How well does the 7700HQ undervolt?

Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by Ickarius, Jan 22, 2017.

  1. Ickarius

    Ickarius Newbie

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    6
    I know these CPUs haven't been out long but has anyone seen how well they undervolt compared the 6700HQ?

    Most 6700HQs will drop about 100-150mV with around 5-10C, I'm hoping the 7700HQ is similar.

    My google-fu isnt strong enough to find anything, or its not there yet.
     
  2. D2 Ultima

    D2 Ultima Livestreaming Master

    Reputations:
    3,925
    Messages:
    11,288
    Likes Received:
    8,972
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Undervolt amount is irrelevant. Resulting voltage is all that matters. My 4800MQ gets under 1v with a simple -50mV adjustment. Others have done -100mV and still been above 1v.

    And, nobody knows.
     
  3. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    3,627
    Messages:
    13,511
    Likes Received:
    15,627
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Well, those that have them can report their results, and then taking all of those into account we can offer a suggested range to try.

    The Skylakes had a wide range of undervolt at stock settings, from -80mV to more than -200mV - it's nice to know in this case that great than -100mV has been attained.

    Most vendors are shipping with the CPU voltage default in BIOS set too high, so undervolting isn't really optional, it should be done.

    The temperature drops have been high enough to avoid re-pasting - which for most people is beyond their comfort zone.

    It's much easier to tune in XTU or TS the undervolt, than it is to disassemble a laptop and re-paste. :)

    So asking what the range of undervolt for Kabylake is a valid question, we just haven't had enough reports yet to suggest any change from Skylake experiences.

    As always start at stock settings and test there fully with a wide range of benchmarks and games/apps, then once you have a good measure of temperature under various loads, pick a method for finding your best undervolt, and proceed with the process.

    I recommend getting comfortable with the idea of testing to Blue Screen on your laptop; it's really the only way you will know the limits.

    Early Skylake owners were stopping their undervolt testing around -100mV because they thought that was the limit - Haswell was around there - but it turns out Skylake undervolts on some CPU's to well over -200mV at stock settings. If they had tested to Blue Screen during their testing they would have found the upper limit months earlier.

    Just remember to do that testing to failure outside of your normal use - don't experiment on a device doing mission critical work.

    Save your work, load the test profile(s), and if you do crash then be sure and do a boot-time Disk Check on your boot drive and any drive with open files (pagefile too) at the time of the crash.

    I'd start Kabylake testing at stock CPU settings (Intel's numbers, not OC'd laptop stock numbers) with -100mV, then -150mV, then -190mV, etc by -10mV increments from there.

    If we find early on a lower limit, I will try to remember to update here :)
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2017
    Vasudev likes this.
  4. D2 Ultima

    D2 Ultima Livestreaming Master

    Reputations:
    3,925
    Messages:
    11,288
    Likes Received:
    8,972
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Yes, but nobody really has them yet. We'll find out when people do. I'll be doing another thread like I did for Skylake asking for OC results and such. In another month or so we'll be good to start gathering information =D.

    Yes, Skylake had EXTREMELY high default CPU voltage for most chips, though in general far lower than Haswell did. Kaby Lake is designed to use a lot less voltage; we don't know what stock voltages look like or how they will handle undervolting since they're supposed to be voltage-tuned.

    Vendors aren't actually doing anything. Stock voltage is different for each CPU. It's reliant on the CPU. If you could switch the CPU out, you'd find each one has a different default voltage. That's all. It is high, and that's mostly Intel's fault, but we'll see how it turns out for Kaby Lake.

    I don't understand what you mean by "OC'd laptop stock numbers"? 6700HQ couldn't change its multipliers at all; only turbo boost on or off. 7700HQ is more than likely the same thing. There would be no OCing.
     
    hmscott likes this.
  5. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    3,627
    Messages:
    13,511
    Likes Received:
    15,627
    Trophy Points:
    931
    So until then why not answer with the Skylake undervolt range of results found?
    The undervolt range was much higher for Skylake than for Haswell.
    Each CPU can have a different maximum absolute undervolt value, that's why we experiment to find that value for each laptop :)

    But, by keeping up with user reports of their maximum undervolt we can give a range of results seen that can help guide new owners on their path to finding the unique setting for their CPU / Laptop.

    For now I am going by the assumption that the BIOS settings - all base numbers recommended by Intel - including voltage - are set up by the vendor in the BIOS they provide.
    There are some laptops like the Asus G701VI that come out with BIOS settings for multiplier (and other supporting settings?) that are higher than stock, which can reduce the range of undervolting normally seen.

    Here is such an example just posted recently, where the expected range of undervolting isn't available:

    Asus ROG G701VI - Air-cooled single GTX 1080 laptop
    http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...-gtx-1080-laptop.796850/page-11#post-10441328
     
    Vasudev likes this.
  6. D2 Ultima

    D2 Ultima Livestreaming Master

    Reputations:
    3,925
    Messages:
    11,288
    Likes Received:
    8,972
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Because since Kaby Lake is tuned for less voltage than Skylake, I can't say whether it would undervolt as far. If Skylake's average voltage on a 6700HQ was 1.21v let's say, and Kaby Lake's average on 7700HQ is 1.1v, it stands to reason that -200mV is a long shot (0.9v for 3.4GHz). We don't know until we see some chips.

    The range is something that can be averaged within a certain architecture. Skylake undervolted more, because they used too much voltage out of the box. Haswell also used too much voltage, and undervolted by a lesser amount, but haswell's "too much voltage" was on average more than Skylake's. I saw a lot of 1.3v+ haswell chips, even one person with 1.42v at stock. I also saw a lot of 1.15v or so haswell chips. But in general, the people who got the most out of undervolting had very default voltage. Skylake didn't launch much 1.3v chips; most of them were pretty much under 1.2v as far as I remember. Skylake's "too much voltage" isn't as high as Haswell's "too much voltage".

    Yes... because each CPU's voltage is different. Every single CPU's default voltage is different, and their lowest voltage tolerance for any speed is different. My 4800MQ's default voltage is 1.0474v or so. -50mV at 3.5GHz (stock turbo for 4 cores) is 0.9976v on this existing chip. At 3.8GHz however, I can't even use a -20mV offset. I have to use stock voltage, and my CPU suddenly requires 1.09v now. This also shows default voltage scales with speed of the processor. This is why each CPU's undervolt tolerances are different. Some CPUs have a low default voltage, and cannot undervolt far. Some CPUs have a higher default voltage, and can undervolt really far. Some have a higher default voltage and can't undervolt really far. It's all wild card. This is why I always say to pay attention to the effective voltage after an undervolt. If I get a 1.1v 6700HQ and use a -100mV offset and it sits at 1v flat, and you get a 1.2v 6700HQ and your limit is -180mV, you're STILL using more voltage than my 6700HQ even though your undervolt is "more". But your effective voltage, 1.02v, is very close to my 1v, and thus we can look at a lot of laptops and say "oh, 6700HQs average around 1.02v stable with undervolting" and then a user can aim for that, and if stable, then push from there.

    It's 100% the chip. Intel probably set an overly safe voltage for most CPUs, but it is seriously dependent on the CPU.

    As for laptops that can overclock in the BIOS with an auto-OC, that's not stock. That's a 6820HK in your provided link; overclocked to 4GHz. Those chips are known to have extremely bad binning, and require a lot of voltage at 4GHz+. The average for 4GHz is about 1.2v or so, with 1.25v to 1.3v needed for 4.1GHz or higher (you can even see in the post under the one you linked that the user was at 4.1GHz with over 1.3v). If the auto-OC left voltage near that, and you then try to undervolt a lot, it'll break with extreme ease. If you're at 1.2v then you should try aiming low, like -10mV steps; you're probably already at your limit. But most importantly, that isn't stock, and 6700HQs (and likely 7700HQs, which is the primary question of this thread) cannot be overclocked in such a manner. It doesn't matter if you take a 6700HQ out of one machine with one of the units to install a BGA chip and put it in a laptop that previously had a 6820HK at 4.1GHz via the BIOS. That chip is GOING to sit at 3.1GHz 3-core and 4-core load, 3.3GHz 2-core load, and 3.5GHz 1-core load. It'll never change. You can only enable or disable turbo.
     
  7. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    3,627
    Messages:
    13,511
    Likes Received:
    15,627
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Where are you getting that the default voltage is now .1v lower for Kabylake? I have only heard that the Skylake / Kabylake operating environment is the same, not different.

    If it were true that Kabylake CPU's were being "undervolted" -100mV in the BIOS as opposed to Skylake, that's would be big news, and it would change the user undervolt range by -100mV.

    Links? References? ;)

    I realize you are fantasizing a scenario, but there's no need to do so, unless you have solid info as to global changes to the operating environment for Kabylake vs Skylake to back that up.

    You are simply introducing Hyperbole to avoid admitting that the first statements made are correct and reasonable when estimating how Kaby lake will perform compared to Skylake.

    No need to go off in the weeds man, you can stay on the well worn intellectual path for estimations in answer to valid questions. :)
     
  8. D2 Ultima

    D2 Ultima Livestreaming Master

    Reputations:
    3,925
    Messages:
    11,288
    Likes Received:
    8,972
    Trophy Points:
    931
    I was making an example, to prove that you cannot simply translate undervolt amounts from Skylake to Kaby Lake. The entire point of the Kaby Lake architecture is that it's meant to use "less voltage per clock" over Skylake, and has a stronger IMC (integrated memory controller) allowing for better/faster RAM. It is not any "faster" clock for clock. However, since it is faster (by 300MHz), and is designed to use less voltage than Skylake for all clocks, it is possible that we will see very low voltage Kaby Lakes out of the box.

    Kaby Lakes are not being undervolted in the BIOS. Kaby Lake CPUs are designed to use less voltage. That is all. I am "expecting" to see Kaby Lake CPUs using less voltage out of the box than Skylake ones.
     
  9. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    3,627
    Messages:
    13,511
    Likes Received:
    15,627
    Trophy Points:
    931
    Dude, you didn't prove anything :)

    We already know that Intel CPU's are variable in the amount of undervolt they provide, for many years we've known this - that you need to tune each CPU in place.

    A range of values can be established for owners to use to focus their tuning, which for many provides a reference point to ease their tension - making it easier for them to proceed given a range to try.

    There's no need to spin it all into nonsense, give them a range, it's not tough, then they feed back what they find and adjust the range to fit the new line of CPU characteristics.

    Why confuse this "for a month or more", give them something useful to work with now. :)
     
  10. Ickarius

    Ickarius Newbie

    Reputations:
    0
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Mostly because the people who have got them just havent looked yet, or thought that others may want to compare. Some people do already have 7700HQ chips and if interest is shown its more likely that people will look at it and give details.

    In the various reviews floating around for 7700HQs I havent come across any which specficailly look at CPU voltages. I did find what which did happen to show some CPU related voltage but its not clear which one it is. (An ASUS GL502VS showing 0.965V in BIOS and 0.639 in CPU-Z, both quite low even for at idle?)
     
    hmscott likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page