win32asmguy

I guess we will have some reviews of the Alienware QHD+ panel at some point. The specs may be worse but it should still be enjoyable for most games when used indoors. Hopefully 4080 and 4090 both get the vapor chamber. Per usual Dell style the specs are ambiguous so we probably will not know for sure until someone gets one and takes it apart. I am happy to see the m18 has Windows 10 drivers on the support page so far. It also appears that the TB4 ports are likely connected to the iGPU based on the spec page.

This Alienware m18 config is not a bad deal either, for 13900HX, 4080 and QHD+ panel: https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-laptops/alienware-m18-gaming-laptop/spd/alienware-m18-r1-laptop/wnm18r1cto010 The $400 extra cost gets you better build quality, a mechanical keyboard, vapor chamber? and ability to choose an on site warranty.

I hope they have a config with the 13980HX, 4090, 1920x1200 screen, membrane keyboard and otherwise basic specs for memory and storage, for under 4000usd. It would be worth a test to check out linux compatibility and hopefully is not too noisy under office or gaming scenarios. It would be great if we could somehow convince Dell to support Windows 10 on this model. I cannot really understand the point of including those M.2 2230 SSD slots. May as well just left them out as those drives are neither performant or high capacity. At least the wifi is not soldered..

I noticed that the service manual is available, and also possibly a new EC version 1.07.06 which I have not tested yet. https://repo.palkeo.com/clevo-mirror/NH5xJNN(Q)_R(Q)_PS(Y)/ The system block diagram confirms no MUX on this model for the laptop LCD.

I wonder if these will end up being compatible with the 7670 / 7770 using the SODIMM interposer, it could be a cheaper way to get to 96GB capacity. https://wccftech.com/crucial-now-has-24-gb-48-gb-ddr5-memory-options-for-desktop-laptop-pcs/amp/

I hope for the sake of 7670 and 7770 owners it means retroactive price drops for CAMM upgrades. As it is right now, we are looking at 1250usd and 2500usd to get a 64GB or 128GB module. At one point I think Dell said CAMM was 1usd/GB more expensive to produce than SODIMM, would be nice to see that price reflected with with their upgrade costs, and for there to be one less thing for the anti-CAMM crowd to complain about.

I have seen a variance of 200mv on some 12900k chips for P-core and cache factory voltages at the same frequencies. It is tougher to measure on the BGA laptop chips but it does seem like there is just as much variance. Hopefully 13th Gen's refinements will improve it. It sounds like 13900k Asus SP ratings have generally gone up so maybe it will be the same case with 13th Gen mobile.

Maybe try re-enabling RST and check in the RST boot option ROM to see if any kind of array or JBOD entry is defined? I am unsure but it may interfere with using the same slot in AHCI mode.

@jorgeregula Please also make sure you have "Overclocking Feature" enabled as all sub menu options are not applied (undervolting or modifying core ratio limits, etc) unless that is the case. Note this is different than the "Overclocking Lock" in the PCH submenu. I can shoot a quick video on the MSI GE77 to show why if it help visualize it.

It will be interesting to see if the top end Alienware or XPS 17/18 model ends up with CAMM. It could mean 128GB options being available again or XMP CAMM modules. If these are going to be reaching these new higher single core boost speeds hopefully the cooling system is top notch and extra care is taken at the factory to ensure what they are shipping meets these tighter tolerances. I would also hope they can ship a system with few firmware bugs but given how quickly the cadence has been there can be a higher chance for problems as we are all just human.

You might try running Throttlestop or HWInfo64 to monitor power limit reasons while the CPU benchmark portion is running. If you repaste Honeywell PTM7950 is a decent option on the CPU and can be purchased now stateside from modDIY for a modest price over getting it via ebuy7.

I will run it through an ePSA diagnostic test in dedicated mode to see if it occurs. I think in dedicated mode it was always artifacting regardless of driver loaded from Dell or Nvidia. I also noticed the 7670 memory is the 14gbps type instead of 16gbps. Probably does not matter at 125W but interesting to note. I wonder if the gddr6 could be an inferior bin or it's just the same chips at a lower speed.

The artifact was a random box area would flicker periodically in games, even at default clocks and 90W TDP. On another machine with a 3080Ti I noticed checkerboard patterns which persisted to the desktop even after exiting the game, which did not go away until a reboot. On the 7670, 90W x 138% = 125W vbios cap, hence why the slider goes farther.

Before I reverted the 527.56 driver on the 7670 I checked that value and it was 90W. So it definitely represents Base TGP. GPU-Z also has the same value I have found:

I think it is power limits supplied by Dell within Nvidia's range for the product. The driver is supposed to enforce those limits via the PCF component. I think this driver also has other bugs (noticed some artifacting even at stock clocks) so I reverted back to the Dell provided drivers for now as I do not want to damage the GPU.

Nice! I guess the next question is if Nvidia will be patching this work around in the next driver release. It sounds like it may be similar to what MSI does with Overboost and Tongfang with their TDP unlocks. It may also be something related to Nvidia allowing higher TDP on the desktop 4090 card too.

Yes, in Timespy it maxes out at 125W. In games I regularly see 120W+ now where before it was only 102W with the Dell provided Nvidia PCF driver.

Tonight I managed to get the 3080Ti in the 7670 working at 125W by using MSI Afterburner to control power limits intead of Nvidia PCF. Here is a 3dmark score: https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/86161666? Basic process, I think: Be on bios 1.8.0, with Nvidia driver 527.56, msi afterburner 4.6.5 beta 2. In Device Manager, disable "Software Devices -> NVIDIA Platform Controllers and Framework". Open MSI Afterburner. The power limit shown will likely be a nonsense value, drag the slider to 1% then back up to 138%, then Apply the changes. Now the higher GPU power draw over 102W should be observed.

The Zbook Fury 16 G9 is 90W for the A4500, no dynamic boost or pull beyond that. It has a unified vapor chamber but rather small fans and overall cooling unit size. The Thinkpad P16 is a 115W A4500, with dynamic boost to 130W. It does have TWO separate vapor chambers one for CPU and another for GPU, so the best cooling and highest TDP. The stock paste is NOT Honeywell PTM79xx so the factory job can vary. The Precision 7770 was generally 120W from my experience, nothing I did could get it up to 130W where Aaron's machine would sit hence me thinking he had an early production machine that somehow accidentally has higher boost limits. This 7670 appears to be 90W with boost up to 102W. It is a lot better price / performance though. As a refurb with the 12950HX and 3080Ti and FHD for only $2100 before taxes its significantly cheaper than the 7770 config. I also found the 18W extra GPU TDP only brought roughly 10% more performance. Even more hilariously the fans on the 7670 do not have the stupid grinding/whoosh noise when cycling on/off.

I am pretty sure Dynamic Boost is working on the 7670 with 3080Ti. If I disable Nvidia PCF in the device manager, the sustained TDP is 90W, but if it is enabled then the sustained TDP is 102W. https://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/33796418/spy/33791770#

I am unsure if the Lenovo A4500 module was some kind of MXM card, it does have an edge connector but obviously not the right form factor. The base TDP was 115W and dynamic boost was up to 130W.

Attached is the Thinkpad P16 A4500 vbios. p16a4500.zip

Yes. Dynamic Boost is available and enabled. I also tested it with Nvidia PCF disabled in the device manager, which then limited the GPU to 90W. So it does appear to get 12W through dynamic boost.

Indeed, glad to see this issue fixed even if there is no mention in the release notes. They technically also fixed the GT DC Loadline setting to be the proper 4.0 ohm setting, but that is more of an issue where load voltage for the iGPU is reported to be higher than the actual value ( ideally you want AC == DC ) I also tested Dynamic Boost 2.0 but did not see GPU TDP above 102W, or near 136W combined CPU+GPU under load. So that is still not working with current bios + ec + vbios + 517.66 dell driver.

Just a heads up, bios 1.8.0 fixes IA AC loadline values to the correct values. Tested this on a fresh machine running 1.6.3 from the factory.