All Activity

Windows 11 users have heard Microsoft's promises before. That's the problem The trust is almost gone.

Hello Soo my precision m6700 won't boot anymore. I had 32gb of ram (8gb in each slot), but now it won't boot with ram inserted in slots A and/or C, only B and D slots work. This happened to me once and after reseating CPU all four slots worked fine, but now that didn't work. I tried different CPU, cleaning CPU and ram module sockets, reseating ram modules, putting them in different slots but with no luck. Has anyone experienced this before?

Where did you get the 2133 rams?

I have just noticed that my 275hx limits to 160w no matter what I set PL1 and PL2 at. Any idea why? Edit: I am testing in XTU. Limits to 160w in the stress test but will pull up to 195w in XTU's benchmark. Edit2: cpu only pulls 60w in timespy cpu bench.

I can use both the Rtx 3000 no problems and the Rtx 5000, with the 5000 though I either have to limited it's core MHz to 1300 or change it's power to around 80 watts, when playing games it does still seem to go as high as 96 watts, if I just leave it at stock 110 watts it ends up crashing as for pads I'm actually using paste as I couldn't co firm if the pads were actually reaching, I'm now considering trying this 2k screen on the Rtx 3000, just alot of faffing about as I now have the 3D edp cable at hand, current tests have all been with the lvds screen but it's a very old screen and doesn't look particularly nice, failing this is maybe a portable screen and using a micro display or similar to achieve a nicer screen for gaming.

Anyone fixed the problem? With Maxwell/Pascal/Turing? Somehow my M6800 is still not showing the M5000M, I made everything, but no. And thanks to stupid design of bios chip, I couldn't vbios it.

I think the result you got is more due to CPU throttling rather than the actual power of your system. Your CPU score for the Intel Core i9-9900K is below normal, and this typically happens when the processor is heavily throttling due to high temperatures, which causes its speed to drop. For retesting, apply the following settings in Intel Extreme Tuning Utility (XTU): • Reduce CPU voltage by around -0.100V (Undervolt) • Set the all-core multiplier to 47x • Set fan speeds to 100% This will: • Lower temperatures • Prevent throttling • Keep the CPU frequency stable Also, before running the test, close any CPU-intensive programs from Task Manager so the processor isn’t under unnecessary load and you get more accurate results. Then run the 3DMark Time Spy test again. Also, pay attention to the image you shared — it clearly shows CPU performance degradation. Your GPU score is good, but this CPU drop is lowering the overall score. An important point is that improving CPU performance doesn’t only affect its own score — 👉 it can also improve GPU performance and ultimately enhance the entire system’s output. I’m confident you can easily reach around 24K to 25K. If you’d like, we can try to set a solid record with your system 😄 With that score, you’ll outperform many 2025 and 2026 laptops. Additionally, in the image, the Time Spy scores of our systems are compared — your CPU achieved about 35% lower performance. Overclocking requires proper knowledge, and if all factors are not carefully evaluated, it can actually lead to performance degradation. The main reason for the drop in your system’s performance is high temperature combined with voltage and frequency settings that are not well balanced. At first glance, one of the cores briefly reached around 5100 MHz at the start of the test, but it’s highly likely that within a few seconds the frequency dropped below 4000 MHz, which resulted in the recorded score of around 7700. With proper voltage and thermal conditions, you should realistically achieve a standard score in the range of 10K to 11K. For effective overclocking, you typically need an upgraded heatsink, high-quality thermal paste, upgraded fans (for example, moving from R1 to R2 fan configurations), and solid overclocking knowledge. With these adjustments, the CPU score can reach around 12K to 13K in the Time Spy Benchmark. That way, you can showcase the true power of your system.

I think the result you got is more due to CPU throttling rather than the actual power of your system. Your CPU score for the Intel Core i9-9900K is below normal, and this typically happens when the processor is heavily throttling due to high temperatures, which causes its speed to drop. For retesting, apply the following settings in Intel Extreme Tuning Utility (XTU): • Reduce CPU voltage by around -0.100V (Undervolt) • Set the all-core multiplier to 47x • Set fan speeds to 100% This will: • Lower temperatures • Prevent throttling • Keep the CPU frequency stable Also, before running the test, close any CPU-intensive programs from Task Manager so the processor isn’t under unnecessary load and you get more accurate results. Then run the 3DMark Time Spy test again. Also, pay attention to the image you shared — it clearly shows CPU performance degradation. Your GPU score is good, but this CPU drop is lowering the overall score. An important point is that improving CPU performance doesn’t only affect its own score — 👉 it can also improve GPU performance and ultimately enhance the entire system’s output. I’m confident you can easily reach around 24K to 25K. If you’d like, we can try to set a solid record with your system 😄 With that score, you’ll outperform many 2025 and 2026 laptops. Additionally, in the image, the Time Spy scores of our systems are compared — your CPU achieved about 35% lower performance. Overclocking requires proper knowledge, and if all factors are not carefully evaluated, it can actually lead to performance degradation. The main reason for the drop in your system’s performance is high temperature combined with voltage and frequency settings that are not well balanced. At first glance, one of the cores briefly reached around 5100 MHz at the start of the test, but it’s highly likely that within a few seconds the frequency dropped below 4000 MHz, which resulted in the recorded score of around 7700. With proper voltage and thermal conditions, you should realistically achieve a standard score in the range of 10K to 11K. For effective overclocking, you typically need an upgraded heatsink, high-quality thermal paste, upgraded fans (for example, moving from R1 to R2 fan configurations), and solid overclocking knowledge. With these adjustments, the CPU score can reach around 12K to 13K in the Time Spy Benchmark. That way, you can showcase the true power of your system.

I tested the 4940MX in the Alienware 17 R1 and... Shocking results... Max 71W in ThrottleStop bench instead of 58W. CPU-Z: from 380 to 430 single score Multi-thread: 1880 to 2200... Can hit 4GHz on all cores. I put the i7 4700MQ in the M6800, I get 2.3GHz on all cores, what?? Max 24W... I set the cores to the lowest possible, I get 2.4GHz at 26W..... (Non OEM Battery) I didn't reset the CMOS and the NVRAM values yet. Maybe I should? I remember I was able to get 3.1GHz on all cores (OEM battery) Edit: fixed the 4700MQ turbo with CMOS reset and got 3.4GHz on all cores at 58W max. Multi-thread is 1800 points

The 4940mx crashes at -110mV core so... Not a good chip maybe. I'll test on 17 R1

I don't think so, the 4940xm should beat the 4900mq at all power levels since you can undervolt it more than the 4900mq before your system crashes. If you are power limited for the whole system (which seems very unlikely with a 240w charger), the 4900mq won't perform as well as the 4940xm in any case. Anyway if you ordered the 4900mq, give it a try and see if it can do more than 3.7 since that is your initial goal.

But I don't wanna get power limited when both GPU and CPU work. It's better to get the lower TDP CPUs. I'll test the 4940MX in an Alienware and see if it does the same issue. The 4940MX is requesting too much amps, maybe higher than the non extreme CPUs.

And at what power did they achieve this do you know ? My guess is probably 60w+ to do 4ghz all core on the 4900mq as my 4810mq requires 70w to do all core 4Ghz and it's a tier lower. Your problem is the power limit so I'd stick to the 4940xm

I see people with Dell laptops reaching 4GHz all cores with the 4900MQ

Well that's just a number given by intel for the design TDP of these CPUs so that manufacturers can make heatsinks accordingly. What is important is the voltage per clock ratio that each chip can do. On my zbook 17 g2 with i7-4810mq, when pushing all core to 4.0Ghz it hits 70w. It would be wiser to stay with the 4940xm that has much better silicon meaning you can undervolt more before you crash meaning higher clocks for the same power. All haswell mobile quadcores have the same physical die (some with more cache than others), the way intel names CPUs is that those that can be fed less voltage (=less power) for the same clocks achieved are marketed as the XM chips. For example, this same 4810mq will crash at -20mV at all core 4Ghz. The 4940xm has way better overclocking headroom than the 4900mq. I'm ready to bet that the 4940xm reaches higher clocks than the 4900mq in your power limited system because you can get 3.7 Ghz all core @ -80mv witht eh 4940xm whereas the 4900mq will probably crash at -45mv = stuck at 3.5Ghz all core.

Yes and I can't increase that. So it's better having a 4900MQ that's 47W than the 4940mx that's 57W...

Yes, that is because you are being power/current limited. By undervolting, the CPU can reach higher clocks for the same power/current, you need to investigate all power limiting factors, but in your case it sounds more like current limit as throttlestop shows "EDP other" limit reason

But the 900 series have a lower designed TDP and at 58W I'll get more performance than what the 4940MX did at 58W in throttleStop bench... The 4900MQ can do 4.2GHz on all cores, so 4GHz on all cores could be more stable and possible than the 4940MX in the M6800? Edit: I undervolted to -80mV and I was able to get 3.7GHz on all cores, instead of 3.6GHz with -40mV. Interesting... Still low, if I had a 4900MQ, maybe I can get 4GHz easily

That's a easy fix, solder big wires from the main power rail (19.5v after 2nd Mosfet) to the power pins of the GPU, GPU is fed main power rail through the MXM slot anyway. Even up to 4.3Ghz all core see the comments at the bottom of this page : Intel Core i7-4910MQ Mobile processor - CW8064701474105 / BX80647I74910MQ This is because this is a "900" series CPU, just like 6920HQ and 7920HQ, these have +6 turbo bins VS the +4 on other i7 mobile CPUs But it sounds like you were hitting a hard power limit/current limit so bumping the turbo bins won't do you much good. Power limit editing on my m6700 worked great, can't help you more from what we said in PM with the m6800 as I don't have the machine (nor the m4800 that should have a similar implementation of power/current limit in the bios)

It needs external power, so no.

Yes I used the stock UHD display cable : 06GXDN it is the only way to get 4 lanes of eDP displays working = displays with > 1080p and or > 60Hz (without making your own display cable) The display I have is this one : NV173QHM-ny4 BOE NE173QHM-NY4 Overview - Panelook.com I got it as it was a good deal on my local second hand shopping website (40 euros for the display) Display connector side doesn't matter as the UHD cable is made for displays that have a connector on the left side (looking from back of display) and the cable leaves from the left hinge (looking front of the laptop) = You can use "left" or "right" sided display. The display I used has a connector on the right side (looking from back of display) so I had to make the LCD cable loop back on itself inside the laptop lid so as to connect to the display. There is enough room in the "chin" below the display in the back panel to get the cable to loop back without making the LCD bezel bulge. I taped the display bezel back in place and no problems whatsoever since. The only limit is bandwidth as we are limited to a DP 1.3 connection, even in dGPU mode, see here (DP1.3 columm on the right) : My display works as it is 1440p 165Hz 8bit. If you try to use 10 bit 1440p 165hz display you will have to run it at a lower refresh rate to use 10 bits or run in 8 bit mode to get 165Hz. During testing I got 4K 10 bit to work at 60Hz, trying 8 bit 120Hz gave artifacting and flickering image. Hope this helps ! If you have more questions I can try to answer them as well. Regards,

Yes, those are the ones. I don't know if you could fit a full fat 980 in (without the "M"), IIRC is it a weird shape and requires an extra power connector. Everything newer than that is eDP only. [Edit] This is the GeForce 980 (no "M").

Idk if anyone has said anything but: I have a Quadro P5000 working with the 17 R1 (Ranger) running an i7-4940MX. Just had to switch to IGFX on a 60Hz display to make the power draw consistent at 95-100w, and modify my drivers using NVInstall (Check device manager and see if your card is trying to call for a different device ID, it'll guide you to the right P5000 to select when adding hardware support, they're definitely different in terms of what's installed) and boom, it worked no issues. Also worth using one of the OC bios's you can find on TechPowerUp's database, or use a hardware flasher to flash the iMac OC bios from the mac forums. Also on LVDS

M5000M and 980M