MyPC8MyBrain

A bit of context on ISV GPUs, ECC, and why these distinctions made sense in the past but hold very little value today—especially in mobile systems. Historically, ISV-class GPUs (Quadro/RTX Pro) ran ECC VRAM enabled by default, and you couldn’t override it. Their drivers were built for long-duration, mission-critical workloads, so clocks were intentionally conservative. This made sense for environments where any calculation error could have financial or legal consequences—think Wall Street, CAD/CAM shops, or regulated verticals. Back in the early 2000s, Precision mobile workstations were literally the only laptops offering system-level ECC memory, and ISV certification actually mattered. The software ecosystem was a mess—standards were looser, OpenGL implementations varied wildly, and ISV drivers guaranteed predictable behavior across entire application suites. That was the right tool for that era. Today? The landscape is completely different: Modern applications and frameworks self-validate, self-correct, and handle error states internally. DDR5/DDR7 include on-die ECC and advanced signal-integrity correction long before data ever reaches system memory. Driver ecosystems are mature and unified; the old instability that justified ISV certification is largely gone. Even system ECC memory is increasingly redundant for most mobile workflows. The big reality check: In mobile platforms, the theoretical advantage of ISV GPUs—sustained stable clocks—simply cannot manifest. Modern mobile thermals hit the ceiling long before ISV tuning makes a difference. Both Pro and non-Pro GPUs will throttle the same once the chassis saturates. That endurance advantage only shows up on full desktop cards with massive cooling budgets. That leaves one actual, modern-day benefit: Legacy OpenGL pipelines. Outside of that niche, ISV certification brings almost nothing to the table—desktop or mobile. Bottom line: ISV certification made sense 15–20 years ago. Today, especially in mobile workstations, it’s a legacy checkbox with minimal practical value. Non-Pro GPUs offer the same real-world performance, and in many cases, better flexibility for modern workflows.

Bingo. 🙂 This may come as a shock, but people like us do exist, Dell. Our workflows cannot run on ISV-certified GPU drivers. ISV certification adds nothing to what we do, and none of our end users run ISV drivers. We validate our environments and new releases exclusively using non-ISV drivers. And as several members here already pointed out: we need a business-class system that we can also game on after hours. I don’t see how that contradicts the workstation designation. Do they really expect us to buy an Alienware just to play games after work? Or should we simply settle with the limitations? Which one is it, Dell?

I get that — I do the same myself — but I still need to run 4K workflows, and the option simply needs to be there. This is supposed to be a workstation, and productivity should never be treated as optional. For years we had full configurability, down to choosing whether or not to include a webcam in the bezel. Now we’re stuck with the same IPS panel generation after generation. It’s not as if Dell lacks compatible displays; they have an entire lineup they could fit here. Yet the flagship productivity platform doesn’t even get a touch option, let alone a modern high-resolution panel. Removing basics like a 4K option sends the message: here’s the flagship — be happy we still give you 2K. That just doesn’t sit right. And I hear you on Raptor Lake being dated — loud and clear. The 16 is still a valid system, but the lack of any non-ISV GPU option makes it a poor fit for many workflows. Not everyone runs ISV-bound workloads, and Dell’s current configuration approach essentially signals that this entire segment is now reserved exclusively for ISV-certified use cases. This is exactly what I mean when I say the platform feels compromised at every turn. Dell and Precision line used to stand for an uncompromising frontier. What makes it even more of an oxymoron is that Dell isn’t struggling financially — the company was bought back by its original owners and is in a strong position. This overhaul wasn’t driven by necessity; things were working well. It feels like optimization for the sake of optimization simply because they can, not because the platform needed it — unless the goal is to turn every model into a flat, disposable pizza-tray design you’d grab at a 7-Eleven.

The 18-inch model increased screen size without increasing resolution — where is the 4K option, or even any panel choice beyond IPS? Meanwhile, the 16-inch model gains a few features over the 18 but drops the 4th NVMe bay. I'm also not sure what you’re comparing the new 16’s thermals against; in my experience, packing this much dense hardware into a smaller chassis leaves far less thermal headroom than the larger 17-inch and up designs. And since Dell removed all modularity from Alienware, there’s no longer any option to order a non-ISV GPU like we used to on both platforms now.

i don't need the latest bells and whistles, i need a platform i can trust and feel confident with. none of these overhauled new models give me any sense confident over the precision line, ill just build myself a maxed out 7780 and run it for the next stretch.

I have the MB16250, MB18250, AA16250, and AA18250 all spec’d to the max, but I still can’t bring myself to pull the trigger on any of them. Every one of these new units feels compromised in one way or another. The MB16250 is probably the least compromised, but based on past experience its thermals are still weaker than the MB18250—and that one comes with the odd tall screen ratio that I’m not sold on. I also looked at the AA16250 and AA18250. Hardware baseline is solid, but Dell removed every bit of modularity these platforms used to have. That alone is a huge step backward. And the configuration pages now look unprofessional and borderline insulting. The way they structure component options feels deliberate—almost as if they assume no one notices. For example, they list a single 16GB or 32GB module supposedly running in “dual-channel,” yet they offer no 2×8GB or 2×16GB options, not even a basic single 8GB stick. Everything is pushed toward unnecessary upgrades and more expensive configurations that absolutely don’t need to be forced. or they intentionally omit the top Intel CPU options from the AA16250/AA18250 lineup entirely. How does that make any sense except for ‘going green’ on their cost structure? What a sad state of affairs. For the first time ever, I’m seriously considering buying the discontinued 7780 instead.

that is nothing to be excited about (in the context of manufacturing that is). when a student finishes his homework under 2 min what does that signals to most people?

https://ollama.com/library/llama3.1 Minimal Requirements for Llama 3.1 8B (Quantized) VRAM (GPU Memory) ≥ 8 GB VRAM System RAM ≥ 16 GB If you are interested in the larger, more powerful Llama 3.1 variants, the requirements scale up dramatically, moving them out of the range of most standard PCs: Llama 3.1 70B ≈ 35 - 50 GB VRAM Llama 3.1 405B ≥ 150 GB VRAM Hardware support https://docs.ollama.com/gpu Compute capability (CC) https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-gpus

to the best of my knowledge when optimus puts dGPU to sleep iGpu will function through hdmi port, optimus is not dell's software its nvidia's software designed specifically to switch between the two, if hdmi is not working it has to be something else preventing the port from being used.

@Easa The issues regarding NVMe and SSD drive failures, including data loss, have been widely reported and linked primarily to a specific Windows update. The Suspected Update: The update most frequently cited in connection with the drive problems is KB5063878, a security update for Windows 11 version 24H2 (though some reports also mention earlier updates and Windows versions). Symptoms and Conditions: Users reported that after installing the update, drives (NVMe and some SATA SSDs/HDDs) could disappear from the system, fail to boot, or show as RAW/corrupted, leading to data loss. This issue was often observed: During or after large, continuous write loads (e.g., transfers over 50GB). Especially if the drive was more than 60% to 80% full. On systems with specific SSD controllers (particularly Phison, though other brands were mentioned).

Wooohat... manual fan control, did the world gone mad? that is so pedestrian in an era of self driving cars, solid and basic working technology belongs in the 2000 and prior when things didn't have hidden agendas and corner cutting in mind just so a bunch of deadbeat exec's can buy another weekend house. and don't anyone dear to say they didn't do something in their time.

this is mainly related to advanced battery health management features designed to prolong the battery's lifespan. the "native way" to override this is to use the Primarily AC Use mode in Dell Optimizer or Dell Power Manager, or manually set a Custom charge start/stop limit (e.g., start->50% stop ->100%) to ensure the laptop runs almost exclusively on AC power when plugged in, thus preserving the battery's lifespan. Use Dell Optimizer or Dell Power Manager look for a section related to Battery Information or Battery Settings. You will find options designed to maximize battery lifespan for users who are always plugged in. The key settings are: "Primarily AC Use" This option is specifically designed for users who primarily operate the computer while plugged into an external power source. It automatically lowers the maximum charge threshold (e.g., to around 80% or a value set by Dell) so the battery stops charging and the system runs on AC power. "Custom" This gives you the most control. manually set the percentage at which the battery will Start Charging (e.g., 30%) and the percentage at which it will Stop Charging (e.g., 100%). Result: If the battery is below 100% and above 30% and the laptop is plugged in, the system will run entirely on the AC adapter, and the battery will remain at 100% (only acting as an emergency UPS/buffer for peak loads). or Use the System BIOS/UEFI set this at the hardware/firmware level or if you do not have the Dell software installed: Find the Primary Battery Charge Configuration: Look for an option like Primary Battery Charge Configuration or Custom Charge Settings. Set the Thresholds: You can usually set the Start Charge and Stop Charge percentages directly in the BIOS. Setting the Stop Charge to a lower value (start->30% stop ->100%) will force the system to run on AC power once that level is reached, achieving more or less the behavior you are after.

If you’re plugged into wall power, you can try disconnecting the battery so it’s no longer part of the system’s power management loop. It might be worth experimenting with a clean OS installation while the battery is disconnected, so the system builds its initial power profile more like a desktop. After setup, reconnect the battery so it functions more as a UPS-style backup rather than part of the active power delivery chain. I’ve seen similar behavior before, so this approach might help mitigate the performance throttling effect under heavy load. It’s also possible there’s a low-level BIOS flag (not exposed in the standard interface) that could toggle this behavior natively — Dell loves burying those.

@win32asmguy interesting, in theory a standard SODIMM in a system that supports CSODIMM the memory should still run at a lower speed with CKD Disabled, many high-end laptops supporting CSODIMM still ship with standard SODIMM while the underlying architecture is future proof with CSODIMM support. my guess is this is some intentional nonsense by dell to secure their memory upgrade path monopoly they started with CAMM modules.

After collecting feedback here and watching some of the review videos, I think I can tentatively justify some of the new design choices. That’s not to say I like them—but the more exposed aluminum look may be part of the thermal strategy. From everyone’s reports, thermals seem solid, even if no one can pinpoint exactly why. My guess is that the exposed chassis is acting as a better heat conductor than the old plastic brackets. This is speculation based on what we’ve seen so far.

i was looking at Intel® Core™ Processors HX-Series (14th gen) brief specs, interesting, the Ultra Core for Desktop processor is showing 192GB limit with 2 memory channels only while the Core Ultra Mobile 285HX is Listing 256GB limit still with 2 memory channels, CAMM's 4 channel is still in the air outside of Dell's marketing bubble, until CPU's ship with 4 IMC's CAMM's are pointless atm. mobile platforms with these processors onboard will never be able to utilize CAMM's 4 channels as the CPU is soldered to the board, since the premises of CAMM is quad channel, the tech currently embedded is moot.

not to mention most of this is not supported by current and likely next gen mobile CPU IMC's to begin with, these are "LaLa Land" numbers, by the time these will be a reality this platform will be too old to even get driver updates, pointless cramming into this particular platform generation imho.

i believe heat was the issue with the larger modules,

You don’t need to remove the interposer—dual 64 GB cSO-DIMMs can match or even outperform CAMM in sustained real-world performance while running cooler. The 4-channel CAMM design in laptops is more about marketing than transformative engineering. While it’s theoretically possible, current mobile CPU IMCs and chassis designs aren’t fully realizing that potential. HX-series CPUs support dual-channel memory configurations, so any “4-channel” claims are achieved through Dell’s trace routing and rank interleaving techniques. Dell’s omission of 2×64 GB cSO-DIMM configurations from their official specs may be a strategy to promote proprietary CAMM modules. However, laptops with Intel HX CPUs can support up to 192 GB of DDR5; using two 64 GB cSO-DIMMs is well within spec for the CPU and IMC, and many users have successfully implemented it as a cost-effective alternative to CAMM. Keep your interposer in place and consider this kit: https://www.crucial.com/memory/ddr5/ct2k64g64c52cs5

most of these setting can definitely be changes via powershell, porb why Dell retired most of the older resource hogging tools, @AL123 have a looksee here https://notebooktalk.net/topic/632-dell-precision-7670-dell-precision-7770-owners-thread/?do=findComment&comment=21688

did you look into changing power plan settings in bios to performance for low level settings, and than higher in windows power plan settings? there's also settings in NVIDIA to prefer more performance etc. in control panel setting as well as additional tweaks via external third party tools. with my 7770 i undervolted my cpu, run bios on cool profile, and windows profile in balanced mode, i created a powershell script that changed bios power plan to performance from within windows, and switched windows to maximum performance power plan (old classic power schema), the script would toggle everything back if i run it again, i think i posted it somewhere in the 7770 owners thread you could possibly adopt it to this unit easily with your preferred settings to quickly switch to pedal to the metal profile.

our sales rep called me last week to let me know they are running specials on the new 16/18 pro max's internally for limited time, it seem they proactively trying to push these out.

While SoCs do offer real engineering advantages in terms of performance per watt, the business model they enable is a major contributor to the growing e-waste problem and the erosion of consumer freedom. SoCs in personal computing are, in my view, an abomination—a step in the wrong direction for the average user. They exist not because they serve the long-term interests of consumers, but because they maximize profit, streamline manufacturing, and reinforce planned obsolescence. The trade-off is clear: ownership, control, and product longevity are sacrificed for short-term efficiency and corporate margins.

I’m not sold on the idea that this form will hold up under sustained heavy loads. Mobile chassis designs already have minimal wiggle room, and if the trade-off here is improve latency over optimizing thermals, I’d take optimizing thermals—because once temps spike, latency will happen anyway. Lower latency isn’t much of a win if the rest of the system is cooking itself. That’s not just counterproductive, it’s self-defeating in the long run.