? I and several use this feature a lot... Every time I come back to  custom settings and want a new test EG. Only the physics or other subtest, I must choose what custom test I should run every time I launch 3DM. It should not be like this. Do what you've always have done with older 3DM11 ... Custom Setup is already put up as in the previous testing days before. This means that 3DM suite should remember previous custom settings for the next time you want to test EG physics or other subtests.

@Mr. Fox Can you chime in and explain better if this isn't clear. I want a change for better custom settings like the older 3DM11. Thanks

1 hour ago, Futuremark_James said:

Hello. James from Futuremark here again.

We've confirmed that there was an issue with the GUI, and we're in the process of rolling out an update (3DMark v2.2.3509) that should fix the scoring discrepancy.

With this update, overall scores increase slightly by up to 0.3%. Scores from the Physics and CPU parts of benchmark tests may improve by up to 2.5%. These changes bring the scores from 3DMark v2.2.3509 back in line with results from earlier versions that did not have the GUI issue.

 

For context, it is normal for 3DMark scores to vary by up to 3% between runs since there are some factors in a modern, multitasking operating system that cannot be completely controlled. So again, all credit to @Papusan for noticing the problem and bringing it to us.

 

To get the update, just open 3DMark and you should get a notification with the option to install it. The Steam version and Steam demo have also been updated.

Thanks for the help James. And say thanks from us bench enthusiasts to Mr. KOKKO on Futuremark as well. For us here is number crunching a pleasure as you probably know, so it's importent that the bench tests work as intended.

And we hope Futuremark might consider making benchmark tests that put more emphasis/importance on the processor power, than what sub tests like Firestrik in 3DMark suite does today. More like the old 3DM Vantage and 3DM11. 

I am looking forward to testing the new fixed 3DM suite and confirming the fix. But this will take time because my internet speed sucks

Once again thank you for all your help

Papusan

57 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

Yes, I agree @Papusan. It should have been detectable. It depends on how rigorous the testing was and whether they connected the dots that every version got worse and worse to where the cumulative effect of a drop with each GUI revision amounts to a lot over time.

 

I really hate the bloated new UI. The older version that wasn't so busy was much better. Maybe in the process of fixing this problem they can return to the older/sleeker UI. The big circle at the top with the score and the excessive amount of wasted screen space that gets hogged up by junk is unnecessary and unattractive in my personal opinion. Maybe that was to make the kiddos happy or something.

You are 100% right about the new 3DM GUI. This pict below is from the old 3DM Fire Strike GUI. As you can see in the picture, you could actually see the maximum CPU power draw in benchmark test if you checked the box.
New is not always better!! Just look at the Windows X failure. The new Os... Windows 10 look like an OS designed for children around 5 years old with all the pastel colored tiles. More intended for handheld tablet, phones. The <new> Windows is No longer a nice OS for desktops.

1 hour ago, Mr. Fox said:

Thank you so much for taking time to respond. We really appreciate it.

 

Your 16% variance is a great example that is similar to the one I posted. This demonstrates how much disparity there is with Fire Strike submissions over the course of revisions that have occurred since the beginning of the year. While the changes between consecutive revisions seem like they are within a small margin of error at first blush, the cumulative effect is not acceptable if the results stored in their database and respect for their leaderboard are to be deemed important and useful data.

Even a small change in score around 1-3% in the subtests between the different GUI versions, should be easy to find with normal testing. Also the change in power draw between the GUI versions... should be easily discovered and a bell should start to ring. 

1 hour ago, Futuremark_James said:

Hi. James from Futuremark here.

 

We've been looking into this today, and I'd like to share what we've found.

 

The Fire Strike workload has not changed at all since 2013. This means that Fire Strike scores should not have changed across app versions either.

 

We've confirmed that running 3DMark from the command line gives consistent scores across all versions. Unfortunately, it does look like there is an issue when running recent versions from the GUI. We see the same ~2.5% difference in Physics test scores across GUI versions that @Papusan reported to us.

 

We believe we have found the bug in the GUI, but we need to run some more tests to be sure.

 

@Mr. Fox, the differences that you are seeing in your results are much larger, and it is not clear why. We would be grateful if you could contact us at info@futuremark.com so we can go through some troubleshooting steps with you.

 

Thank you, @Papusan, for bringing this to us. I am sorry that we have been slow to respond. I understand how frustrating that is.

 

I'll post here again when we have more info to share.

 

 

Thanks for taking care of this problem. I reported this problems medium August. Now December!! I really hope this now finally will be fixed. Thanks again

2 hours ago, Mr. Fox said:

Glad to help. I think everyone that knows about the problem will want them to correct it.

 

Your images are broken. Maybe posting them on imgur or postimage.org and use the direct links to insert them here would help.

Sorry Fox. I posted with my small phone, so pict was screwed I think

6 hours ago, Mr. Fox said:

For those that are not already aware of the issue, the folks at Futuremark seem to be struggling to keep a consistent product in the latest 3DMark benchmark. In particular, Fire Strike. Sometime around the release of Time Spy things started getting screwy with Fire Strike and now it seems with every Fire Strike GUI update the effect is lowered benchmark scores, and specifically the physics portion of the benchmark.

 

Kudos to @Papusan for noticing this months ago. He been going back and forth with Futuremark about the problem and it seems they are either ignoring him or don't care. Maybe because most people are not observant enough to notice or care.

 

Some people might say you cannot compare results across benchmark software versions, but that shouldn't hold water here. There is a leaderboard and searchable database of results and if there is not a high degree of consistency between GUI versions the results in their database will become irreleant, as will their leaderboard. The search filter does not have a field to filter by GUI version, so we can expect the results from the database and leaderboard to be misleading, inaccurate and unreliable.

 

You will notice from the examples posted below that with each new version of Fire Strike the scores get lower and lower. These examples are consecutive runs on the same day, same machine, and identical CPU and GPU settings. The only thing that changes is Fire Strike benchmark results. We need Futuremark to understand and correct this.

 

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/11047304/fs/11047179/fs/11047154

 

 

Here is a similar example from @Papusan: http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/11036017/fs/11035883

 

If you agree this is a problem and want it to be fixed, please complain to Futuremark and let them know they need to put the brakes on and not do anything else with 3DMark until they have this mess under control. Gimmicky features are one thing, but inconsistent benchmark results makes 3DMark unreliable.

 

 

This post has been promoted to an article

Thanks bro Fox

 See https://www.techinferno.com/index.php?/articles/frontpage_news/software_news/gradual-degradation-of-3dmark-fire-strike-produces-unreliable-results-r94/&do=findComment&comment=154385

Thanks for the help bro @Mr. Fox

I have sent a new feedback mail to Futuremark v/jarlo Kokko for the 10th time... Futuremark have said long time ago to me in the mail that "They have reproduced in-house and investigation is ongoing" I have send them a lot of result for their investigation. Nothing happens as you can see in the pictures - links!!!

 And when they finally push out the new <FIXED> 3DM version after 3 months, so is the 3DM benchmark software in an even worse condition...

Like the last time... New 3DM suite UI 2.2.3488 64 version out 9th Dec. = Fiasko!! Then they need to push out an even newer one because the trouble witht the first one out... 1 day later aka 10th Dec. The newest messed up come out <UI 2.2.3491 64>.

Same mess happened last two time as well(I think in July and Aug). Futuremark have BIG problems with their 3DM Suite!!!

See results. Both older UI versions 2.0.2067_64 and 2.0.2809_64 will give 15002 in Physics with [email protected] and both 2 latest drivers from Nvidia!! Newer UI versjons of 3DM Suite will give up to 400 points lower physics in fire Strike. All tested with same Nvidia drivers, stock graphics and 4.8GHz on processor.

Mine tests!!(Papusan)
Tested with latest Nvidia driver 375.95
http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/11036017/fs/11035883#
 

Tested with latest Nvidia driver 376.19
http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/11049261/fs/11057220

6 hours ago, Mr. Fox said:

Great job bro Fox Nice to see a well-functioning i7 and a hk BGA trash does not come close. Long live socket hardware!!

Improved Wprime 32M score - 4.137 sec

http://hwbot.org/submission/3370273_papusan_wprime___32m_core_i7_6700k_4sec_137ms?recalculate=true

Wprime 1024M - 131.918 sec. Improved from my previous best run 132,237 sec score Finally under132.xxx sec 

http://hwbot.org/submission/3357625...re_i7_6700k_2min_11sec_918ms?recalculate=true

23 minutes ago, Shamil said:

why I cant download files from here?

Read SECTION 4 - ACCOUNT PROMOTIONS

https://www.techinferno.com/index.php?/ti-tos/tos/

8 minutes ago, Shamil said:

Thanks:) May be you can help me? I really need nv_dispi.inf_v375.57_Win10_PEG_Dedicated_Alienware.zip  right now. Could you please download it for me?

This does not start very well. That's not how we do it on the web. You ask me to share other people's hard work. This is wrong!!

Mod can you chime in@J95 @Mr.

10 minutes ago, Shamil said:

why I cant download files from here?

Read SECTION 4 - ACCOUNT PROMOTIONS

https://www.techinferno.com/index.php?/ti-tos/tos/

13 hours ago, wersuss said:

Hi, is 13400 Firestrike score good for gtx 980 desktop in p870?

Depends on how high your overclock is. We need to know your overclocking settings on gpu/cpu. Also different drivers can make a difference.

18 hours ago, Mr. Fox said:

Nice score, Brother @Papusan. I wonder if your newer version of Windows 10 or the newer NVIDIA driver is holding you back a little bit? I was running an older version of Windows 10 and an older driver in this comparison. If you use the driver I used in this run does the graphics performance improve? You should be able to beat my high score with your more efficient CPU sample. Your physics and combined score are higher, so it almost has to be the driver or newer version of Windows 10 causing lower graphics performance. I doubt it is the 17MHz difference in GPU core clock, but I suppose that it could be.

 

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/3dm11/11440376/3dm11/11653576#

Thanks bro  @Mr. Fox  Most likely a combination of drivers, Crippled Windows version and a notch lower Oc on graphics. M$ is known to destroy everything now as well Nvidia dont offer better performance with newer drivers, LOL

 As well your graphics card might be more efficient (you need most likely lower voltage duo higher Asic score). Last but not least, I have slower ram(better ram help huge in 3DM11). 

 I think I need to replace the paste and thermal pads before tougher bench... Have not done this yet. What thickness should be on pads on the graphics card? Thought of these 14 W / mK Fujipoly / Alphacool pads. They are softer than those at 17 W / mK. Your opinion on this? I think also to replace the pads on the processor heatsink. I have ordered better fans for my U3. And my wife use the fireplace more and more now

Cinebench R15 - 1068 cb score from the BGA-KILLER   Up from 1065 cb
http://hwbot.org/submission/3344932_papusan_cinebench___r15_core_i7_6700k_1068_cb?recalculate=true

3DM11 - 18889P

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/11653576

20 hours ago, coolane said:

@Papusan

I thought about the U3. But I am not sure if the U3 will outperform my SF19, since it has 80mm fans and mine has 140mm fans.

I might still wanna try it out because the SF19 is using a lot of space on the desk.

 

I used to overclock a 6820HK in my sold GT72S, I was able to clock it to 4.3GHz for daily use without throttling in benchmarks and games.

But voltage is way too high than 6700K. I needed 1.3v to stable 4.3GHz and 1.25v to stable 4.2GHz. Though the cooling can handle it.

My highest CPU score with 6820HK:

 

 

I meant you could mod the U3 with better 120mm 12v fans, like the one I showed in the link

19 hours ago, Mr. Fox said:

Another round for the baby beast 4790K and single 980M...

 

 

 

 

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/11640696

 

http://www.3dmark.com/3dmv/5522389

 

And, a quick peek at the power draw... 369W max according to my UPS... peak CPU 189.4W and 204W peak from the 980M

Nice bro Fox. Hotwell is a big power hog, and that little beast El Cazador can handle such loads is amazing

22 hours ago, johnksss said:

Decided to go ahead and bench the 6820HK/1070N. It would seem this little beast knocked out all the competition in it's class at the moment. Being BGA and all.

http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/geforce_gtx_1070_notebook_mxm/

Nice Do you have opportunities for some CPU overclocking records for 6820Hk? Or is the processor in your Asus prevented from running at max? http://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_6820hk/

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

@coolane

Maybe mod a Coolermaster U3? http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/best-notebook-coolers-for-18-alienware-laptops.593626/page-46#post-10208973

New Wprime 1024M score - 132.237 sec

http://hwbot.org/submission/3333272_papusan_wprime___1024m_core_i7_6700k_2min_12sec_237ms

17 hours ago, Dr. AMK said:

I think we have to consider Delidding the 6700K to reduce the temp as nuch as we can. Do it by our self is risky for some of us, but now HIDevolution is giving this as an option beside the Silicon Lottery but with lower cost.

Find below 2 different ways for Delidding. 

Our seniors members please advice.

Regards.

 

 

 

 

Do it the cheap and best way without to use a special tool  And you don't need a SL chips. All 6700K can do 4.6 GHz and most likely higher without a need to buy a expencive SL chips from HiD or other places.

 A new improved Cinebench 11.5 - 11.74 pts

Not much but still

http://hwbot.org/submission/3306401...5_core_i7_6700k_11.74_points?recalculate=true

Aquamark3 Benchmark 
http://hwbot.org/submission/3300807_papusan_aquamark_geforce_gtx_980_(notebook_mxm)_394410_marks

17 minutes ago, Sekence said:

Guys, should I make a donation to Prema for having access to his P651RS-G Bios ? Or it's free ...or will become free soon ? 

(This question is linked to the fact  I have seen few resellers with Prema mod preinstalled...so I suppose it does exist and work already).

 

thanks 

I would donated some money anyway. Although it is free, or firmware is not available now. <Will become free soon> is not the same as using other man's work, without giving something back in return