S-XPS 1645 Throttling Info. and Updates

[SlyNine]

Actually...HP's bridge reaches almost to the other side but they fell in too.

Yea, But I'd gladly take a performance reduction on battery. But this is arguable I guess, they "can" get max performance without hurting anything. The only way we can is by going on battery and potentially hurting our battery's.

At least, I believe it was HP that cuts the multiplier down on battery.

[SlyNine]

How is it different. On both Core 2 and Core i7 laptops, first the multiplier drops down as low as it can go and then clock modulation is used on top of that to slow things down further. The schemes are identical across a wide variety of laptops. It changes the exact same registers within the CPU when it is doing this which is why ThrottleStop can support both Core 2 and Core i7 with pretty much the exact same code. The Core i7 no longer has voltage information in these registers and the multiplier has been moved around a little but it's the exact same register. Clock modulation is identical in both.

fmac: Why do they need throttling? Users have proven that with a 130 watt adapter + ThrottleStop these computers can run very close to 100% and the CPU is not overheating. Neither is the GPU.

Throttling was implemented in the XPS 1645 design so Dell could ship them with an underpowered 90 watt adapter. It has nothing to do with heat.

I doubt these have been validated to last 3 years. But the CPU will throttle regardless of what dell asks it to do if its in danger. So THIS type of throttling might not be necessary.

However for you guys using Furmark, your using a power virus. The GPU may throttle to protect itself.

In a perfect world it would be able to perform at max in any given situation, but in the real world there might be things they didn't account for and the throttling is to protect it from such situations.

The way that Dell is using it is very very disgraceful.

[Perdire]

*shrugs* I suppose that could be true SlyNine. I don't think the Dell XPS 1645 isn't performing to what they advertised. They said it could do some gaming, and over-all multimedia. This guy sure seems to be professing what he got what he paid for WITHOUT TS and using a 90watt:

http://www.youtube.com/user/fred2028#p/u/1/V1BSSQaoyvA

Maybe simply are expectations are higher then they should be? The Dell Studio XPS 1640/45/47 was never truly expressed as high-end for gaming. Perception is a fickle thing.

I think throttling was introduced, because of the pressure of being more 'energy efficient'. Notably if you limit the power consumption, it makes it more energy efficient and get those 'ENERGY SCORE RATINGS'. Anyway, that's my take on it. I don't profess to know the intricacies of throttling, just what I've mainly read/heard here.

On another note, I guess I invited stickler interpretations with that comment.

[AL bino]

All of this spin is exhausting...

[daraj]

I have not seen any threads about Asus throttling their laptops?

I think its the G51J that has some throttling issue.

[Fenikkusu]

My problem with Dell is that ok you throttle the laptops to keep the temps low, or energy consumption, whatever. If a user wants a cool laptop they typically don't go with a quad-core system and if you're going to try to force "power saving" and lower thermal readings on end users at least give them the choice. Essentially just like there's power profiles for how you run your laptop maybe there should be a choice in BIOS, like "I want my laptop to run cooler and be more energy efficient" there'd be a BIOS for them, and for "I want my laptop to be able to hijack a satellite and run Devil May Cry at the same time" there'd be a BIOS for them because odds are they don't care too much about heat or power. I just think Dell shouldn't be making these choices. Besides that I don't think that was the issue with the 1645, maybe more with the latitudes. With the 1645 it seems like the aforementioned bean counters were trying to save money and avoid the splurging a fortune on higher rated PSUs.

[DaSeppel]

Shipping a high end processor with a power supply which is not able to support enough watt to run the system at 100% has nothing to do with energy saving! Thats just making money in a short term horizon.

Also the xps is still branded as a high end gaming notebook(even on the german homepage) and is still shipped with the 90W adapter.

[kiskapu]

This issue is really annoying learning the fact a proper adaptor would solve this. I'm currently on the market, was planning to buy a sxps 1340, than changed my mind when the 1645 hit me with it's power,after reading this - and other - threads this power fade away in a blink.

Just as the others, I too hope DELL is interested in solving the problem (and not just leave it's powerhouse considered as an expensive brick) - though really don't know why the possibility of a "mass system returning scenario" does not convince DELL of providing better, proper adaptors.

p.s: sorry for my wording, posting on mobile with foreign spelling

[SlyNine]

*shrugs* I suppose that could be true SlyNine. I don't think the Dell XPS 1645 isn't performing to what they advertised. They said it could do some gaming, and over-all multimedia. This guy sure seems to be professing what he got what he paid for WITHOUT TS and using a 90watt:

http://www.youtube.com/user/fred2028#p/u/1/V1BSSQaoyvA

Maybe simply are expectations are higher then they should be? The Dell Studio XPS 1640/45/47 was never truly expressed as high-end for gaming. Perception is a fickle thing.

I think throttling was introduced, because of the pressure of being more 'energy efficient'. Notably if you limit the power consumption, it makes it more energy efficient and get those 'ENERGY SCORE RATINGS'. Anyway, that's my take on it. I don't profess to know the intricacies of throttling, just what I've mainly read/heard here.

On another note, I guess I invited stickler interpretations with that comment.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like what HP is doing either.

I Definitely think that the 1645 should run at rated specifications in virtually all cases. That means that Turbo mode should also be working. But artificial conditions like FurMark make it necessary to implement throttling. But I DO NOT agree with how dell is doing it.

But we need to stop looking at tests conducted with furmark as any indication. Also keep in mind some system may not be performing adequately and using more power then they should.

This is why when people act like the simple solution is Throttle stop and 130watt PSU need to step back. Realize that this bypasses the normal operation of the system. I couldn't thank Uncleweb enough for bringing us the program and exposing the problem in a clearer light. But I don't think its the answer to our problem.

[SlyNine]

Shipping a high end processor with a power supply which is not able to support enough watt to run the system at 100% has nothing to do with energy saving! Thats just making money in a short term horizon.

Also the xps is still branded as a high end gaming notebook(even on the german homepage) and is still shipped with the 90W adapter.

Once again , to many tests have been taken with Furmark, and the assumption that 90watts should be at the wall.

The fact is a 90watt PSU might use 130 at the wall. Furmark makes these tests done irrelevant. It is considered to be a powervirus by AMD/ATI and Nvidia also recommends not using it.