Official Clevo X170SM-G Thread

[Clamibot]

So I've been having a lot of fun with the super 10900K I got from @Mr. Fox, but I'm having trouble trying to achieve the speeds he did with it. Obviously this laptop doesn't have the cooling to sustain 5.6 GHz all core on heavy loads, but I was hoping to at least get that when gaming, or with a single core. Brother Fox and I have been conversing, and he has given me some suggestions on how to boost the speed even higher than I can currently achieve. I'm wondering if any of you guys have anything else to add that may help.

 

Currently, I can do 5.4 GHz all core. Not indefinitely on heavy loads, but I can sustain this speed indefinitely while gaming. This 10900K overclocks extremely easily as it is an extremely good bin. However, if I attempt to go higher than 5.4 GHz, the laptop freezes. I have tried overvolting, but have not gone very high because I don't want to risk damage to the CPU. I may try going a bit higher just to see if I can get some results, but there's a limit as to how high I'm willing to go.

 

I know this chip is capable of more since there is a significant amount of voltage headroom left. Yes, temperature plays a factor with stability, but I don't think that's what's causing the freeze. With both this super 10900K and my old one, I can only set the cache to 4.4 GHz max before the laptop freezes. This super 10900K is capable of 5 GHz on the cache, so something about the laptop is causing instability and a freeze. Whatever is causing instability when trying to overclock the cache may also be causing instability when trying to take the cores above 5.4 GHz. Whether I set all cores or one core to over 5.4 GHz gives the same result: a freeze.

 

So again, if any of you have suggestions on how I can push higher speeds, I'd really appreciate it. I'm going to make a second post with my current results so I don't make this one too long.

[Clamibot]

As promised, here are my results from my testing with the 3 CPUs I've had in this laptop:

 

Original 10600K:

 

This CPU is the one that originally came with my laptop.

 

• Max achievable speed was 5.1 GHz, both single and all core. This required a 50 mv overvolt to stabilize. Higher speeds were impossible. No matter how much I increased the voltage, higher speeds would cause a BSOD. I believe the voltage required for this speed was a little over 1.5 volts.
• This CPU ran hot. A delid would've lowered temperatures, but this CPU was not worthy of receiving a delid.
• If I remember correctly, the power draw at 5.1 GHz across all 6 cores during max load was 163 watts. This was with Cinebench R15.
• High speed memory only works at its XMP speed and timings when installed in the slots underneath the keyboard.

Old 10900K:

 

This CPU is the one that I upgraded my laptop to immediately after getting it. I bought this one off of ebay as a used CPU, and it came pre-delidded.

 

• Max achievable single core speed is 5.4 GHz. This required a 25 mv overvolt to stabilize. If more than 4 cores ran at this speed, a BSOD would occur.

• Max achievable all core speed is 5.3 GHz. This could be done with a 35 mv undervolt MAX. Futher undervolts would result in a BSOD after some time. I'm not even sure if the 35 mv undervolt was fully stable, but I've been using it for a while and have yet to experience a BSOD from it. I know for sure that a 25 mv undervolt at this speed is stable.

• Although 5.3 GHz all core is achievable on this CPU, thermal throttling occurs within a few seconds under heavy loads. The power draw at this speed was 275 watts at max load in Cinebench R15. For gaming, this speed is sustainable indefinitely since the power draw only spikes to around 220 watts, which this laptop's cooling system appears to be able to handle indefinitely, even with the GPU running at full blast.

• At the stock 4.9 GHz all core speed, the max stable undervolt is a 50 mv undervolt. Anything more will eventually cause a BSOD.

• My daily driver speed is 3.5 GHz all core. The max stable undervolt at this speed is a 130 mv undervolt. This speed is enough to quickly power through everyday tasks and maintain my 120 fps to 144 fps target in most games.

• High speed memory only works at its XMP speed and timings when installed in the slots underneath the bottom cover.

New 10900K:

 

This CPU is the super 10900K I bought from Brother @Mr. Fox. It's an amazing chip. I need to do more testing and tweaking with it, but here's the data I have on it so far:

 

• Max achievable speed is currenly 5.4 GHz, both single and all core. I need to perform more tweaking to try and get this higher, because the chip is capable of more.
• I performed a Cinebench R15 run at 5.3 GHz all core, and the power draw was 249 watts, a full 26 watts less than my old 10900K at this speed. I ran this at stock voltage, and have not tried undervolting at this speed yet. I could probably get the CPU to pull even less power because I don't think it needs as much voltage as it's being given to achieve this speed.
• At the stock 4.9 GHz all core speed, I have tested a 90 mv undervolt. It works flawlessly. I could probably undervolt more. We'll see how far it can go.
• Like with my old 10900K, I have set my daily driver speed to 3.5 GHz. I have not yet tested how far I can undervolt at this speed.
• High speed memory only works at its XMP speed and timings when one is installed in slot 1, underneath the bottom cover, and the other is installed in slot 4, underneath the keyboard. I found this incredibly strange. Any other configuration would result in a black screen when the XMP profile was applied.

[electrosoft]

1 hour ago, Clamibot said:

Old 10900K:

 

This CPU is the one that I upgraded my laptop to immediately after getting it. I bought this one off of ebay as a used CPU, and it came pre-delidded.

 

• Max achievable single core speed is 5.4 GHz. This required a 25 mv overvolt to stabilize. If more than 4 cores ran at this speed, a BSOD would occur.

• Max achievable all core speed is 5.3 GHz. This could be done with a 35 mv undervolt MAX. Futher undervolts would result in a BSOD after some time. I'm not even sure if the 35 mv undervolt was fully stable, but I've been using it for a while and have yet to experience a BSOD from it. I know for sure that a 25 mv undervolt at this speed is stable.

• Although 5.3 GHz all core is achievable on this CPU, thermal throttling occurs within a few seconds under heavy loads. The power draw at this speed was 275 watts at max load in Cinebench R15. For gaming, this speed is sustainable indefinitely since the power draw only spikes to around 220 watts, which this laptop's cooling system appears to be able to handle indefinitely, even with the GPU running at full blast.

• At the stock 4.9 GHz all core speed, the max stable undervolt is a 50 mv undervolt. Anything more will eventually cause a BSOD.

• My daily driver speed is 3.5 GHz all core. The max stable undervolt at this speed is a 130 mv undervolt. This speed is enough to quickly power through everyday tasks and maintain my 120 fps to 144 fps target in most games.

• High speed memory only works at its XMP speed and timings when installed in the slots underneath the bottom cover.

New 10900K:

 

This CPU is the super 10900K I bought from Brother @Mr. Fox. It's an amazing chip. I need to do more testing and tweaking with it, but here's the data I have on it so far:

 

• Max achievable speed is currenly 5.4 GHz, both single and all core. I need to perform more tweaking to try and get this higher, because the chip is capable of more.
• I performed a Cinebench R15 run at 5.3 GHz all core, and the power draw was 249 watts, a full 26 watts less than my old 10900K at this speed. I ran this at stock voltage, and have not tried undervolting at this speed yet. I could probably get the CPU to pull even less power because I don't think it needs as much voltage as it's being given to achieve this speed.
• At the stock 4.9 GHz all core speed, I have tested a 90 mv undervolt. It works flawlessly. I could probably undervolt more. We'll see how far it can go.
• Like with my old 10900K, I have set my daily driver speed to 3.5 GHz. I have not yet tested how far I can undervolt at this speed.
• High speed memory only works at its XMP speed and timings when one is installed in slot 1, underneath the bottom cover, and the other is installed in slot 4, underneath the keyboard. I found this incredibly strange. Any other configuration would result in a black screen when the XMP profile was applied.

 

Your old 10900k actually looks like a decent bin too. Not as good as your new boy but I know the original ZtecPC binned chip I had couldn't do anywhere near those numbers. 5.3 all core and it ballooned to 340w+ on the desktop and bsod immediately on the X170SM-G. It was binned clearly for optimal 4.9-5.1 range.

 

Your old 10900k also looks like it was working better with the memory slots and channels. Did you re-check to make sure all the pads are clean on the new 10900k and more importantly check your pins to make sure you didn't compromise one in the slightest? It sounds like a contact issue where lower frequency can get by but when pushing the edge of the PCB of the X170SM-G it borks out. I know on my X170SM-G, I can run the sticks both bottom or both top but I had to clean a tiny bit of thermal compound on one of the corner pins left there from ZtecPC I'll assume.

 

I could push stock 4.9 -120uv but for CB23 stability I backed off to -92uv. See how your system handles a 4-5 looped CB23 run. All my testing is centered around CB23 for consistency. R15 will pass some things that CB23 borks out on so that's why I use it. It is all I use as my baseline for comparative analysis between systems and posted testing.

 

Since it is @Mr. Fox 10900k I'll assume it is already delidded? 😁

 

If you can, do a single CB23 run at stock -90uv and report the temps,  package power and Vcore under load. Every 10900k I've tested that managed to make it to 5.3 all core CB23 eventually fell off the rails at 5.4 and needed decent cooling. There isn't enough magick in the world that will suddenly super empower the X170 Heatsink to handle the serious heat and pull 5.3 and 5.4 all core put out under meaningful loads. I keep looking at that aliexpress heatsink to give it a whirl since they are being sold dirt cheap now.

 

What memory sticks are you running and Vmem and freq/timings?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[electrosoft]

1 hour ago, Clamibot said:

So I've been having a lot of fun with the super 10900K I got from @Mr. Fox, but I'm having trouble trying to achieve the speeds he did with it. Obviously this laptop doesn't have the cooling to sustain 5.6 GHz all core on heavy loads, but I was hoping to at least get that when gaming, or with a single core. Brother Fox and I have been conversing, and he has given me some suggestions on how to boost the speed even higher than I can currently achieve. I'm wondering if any of you guys have anything else to add that may help.

 

Currently, I can do 5.4 GHz all core. Not indefinitely on heavy loads, but I can sustain this speed indefinitely while gaming. This 10900K overclocks extremely easily as it is an extremely good bin. However, if I attempt to go higher than 5.4 GHz, the laptop freezes. I have tried overvolting, but have not gone very high because I don't want to risk damage to the CPU. I may try going a bit higher just to see if I can get some results, but there's a limit as to how high I'm willing to go.

 

I know this chip is capable of more since there is a significant amount of voltage headroom left. Yes, temperature plays a factor with stability, but I don't think that's what's causing the freeze. With both this super 10900K and my old one, I can only set the cache to 4.4 GHz max before the laptop freezes. This super 10900K is capable of 5 GHz on the cache, so something about the laptop is causing instability and a freeze. Whatever is causing instability when trying to overclock the cache may also be causing instability when trying to take the cores above 5.4 GHz. Whether I set all cores or one core to over 5.4 GHz gives the same result: a freeze.

 

So again, if any of you have suggestions on how I can push higher speeds, I'd really appreciate it. I'm going to make a second post with my current results so I don't make this one too long.

 

There's only so much you can do in the limited VRMs and cooling of the X170KM-G. Luckily our units are still under warranty but you will don't want to get slap happy. How did you pick 3.5ghz all core as your D2D frequency? I haven't had mine out in quite some time still. I was too busy modding and wrestling with the absolute crap show that is the stock hardware and firmware that is the MSI Pulse GL66 12700h. Initially the X170SM-G was blowing it out the water, but lots of work and internal tinkering has it now beating the X170SM-G (at its tweaked stock settings) finally.

 

Fortunately the X170SM-G you can tweak the memory settings and lock in frequencies better and coupled with the 2080s, it smashes the 3070 mobile in gaming still.

 

 

[jaybee83]

8 hours ago, Clamibot said:

So I've been having a lot of fun with the super 10900K I got from @Mr. Fox, but I'm having trouble trying to achieve the speeds he did with it. Obviously this laptop doesn't have the cooling to sustain 5.6 GHz all core on heavy loads, but I was hoping to at least get that when gaming, or with a single core. Brother Fox and I have been conversing, and he has given me some suggestions on how to boost the speed even higher than I can currently achieve. I'm wondering if any of you guys have anything else to add that may help.

 

Currently, I can do 5.4 GHz all core. Not indefinitely on heavy loads, but I can sustain this speed indefinitely while gaming. This 10900K overclocks extremely easily as it is an extremely good bin. However, if I attempt to go higher than 5.4 GHz, the laptop freezes. I have tried overvolting, but have not gone very high because I don't want to risk damage to the CPU. I may try going a bit higher just to see if I can get some results, but there's a limit as to how high I'm willing to go.

 

I know this chip is capable of more since there is a significant amount of voltage headroom left. Yes, temperature plays a factor with stability, but I don't think that's what's causing the freeze. With both this super 10900K and my old one, I can only set the cache to 4.4 GHz max before the laptop freezes. This super 10900K is capable of 5 GHz on the cache, so something about the laptop is causing instability and a freeze. Whatever is causing instability when trying to overclock the cache may also be causing instability when trying to take the cores above 5.4 GHz. Whether I set all cores or one core to over 5.4 GHz gives the same result: a freeze.

 

So again, if any of you have suggestions on how I can push higher speeds, I'd really appreciate it. I'm going to make a second post with my current results so I don't make this one too long.

first thing that came to mind was RAM. try and dial the sticks down to SPD, tune in your CPU, then take the RAM back up step by step.

[Clamibot]

4 hours ago, jaybee83 said:

first thing that came to mind was RAM. try and dial the sticks down to SPD, tune in your CPU, then take the RAM back up step by step.

Thanks for the suggestion!

 

11 hours ago, electrosoft said:

 

There's only so much you can do in the limited VRMs and cooling of the X170KM-G. Luckily our units are still under warranty but you will don't want to get slap happy. How did you pick 3.5ghz all core as your D2D frequency? I haven't had mine out in quite some time still. I was too busy modding and wrestling with the absolute crap show that is the stock hardware and firmware that is the MSI Pulse GL66 12700h. Initially the X170SM-G was blowing it out the water, but lots of work and internal tinkering has it now beating the X170SM-G (at its tweaked stock settings) finally.

 

Fortunately the X170SM-G you can tweak the memory settings and lock in frequencies better and coupled with the 2080s, it smashes the 3070 mobile in gaming still.

 

 

I picked 3.5 GHz as my daily driver frequency since it was the minimum frequency at which I was able to achieve a smooth 120 fps in almost all my games, with processing power left over to compensate for intense scenes in all of them. The power draw at this speed is pretty reasonable too, only around 60 watts with a heavy all-core load on my old 10900K. The new one does this at around 57-58 watts. While gaming, the power draw is even lower.

 

11 hours ago, electrosoft said:

 

Your old 10900k actually looks like a decent bin too. Not as good as your new boy but I know the original ZtecPC binned chip I had couldn't do anywhere near those numbers. 5.3 all core and it ballooned to 340w+ on the desktop and bsod immediately on the X170SM-G. It was binned clearly for optimal 4.9-5.1 range.

 

Your old 10900k also looks like it was working better with the memory slots and channels. Did you re-check to make sure all the pads are clean on the new 10900k and more importantly check your pins to make sure you didn't compromise one in the slightest? It sounds like a contact issue where lower frequency can get by but when pushing the edge of the PCB of the X170SM-G it borks out. I know on my X170SM-G, I can run the sticks both bottom or both top but I had to clean a tiny bit of thermal compound on one of the corner pins left there from ZtecPC I'll assume.

 

I could push stock 4.9 -120uv but for CB23 stability I backed off to -92uv. See how your system handles a 4-5 looped CB23 run. All my testing is centered around CB23 for consistency. R15 will pass some things that CB23 borks out on so that's why I use it. It is all I use as my baseline for comparative analysis between systems and posted testing.

 

Since it is @Mr. Fox 10900k I'll assume it is already delidded? 😁

 

If you can, do a single CB23 run at stock -90uv and report the temps,  package power and Vcore under load. Every 10900k I've tested that managed to make it to 5.3 all core CB23 eventually fell off the rails at 5.4 and needed decent cooling. There isn't enough magick in the world that will suddenly super empower the X170 Heatsink to handle the serious heat and pull 5.3 and 5.4 all core put out under meaningful loads. I keep looking at that aliexpress heatsink to give it a whirl since they are being sold dirt cheap now.

 

What memory sticks are you running and Vmem and freq/timings?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I did check to make sure all the pads and pins were clean. My fingernail did catch on some of the CPU socket pins when installing the new 10900K, which really gave me a scare, but I checked them and they weren't bent.

 

Yes, the CPU was already delidded. I'm glad both of my 10900Ks came pre-delidded. Yeah my old one, which I bought off of ebay, was pre-delidded as well. I'm not quite comfortable delidding CPUs myself yet. I just first got into liquid metal with my X170SM-G. Baby steps.🤣 I am really liking liquid metal though, so I'm going to be trying it out on my Alienware Ranger next.

 

I am running two 16 GB Crucial Ballistix 3200 MHz CL 16 sticks in my X170SM-G. The timings are as follows:

 

• CL: 16
• tRCD: 16
• tRP: 18
• tRAS: 36
• tRC: 72
• tCWL: 20
• tWR: 24
• tRTP: 12
• tWTR: 0
• tRFC: 560
• tFAW: 34
• tREFI: 12480

The memory is running at 1.35 volts.

[electrosoft]

51 minutes ago, Clamibot said:

Thanks for the suggestion!

 

I picked 3.5 GHz as my daily driver frequency since it was the minimum frequency at which I was able to achieve a smooth 120 fps in almost all my games, with processing power left over to compensate for intense scenes in all of them. The power draw at this speed is pretty reasonable too, only around 60 watts with a heavy all-core load on my old 10900K. The new one does this at around 57-58 watts. While gaming, the power draw is even lower.

 

I did check to make sure all the pads and pins were clean. My fingernail did catch on some of the CPU socket pins when installing the new 10900K, which really gave me a scare, but I checked them and they weren't bent.

 

Yes, the CPU was already delidded. I'm glad both of my 10900Ks came pre-delidded. Yeah my old one, which I bought off of ebay, was pre-delidded as well. I'm not quite comfortable delidding CPUs myself yet. I just first got into liquid metal with my X170SM-G. Baby steps.🤣 I am really liking liquid metal though, so I'm going to be trying it out on my Alienware Ranger next.

 

I am running two 16 GB Crucial Ballistix 3200 MHz CL 16 sticks in my X170SM-G. The timings are as follows:

 

• CL: 16
• tRCD: 16
• tRP: 18
• tRAS: 36
• tRC: 72
• tCWL: 20
• tWR: 24
• tRTP: 12
• tWTR: 0
• tRFC: 560
• tFAW: 34
• tREFI: 12480

The memory is running at 1.35 volts.

 

Whew, I know your heart jumped when you caught those pins! I've been there before. 🙄

 

Nice, did you do a bin stepping analysis to see if 3.5ghz was optimal from let's say 3ghz up to 4.5ghz? I usually let mine run stock for gaming so it sits at 4.9ghz for playing WoW which is CPU hungry. Temps top out around 80c after hours of playing.

 

You can probably bring that tRFC down and tREFI up depending on quality of memory along possible tuning the primaries.

 

With good pairing pressure, liquid metal is superior in every way, shape and form.

 

Next big project is my SL isn't delidded but I'm starting to get the itch. I think for now I'm going to clean up the original LTX IHS and recap the LTX so I can free up my BartX Nickel Plated IHS for the SL. The SL does equal if not better with its original lid as the BartX delidded and capped LTX. Im going to rebuild out my Z590 MSI for testing it with both caps and eventually the SL along with install 4x 128GB 2.5" SSD I have laying around to install Win10, Win11, Unbuntu and Kali on their own individual, isolated SSDs.

 

[electrosoft]

6 hours ago, jaybee83 said:

first thing that came to mind was RAM. try and dial the sticks down to SPD, tune in your CPU, then take the RAM back up step by step.

 

This along with determining what are your objectives since games really benefit from optimized memory but if your daily driver frequency is 3.5ghz then you can have one set of memory timings fully optimized for D2D at that frequency then set it back to SPD and go ham on overclocking.

 

 

[1610ftw]

@electrosoftand @Clamibotmind sharing your CB23 multicore results?

5.3 and 5.4Ghz on all cores is very impressive!

[electrosoft]

23 minutes ago, 1610ftw said:

@electrosoftand @Clamibotmind sharing your CB23 multicore results?

5.3 and 5.4Ghz on all cores is very impressive!

 

I don't overclock my laptops. My objective is to make sure they don't throttle and run at stock (or close to it) as best as possible especially DTRs. I want my memory optimized as possible and my desktop CPUs running as they should like a real desktop. I center everything around CB23 single, triple and 10 min stress test as I will never run anything that will push it harder than that. If I experience any type of power or thermal throttling I adjust accordingly to get it where it needs to be. 👍 I also try to get the fans to run silent as possible while doing it.

 

Somewhere in this thread is a post of my optimized 4.9 all core with memory tweaked runs for Aida and CB23. I have it getting exactly what I got on the desktop with a few Z590 boards.

[Clamibot]

2 hours ago, electrosoft said:

 

Whew, I know your heart jumped when you caught those pins! I've been there before. 🙄

 

Nice, did you do a bin stepping analysis to see if 3.5ghz was optimal from let's say 3ghz up to 4.5ghz? I usually let mine run stock for gaming so it sits at 4.9ghz for playing WoW which is CPU hungry. Temps top out around 80c after hours of playing.

 

You can probably bring that tRFC down and tREFI up depending on quality of memory along possible tuning the primaries.

 

With good pairing pressure, liquid metal is superior in every way, shape and form.

 

Next big project is my SL isn't delidded but I'm starting to get the itch. I think for now I'm going to clean up the original LTX IHS and recap the LTX so I can free up my BartX Nickel Plated IHS for the SL. The SL does equal if not better with its original lid as the BartX delidded and capped LTX. Im going to rebuild out my Z590 MSI for testing it with both caps and eventually the SL along with install 4x 128GB 2.5" SSD I have laying around to install Win10, Win11, Unbuntu and Kali on their own individual, isolated SSDs.

 

Yeah I essentially did an analysis of clockspeed vs power draw vs framerate to determine the CPU's, most efficient point. The speed range that gave me the best performance to power draw ratio was actually 2-2.5 GHz, but that speed wasn't high enough for my 120 fps target in any game that was CPU intensive.

 

I ended up settling on 3.5 GHz after determining that the power draw was still pretty low, and it game me the performance headroom I needed for smooth frame timing when action would get intense. It wasn't too far off the efficiency curve.

 

Additionally, the CPU can be undervolted extremely far at low clockspeeds. I can apply a 220 mv undervolt on my old 10900K when the CPU is locked to 800 MHz (yeah not very useful, but it was interesting data).

 

1 hour ago, 1610ftw said:

@electrosoftand @Clamibotmind sharing your CB23 multicore results?

5.3 and 5.4Ghz on all cores is very impressive!

I'll do some CB23 runs later on my new 10900K, but here are my R15 results from my old 10900K plus some other CPUs I own:

 

Multicore:

 

Single core:

 

Yes I did some runs on a 10600K and my old 10900K with cores disabled to see if I could push higher clock speeds that way.

[1610ftw]

3 hours ago, electrosoft said:

 

I don't overclock my laptops. My objective is to make sure they don't throttle and run at stock (or close to it) as best as possible especially DTRs. I want my memory optimized as possible and my desktop CPUs running as they should like a real desktop. I center everything around CB23 single, triple and 10 min stress test as I will never run anything that will push it harder than that. If I experience any type of power or thermal throttling I adjust accordingly to get it where it needs to be. 👍 I also try to get the fans to run silent as possible while doing it.

 

Somewhere in this thread is a post of my optimized 4.9 all core with memory tweaked runs for Aida and CB23. I have it getting exactly what I got on the desktop with a few Z590 boards.

Ah, now I remember - you only looked at those max speeds to determine which chip has superior performance for your use but you did not actually plan to use it that way.

 

Found your score on page one - 16500 on 10 cores with 180W is a very good point of comparison for the 10850K in my KM-G. Obviously not prema-fied so I am curious to see what kind of results can be achieved. I think I ran into some thermal throtteling at some point as that 10850K isn't delidded and just using regular paste.

[1610ftw]

2 hours ago, Clamibot said:

I'll do some CB23 runs later on my new 10900K, but here are my R15 results from my old 10900K plus some other CPUs I own:

 

Multicore:

 

Single core:

 

Yes I did some runs on a 10600K and my old 10900K with cores disabled to see if I could push higher clock speeds that way.

Haha, disabling cores for higher clock speeds is not something I was ever interested in but I can see the use for gaming due to lower power consumption. Looking forward to hear for how much those 5.4 on all cores will be good, should be above well above 17500.

[electrosoft]

26 minutes ago, 1610ftw said:

Ah, now I remember - you only looked at those max speeds to determine which chip has superior performance for your use but you did not actually plan to use it that way.

 

Found your score on page one - 16500 on 10 cores with 180W is a very good point of comparison for the 10850K in my KM-G. Obviously not prema-fied so I am curious to see what kind of results can be achieved. I think I ran into some thermal throtteling at some point as that 10850K isn't delidded and just using regular paste.

 

Yep, always seeking cool hand lukes which usually (but not always) means a better binned chip overall to get better pull and thermals at stock.

 

My 10900k isn't delidded and I'm using regular past too in that run (nanogrease extreme).

For stock usage, Prema doesn't come into play as only a uv has been applied (~-82uv)

 

So you those parameters for comparison.

 

I had no idea you had a X170KM-G and I'm not sure why I didn't know. 😁

 

 

[1610ftw]

2 minutes ago, electrosoft said:

 

Yep, always seeking cool hand lukes which usually (but not always) means a better binned chip overall to get better pull and thermals at stock.

 

My 10900k isn't delidded and I'm using regular past too in that run (nanogrease extreme).

For stock usage, Prema doesn't come into play as only a uv has been applied (~-82uv)

 

So you those parameters for comparison.

 

 

 

Good, that should be a fairly even comparison then. The KM-G came with some kind of no-name paste that I assume was delivered by Clevo. As I only went for the GPU to come with the laptop but not the CPU I had to apply the paste myself when putting in the 10850K. I have now checked and according to Throttlestop it needed 177W and 86 degrees to achieve 4.9 GHz on all cores - not as cool as yours but partly it may be the paste or how I applied it. That was with CB20 so I will have to redo a benchmark run with CB23.

 

 

[electrosoft]

9 minutes ago, 1610ftw said:

 

Good, that should be a fairly even comparison then. The KM-G came with some kind of no-name paste that I assume was delivered by Clevo. As I only went for the GPU to come with the laptop but not the CPU I had to apply the paste myself when putting in the 10850K. I have now checked and according to Throttlestop it needed 177W and 86 degrees to achieve 4.9 GHz on all cores - not as cool as yours but partly it may be the paste or how I applied it. That was with CB20 so I will have to redo a benchmark run with CB23.

 

 

 

Nice, make sure to post a screen shot to see the temps, pull, Vcore under load and score! 👍

 

Still tempted to give the aliexpress universal HS a try. It supports both 3000 and 2000 series cards and looks decently solid.

[Clamibot]

The water cooling / air cooling hybrid heatsink looks really good. I do wish there was one with a vapor chamber over the CPU though.

[1610ftw]

5 hours ago, Clamibot said:

The water cooling / air cooling hybrid heatsink looks really good. I do wish there was one with a vapor chamber over the CPU though.

Yep, I think I asked about it some pages ago but nobody has yet tried it - may look great but have issues with making proper contact or other things which is why I am reluctant to push brother @electrosoft to get it 😁

[1610ftw]

7 hours ago, electrosoft said:

I had no idea you had a X170KM-G and I'm not sure why I didn't know. 😁

 

 

 

Might be because of no signature but I have so much stuff sitting around that I would not want to mention as sadly it is mostly BGA CPUs 😁

 

The KM-G was my main driver for a while but I had some weight and handling problems while travelling and what drove me nuts was that it was very difficult to reliably drive a three external monitor setup with it and I also had massive issues with the X170 refusing to properly go to sleep and waking up from it  regardless of the monitor issue.

 

I had workstations and high end gaming laptops from Clevo, MSI, HP and Dell and the only ones that gave me constant troubles with three monitors and waking up and sleeping were the P870DM and the X170KM-G. 

 

I had to do so many reconnects on a daily basis to get all three monitors back that I went for a Dell 7760 as my daily driver.

It has two cores less and I also lost about 10 to 15% multicore capability but it made life a lot easier. When travelling it weighs about half of what the Clevo weighs which is mostly due to the inability to go on the road with the Clevo and a small single power supply in my carry-on luggage. With an average power draw of well below 150W it is really annoying that the imbecile engineers at Clevo forced me to travel with two huge power bricks and two big power cables even when I did not need that kind of power for what I was doing on the road.

 

 

 

 

[Clamibot]

8 hours ago, 1610ftw said:

 

Might be because of no signature but I have so much stuff sitting around that I would not want to mention as sadly it is mostly BGA CPUs 😁

 

The KM-G was my main driver for a while but I had some weight and handling problems while travelling and what drove me nuts was that it was very difficult to reliably drive a three external monitor setup with it and I also had massive issues with the X170 refusing to properly go to sleep and waking up from it  regardless of the monitor issue.

 

I had workstations and high end gaming laptops from Clevo, MSI, HP and Dell and the only ones that gave me constant troubles with three monitors and waking up and sleeping were the P870DM and the X170KM-G. 

 

I had to do so many reconnects on a daily basis to get all three monitors back that I went for a Dell 7760 as my daily driver.

It has two cores less and I also lost about 10 to 15% multicore capability but it made life a lot easier. When travelling it weighs about half of what the Clevo weighs which is mostly due to the inability to go on the road with the Clevo and a small single power supply in my carry-on luggage. With an average power draw of well below 150W it is really annoying that the imbecile engineers at Clevo forced me to travel with two huge power bricks and two big power cables even when I did not need that kind of power for what I was doing on the road.

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah the weird thing is that just one 280 watt PSU is enough for most tasks, even gaming. I really only need both of them when playing CPU intensive games, benching, or rendering videos.

 

However, I'm a pack mule, so I'll take everything with me. 🤣

[1610ftw]

5 minutes ago, Clamibot said:

 

Yeah the weird thing is that just one 280 watt PSU is enough for most tasks, even gaming. I really only need both of them when playing CPU intensive games, benching, or rendering videos.

 

However, I'm a pack mule, so I'll take everything with me. 🤣

Yep - nice to have 560W when benching and I fully support that concept

If there is another real X170 successor I hope that Clevo will learn from their mistakes and allow only one power supply or alternatively to power and charge via USB-C. With the new 240W standard I would only have neded more power than that for benching where my unit pulled a little bit above 300W even with the RTX3060.

 

As for being a mule I have no issues to carry the weight but many airlines do not allow carry-on luggage beyond 22 lbs anymore and sometimes the limit is even set at 18 lbs - just about enough for a naked X170, the power supplies and the power cables - the backpack would have to stay home 😄

[Clamibot]

1 hour ago, 1610ftw said:

Yep - nice to have 560W when benching and I fully support that concept

If there is another real X170 successor I hope that Clevo will learn from their mistakes and allow only one power supply or alternatively to power and charge via USB-C. With the new 240W standard I would only have neded more power than that for benching where my unit pulled a little bit above 300W even with the RTX3060.

 

As for being a mule I have no issues to carry the weight but many airlines do not allow carry-on luggage beyond 22 lbs anymore and sometimes the limit is even set at 18 lbs - just about enough for a naked X170, the power supplies and the power cables - the backpack would have to stay home 😄

 

Oh wow, I was not aware the weight limit was reduced. Seems excessive to me.

[1610ftw]

1 hour ago, Clamibot said:

 

Oh wow, I was not aware the weight limit was reduced. Seems excessive to me.

 

It has gotten quite ridiculous:

https://top-handgepaeck-koffer.de/masse-und-gewicht/

You will see the many entries with 8 kg and also with 7 or even 6, so the lower entries are between 13 and 18 lbs.

 

There should be a reasonable minimum with regard to weight and volume for one piece as right now it is impossible to keep up with this madness.

 

 

[jaybee83]

1 hour ago, 1610ftw said:

 

It has gotten quite ridiculous:

https://top-handgepaeck-koffer.de/masse-und-gewicht/

You will see the many entries with 8 kg and also with 7 or even 6, so the lower entries are between 13 and 18 lbs.

 

There should be a reasonable minimum with regard to weight and volume for one piece as right now it is impossible to keep up with this madness.

 

 

back in asia the argument was to "spare flight attendant backs and reduce risk of passenger injury" while handling heavy carry-on luggage....seems like laptops arent the only thing thats gotten thin light n flimsy 😛 😄 

[1610ftw]

2 hours ago, jaybee83 said:

back in asia the argument was to "spare flight attendant backs and reduce risk of passenger injury" while handling heavy carry-on luggage....seems like laptops arent the only thing thats gotten thin light n flimsy 😛 😄 

 

So flight attendants are the true culprits for the demise of the mighty DTR. And the idiots who tried - and failed - to stuff their P870 with two power supplies and some portable monitors into the overhead luggage compartment 😄