New Octane V for programming, photo/video editing, gaming & VM

[fnf]

Hi all, I've recently ordered an Octane V laptop to replace my Vortex III built 6 years ago. It is still going strong except that the AMD 7970M needed oven baking 2 times already to revive it.

The main reasons I decided to upgrade are:
* The 32GB RAM in my Vortex III was lacking at times due to VM usages
* The i7 3720QM does not support 4K and there is no way to use only the 7970M

As noted in the title, I will be using this machine for occasional programming, frequent photo/video editing, occasional gaming (but will probably game with most recent titles such as Witcher 3) and running virtual machines.

The specs I'd chosen are:

Chassis & Display Octane Series: 17.3" Matte Full HD 144Hz 72% NTSC LED Widescreen (1920x1080) + G-Sync
Processor (CPU) Intel® Core™ i7 Six Core Processor i7-8700k (3.7GHz) 12MB Cache
Memory (RAM) 64GB Corsair 2400MHz SODIMM DDR4 (4 x 16GB)
Graphics Card NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 1080 - 8.0GB GDDR5 Video RAM - DirectX® 12.1
1st Hard Disk NOT REQUIRED
1st M.2 SSD Drive 512GB ADATA SX6000 PCIe M.2 2280 (1000 MB/R, 800 MB/W)
Memory Card Reader Integrated 6 in 1 Card Reader (SD /Mini SD/ SDHC / SDXC / MMC / RSMMC)
AC Adaptor 1 x 330W AC Adaptor
Battery Octane Series 8 Cell Lithium Ion Battery (82WH)
Power Cable 2 x 1 Metre UK Power Cable (Kettle Lead)
Thermal Paste COOLER MASTER MASTERGEL MAKER THERMAL COMPOUND
Sound Card Intel 2 Channel High Definition Audio + MIC/Headphone Jack
Bluetooth & Wireless GIGABIT LAN & KILLER™ WIRELESS-AC 1550 M.2 GAMING 802.11AC + BLUETOOTH 5.0
USB Options 4 x USB 3.0 Ports + 2 x USB 3.1 Type C Ports
Keyboard Language OCTANE SERIES BACKLIT UK KEYBOARD WITH NUMBER PAD
Operating System NO OPERATING SYSTEM REQUIRED
Operating System Language United Kingdom - English Language
Windows Recovery Media NO RECOVERY MEDIA REQUIRED
Office Software FREE 30 Day Trial of Microsoft® Office® 365 (Operating System Required)
Anti-Virus NO ANTI-VIRUS SOFTWARE
Browser Firefox™
Notebook Mouse INTEGRATED 2 BUTTON TOUCHPAD MOUSE
Webcam INTEGRATED 2.0 MP FULL HD WEBCAM
Warranty 3 Year Silver Warranty (1 Year Collect & Return, 1 Year Parts, 3 Year Labour)
Delivery STANDARD INSURED DELIVERY TO UK MAINLAND (MON-FRI)
Build Time Standard Build - Approximately 6 to 8 working days
Promotional Item Get The Crew 2 with select NVIDIA GeForce GTX GPUs!
Pricing Information

Price (excluding VAT) £2,086.67
Price £2,504.00
Order Quantity 1
Bulk Discount £0.00
Total Order price (Ex VAT) £2,086.67
Total Order Price £2,504.00

I've got the Benq BL3201PT which is a 4K monitor designed for graphics design but I intend to game in 1080p for most recent titles to avoid excessive heat.

I'm aware that the GTX 1180 is right around the corner but realistically speaking it won't probably become available in laptops for another 4-6 months so I'm hoping that the GTX 1080 will be good for 1080p gaming at max settings for another 5 years. Does that sound like a good plan?.

My other concern is about heat. The Vortex III's CPU frequently reaches 90C as soon as I get into any serious gaming or video encoding. Is the Octane V (Clevo P775TM1-G) known to suffer from heating issues?.

I do not plan to undervolt the CPU too much because I value system stability over performance and would rather not have peak performance in exchange for a system that runs stably for months. I use Linux and am used to having to reboot every 6 months - 1 year so if undervolting causes system crash every few days that won't be acceptable. Could anyone please share their impression on long-term system stability with undervolting?. Has anyone seen their system running without crashing for months with it?.

 

[Oussebon]

I'm aware that the GTX 1180 is right around the corner but realistically speaking it won't probably become available in laptops for another 4-6 months so I'm hoping that the GTX 1080 will be good for 1080p gaming at max settings for another 5 years. Does that sound like a good plan?.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Only caveat I'd say is that "max" settings is a dangerous term. There are some games that run very well for the most part but have a few settings which are super demanding. e.g. Deus Ex Mankind Divided runs very well on my GTX 970 at ~very high settings, but turn the shadows up and a GTX 1080 will struggle to keep 60fps. And some games like Mafia III or Dishonoured II can have performance issues / be poor console ports in the case of Mafia such that performance can be a bit sucky even at lowered settings.

Is the Octane V (Clevo P775TM1-G) known to suffer from heating issues?.

The Octane V is still relatively new, but recent Octane models with desktop CPUs have sometimes struggled with temps in a few cases. Users have often found that undervolting helps massively. See: https://www.pcspecialist.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?52069-Octane-Tips-Tricks-Info-and-Experiences
Although this is an Octane III with a 6700k, the CPUs and the principles are so similar it's still quite a valid point of reference.

do not plan to undervolt the CPU too much because I value system stability over performance and would rather not have peak performance in exchange for a system that runs stably for months.

Undervolting doesn't really help with performance for these CPUs. The CPUs should not power throttle, unlike what commonly happens with ULV CPUs. And while the CPUs may run hot, they should not thermal throttle. If it does, it's faulty.

Therefore undervolting is irrelevant to performancem but is very relevant to temps.

Frankly, Intel's CPUs often get far more voltage than they need, such that many users find reducing voltage by 80 or even 100mv is possible while leaving the system absolutely rock-solid stable. The only difference is that it runs cooler.

You will need to experiment to find the right undervolt for your system, and undervolting is not necessary. But it's free, and it can significantly reduce temps, which could help improve hardware longevity, so I'd strongly recommend you consider it.

Could anyone please share their impression on long-term system stability with undervolting?

I suspect The_Scotster whose guide I linked has had his undervolted since forever. If he sees this thread I'm sure he'll comment, otherwise you can try hitting him up on a PM.

1st Hard Disk NOT REQUIRED
1st M.2 SSD Drive 512GB ADATA SX6000 PCIe M.2 2280 (1000 MB/R, 800 MB/W)

Fast storage can be an asset for uses like photo editing, video editing, and VMs. If you have another ~£60 I'd strongly suggest the Samsung 970 Evo.

recent titles such as Witcher 3

Witcher 3's over 3 years old now. Hard to imagine isn't it (!).

 

[fnf]

Hi Oussebon, thank you for the reply.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Only caveat I'd say is that "max" settings is a dangerous term. There are some games that run very well for the most part but have a few settings which are super demanding. e.g. Deus Ex Mankind Divided runs very well on my GTX 970 at ~very high settings, but turn the shadows up and a GTX 1080 will struggle to keep 60fps. And some games like Mafia III or Dishonoured II can have performance issues / be poor console ports in the case of Mafia such that performance can be a bit sucky even at lowered settings.

Yes, I'd be happy as long as the GPU can drive latest games 5 years from now at medium settings. There is no guarantee but for me the 7970M is still plenty good for the Witcher 3 and the game's graphical fidelity is amazing, fingers crossed it'll be the same with the 1080.

The Octane V is still relatively new, but recent Octane models with desktop CPUs have sometimes struggled with temps in a few cases. Users have often found that undervolting helps massively. See: https://www.pcspecialist.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?52069-Octane-Tips-Tricks-Info-and-Experiences
Although this is an Octane III with a 6700k, the CPUs and the principles are so similar it's still quite a valid point of reference.

Undervolting doesn't really help with performance for these CPUs. The CPUs should not power throttle, unlike what commonly happens with ULV CPUs. And while the CPUs may run hot, they should not thermal throttle. If it does, it's faulty.

Therefore undervolting is irrelevant to performancem but is very relevant to temps.

What I meant to say was that I'd accept more frequent thermal throttling (with longer periods of sustained higher temperature) in place of a cooler-running system but randomly crashes under stress.

Thank you for the link, I'll have a read through it. Although my impression is that people don't normally spend enough time stress-testing their systems whilst adjusting the voltage. I'm concerned that what appears to be stable (under stress tests) could cause system crashes in unexpected times and it won't be possible to diagnose whether the issue was with hardware or software.

My Vortex III (Clevo P150EM) frequently thermal throttles but at least it runs well and almost never spontaneously crashes. Before buying the Octane, I actually bought the Medion Erazer X7849 (Clevo P671RS-G) 2nd hand and it has given me endless amount of undue stress: it never crashes whilst I'm running memtest (over 16 hours) or playing demanding games but invariably randomly freezes when it is idle. I've had the Erazer for a month without being able to do any real work with it as most of the time I spent with it had been for diagnosing system issues.

I'll do more research on people's experiences with undervolting/overclocking but there haven't been enough long-term data on this sort of stuff it appears.

Frankly, Intel's CPUs often get far more voltage than they need, such that many users find reducing voltage by 80 or even 100mv is possible while leaving the system absolutely rock-solid stable. The only difference is that it runs cooler.

You will need to experiment to find the right undervolt for your system, and undervolting is not necessary. But it's free, and it can significantly reduce temps, which could help improve hardware longevity, so I'd strongly recommend you consider it.

In your experience, have you found that once you settled on a voltage value that appears to give a stable system under stress, would it remain stable from that point?.

I suspect The_Scotster whose guide I linked has had his undervolted since forever. If he sees this thread I'm sure he'll comment, otherwise you can try hitting him up on a PM.

Thanks, I'll probably contact him once I did more research on this.

Fast storage can be an asset for uses like photo editing, video editing, and VMs. If you have another ~£60 I'd strongly suggest the Samsung 970 Evo.

I was forced to buy a drive (contacted PCS which said that they wouldn't sell a system without one), but otherwise I have a 2 TB HDD, 1 TB SSD, 512 GB M.2 SSD already. This would fill up all the storage slots in the system .

I might need to upgrade to a faster SSD later but at this point my videos are only 100MBps for which my current SSDs do sufficiently well.

Witcher 3's over 3 years old now. Hard to imagine isn't it (!).

It still looks and plays absolutely great!. I tend to stick with a game for a very long time as it's hard to game much with 2 kids. I think it took me a bit over 2 years of non-continuous playing before I was able to finish Witcher 2.

 

[Oussebon]

What I meant to say was that I'd accept more frequent thermal throttling (with longer periods of sustained higher temperature)

Let's be clear, there should be no thermal throttling at all. If you buy the Octane and it thermal throttles, it's faulty. There isn't an 'okay' amount of thermal throttling. Throttling below spec = not functioning as intended. If you buy a laptop and it throttles that's a problem that needs to be fixed, especially if it's brand new.

And if undervolted properly there should be 0 impact on stability.

I think you're overthinking undervolting by a long way. Intel CPUs are almost always given more voltage than they need, so you can almost always scale back what they're fed without affecting stability. As long as you test the system's stability properly, there's no downside. You're only taking away something it never needed. Unlike overclocking you're not feeding the CPU more voltage. There would be no long term ill effects of undervolting. In fact, undervolting should extend the system's lifespan and stability in the long term by reducing temperatures and so the degradation of the CPU.

You'll never find good long term data on overclocking and/or undervolting. Every CPU is different. One i7 3770k might reach 4.6Ghz on 1.275v, another might need 1.3v. And lifespan will vary so much according to usage, that even if someone bought up 1000 CPUs and ran them overclocked for 5 years, the results would be largely useless to consumers wondering whether an overclock is likely to kill their gaming computer / video editing PC / VM PC / Matlab PC, etc early. Plus by the time the results of such a study were available, CPUs would be different, motherboards would be different, and so again the results would't tell you anything for sure about modern hardware. I've searched for this kind of data, never found it, and then realised why once I understood what I was actually asking for

In your experience, have you found that once you settled on a voltage value that appears to give a stable system under stress, would it remain stable from that point?.

Yes. I have a laptop that is as happy with the same undervolt now as it was 6 months ago, and this PC has been OCed on this CPU since 2013 and hasn't had stability or thermal issues. I've not had to increase the voltage to keep the OC stable either.

512 GB M.2 SSD already

What kind of SSD? In case you're not aware, note that if you add an NVMe SSD to the configurator and another M.2 SSD and then press Proceed, you get this warning:

We've checked your specification for compatibility. Please see our suggestions below:

• You have selected an M.2 NVMe SSD as part of your specification. Our laptops can only support 1 x NVMe M.2 SSD or 2 x M.2 SATA drives.
  
  Please remove your second M.2 SSD drive or alternatively change the first M.2 drive to a different (non-NVMe) model.

 

[fnf]

Let's be clear, there should be no thermal throttling at all. If you buy the Octane and it thermal throttles, it's faulty. There isn't an 'okay' amount of thermal throttling. Throttling below spec = not functioning as intended. If you buy a laptop and it throttles that's a problem that needs to be fixed, especially if it's brand new.

Thanks, I'll keep this in mind when testing the laptop when it arrives in a few days. I guess I've just gotten used to having my Vortex III throttled so often that i became the norm for me, granted, it has been nearly a year since I last cleaned & repasted it with Arctic MX-4.

And if undervolted properly there should be 0 impact on stability.

I think you're overthinking undervolting by a long way. Intel CPUs are almost always given more voltage than they need, so you can almost always scale back what they're fed without affecting stability. As long as you test the system's stability properly, there's no downside. You're only taking away something it never needed. Unlike overclocking you're not feeding the CPU more voltage. There would be no long term ill effects of undervolting. In fact, undervolting should extend the system's lifespan and stability in the long term by reducing temperatures and so the degradation of the CPU.

You'll never find good long term data on overclocking and/or undervolting. Every CPU is different. One i7 3770k might reach 4.6Ghz on 1.275v, another might need 1.3v. And lifespan will vary so much according to usage, that even if someone bought up 1000 CPUs and ran them overclocked for 5 years, the results would be largely useless to consumers wondering whether an overclock is likely to kill their gaming computer / video editing PC / VM PC / Matlab PC, etc early. Plus by the time the results of such a study were available, CPUs would be different, motherboards would be different, and so again the results would't tell you anything for sure about modern hardware. I've searched for this kind of data, never found it, and then realised why once I understood what I was actually asking for

I wouldn't expect undervolting to cause hardware damage but I was concerned that an undervolted CPU might run on the margin just enough to appear stable (even under stress) but would randomly shutdown during normal operation.

From what you're saying, I take it that stress-testing it should reveal all issues upfront. I'll go with this in mind.

Yes. I have a laptop that is as happy with the same undervolt now as it was 6 months ago, and this PC has been OCed on this CPU since 2013 and hasn't had stability or thermal issues. I've not had to increase the voltage to keep the OC stable either.

That is good to know, thanks.

What kind of SSD? In case you're not aware, note that if you add an NVMe SSD to the configurator and another M.2 SSD and then press Proceed, you get this warning:

All of them are SATA-based as I don't need the kind of speed that NVMe SSD provides.

Again, thank you for the helpful replies . I'll test the laptop for thermal issues thoroughly once it comes and take a dab at undervolting.

 

[Oussebon]

Cool - keep us posted

 

[Oussebon]

Oh - one caveat on the "should never thermal throttle" thing. Newer versions of Prime95 use AVX instructions. I can't tell you anything about AVX, other than if you don't disable that in Prime95 should you use it to torture test the CPU, it may instantly hit 100 degrees and throttle. Mine does - but on 100% load on older versions of Prime with AVX or other brutal torture tests, the temps stay in the 80s.

If you want recommendations on stress tests once the system arrives, do ask as many people here put their systems through their paces on receipt.

 

[fnf]

Oh - one caveat on the "should never thermal throttle" thing. Newer versions of Prime95 use AVX instructions. I can't tell you anything about AVX, other than if you don't disable that in Prime95 should you use it to torture test the CPU, it may instantly hit 100 degrees and throttle. Mine does - but on 100% load on older versions of Prime with AVX or other brutal torture tests, the temps stay in the 80s.

If you want recommendations on stress tests once the system arrives, do ask as many people here put their systems through their paces on receipt.

Thanks for the heads-up .

 

[fnf]

I've only had the system for 2 days but I can say that it seems extremely well built, at least in the temperature department. I ran both latest Prime95 (all 3 torture tests in sequence) and Furmark @ 1080p: the CPU temp never exceeded 74C and was 70C on average, the GPU temp stabilised at 90C (it stabilised at 82C at 1024x768). I've only run both tests for an hour but so far all indications point to a stable system.

It's also worth noting that Clevo Control Center automatically undervolts the CPU to -100mV when the system is underload which probably was a major contribution to the lower temperature. I'm very happy to not have to spend time fiddling with it manually and fingers crossed Clevo has done enough testing on their side to have picked that value. As the CPU is only undervolted under load, its idle voltage (1.2V) is actually quite a bit higher when it's under max load (~0.95V).

The system is otherwise quiet during normal use, my cooling pad's fans actually drown out all noise coming from the laptop itself so the noise generated by the laptop is inaudible as far as I'm concerned.

Many thanks to PCS for another great system! . My previous one was a Vortex III that still runs great to this day (with the exception of the AMD 7970M that I had to bake twice to revive it).

 

[Oussebon]

It's also worth noting that Clevo Control Center automatically undervolts the CPU to -100mV when the system is underload

But it doesn't reduce the frequencies, right? There's no power throttling going on?

the GPU temp stabilised at 90C

This is very hot. What are the frequencies like when it hits this temp?

 

[fnf]

But it doesn't reduce the frequencies, right? There's no power throttling going on?

It is possible as I noticed that the CPU was not running at its peak non-turbo frequency of 3.7GHz. I think it was running at 2.8GHz.

This is very hot. What are the frequencies like when it hits this temp?

I started with running Furmark by itself at 1024x768. The temperature stabilised at around 74C. At that point I decided to run both Prime95 and Furmark together (first at 1024x768 which gave me 82C, then 1080p which gave me 90C). The room temperature was probably 20C. The GPU frequency was 1400-1500MHz.

I don't remember the actual figures, I will take a note of both the sustained CPU & GPU Core/Memory frequencies when I ran these tests again at once. I can only say that all temperatures/frequencies didn't have much jitter. My impression is, though, that thermal/power throttling was inevitable when a system is pushed to such limits. Is that not the case?.

 

[Oussebon]

It is possible as I noticed that the CPU was not running at its peak non-turbo frequency of 3.7GHz. I think it was running at 2.8GHz.

If so, that means it throttled to below the base frequency.

Throttling the boost frequencies would be bad enough - it's always possible some laptops might choose to do this, though in my opinion you should expect the full 4.3GHz across 6 cores, with 4.7GHz on 1 core. But throttling to below the base frequency is totally unacceptable.

3.7GHz isn't a peak frequency, that's the base it's meant to run at before there's any turbo boost. If it was at 2.8GHz, that's a huge deficit. That would be 900MHz x 6 cores (!).

For the GPU, I believe the base clock is 1566MHz, with 1733 as the boost.

I can only say that all temperatures/frequencies didn't have much jitter. My impression is, though, that thermal/power throttling was inevitable when a system is pushed to such limits. Is that not the case?.

That is absolutely not the case.

Thermal throttling should never happen.

Power throttling below base frequencies should never happen.

For temps, it is possible one may not see a GPU profit from the highest boost clocks due to thermals. This is normal behaviour for Pascal because of its aggressive approach to how high it can boost. But thermal throttling to below base frequencies should never happen. If it's happening, the system is faulty or not fit for purpose.

Power throttling is a little more complicated. Some CPUs are 'meant' to power throttle e.g. my i5 8250U so that boost clocks are reduced. Exactly how this is implemented will vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. However, this applies to things like ULV (ultra low voltage) CPUs. Where being low power is in the name.

It is not the case for for desktop CPUs like the i7 8700k - an i7 8700k should really be expected to run at its full boost clocks always without power issues. There is a desktop that power throttles an 8700 (see: https://www.computerbase.de/2017-12/intel-core-i7-8700-turbo-takt-oem-pc/ ) which seems to be because the manufacturer has a distorted understanding of TDP. And you can see the massive performance hit from not getting full boost frequencies there.

But - no CPU or GPU should power throttle to below its base clocks.

That's what the base frequency is for.

t's also worth noting that Clevo Control Center automatically undervolts the CPU to -100mV when the system is underload which probably was a major contribution to the lower temperature.

One possibility is that CCC is reducing the voltage to maintain good temps, but this may be starving the CPU of power and explain the below-base clocks.

You'll need to investigate the frequencies carefully before drawing any conclusions. Use something like CPU-Z to measure frequencies rather than Windows Task Manager (because Task Manager lies..). But if you've spotted below-base frequencies under load, this definitely warrants looking into.

 

[fnf]

Thank you for the detailed reply.

As far as I know, the 8700K has a TDP of 95W and the GTX 1080 has a TDP of 150-200W (according to NotebookCheck). If both are at max load then they'll use 295W which is probably not enough for the rest of the system.

I will do these 3 tests to confirm the power throttling issue:
1) Run Prime95 alone
2) Run Furmark @ 1080p alone
3) Run both Prime95 & Furmark @ 1080p
All tests will be performed for short periods of under 1 minute from idle temperature i.e., 45C. 1) and 2) are expected to run at max TDP and frequencies for the CPU & GPU, respectively. If 3) causes the CPU to become starved even if the CPU & GPU temperatures are well under 90C then I'll be able to confirm that power throttling is the issue here, I will make notes of the total TDP.

I believe GPU-Z shows the TDP but not sure CPU-Z, if it doesn't then I'll use Intel XTU.

Does it sound like a good plan to you?.

If so, that means it throttled to below the base frequency.

Throttling the boost frequencies would be bad enough - it's always possible some laptops might choose to do this, though in my opinion you should expect the full 4.3GHz across 6 cores, with 4.7GHz on 1 core. But throttling to below the base frequency is totally unacceptable.

3.7GHz isn't a peak frequency, that's the base it's meant to run at before there's any turbo boost. If it was at 2.8GHz, that's a huge deficit. That would be 900MHz x 6 cores (!).

For the GPU, I believe the base clock is 1566MHz, with 1733 as the boost.

The CPU's voltage was 0.9xV when Prime95 was running so it does seem to have been heavily throttled.

That is absolutely not the case.

Thermal throttling should never happen.

Power throttling below base frequencies should never happen.

For temps, it is possible one may not see a GPU profit from the highest boost clocks due to thermals. This is normal behaviour for Pascal because of its aggressive approach to how high it can boost. But thermal throttling to below base frequencies should never happen. If it's happening, the system is faulty or not fit for purpose.

Do the above statements still apply if the system isn't given enough power?. What I'm missing is isolated tests which I will do when I get home this afternoon.

It is not the case for for desktop CPUs like the i7 8700k - an i7 8700k should really be expected to run at its full boost clocks always without power issues. There is a desktop that power throttles an 8700 (see: https://www.computerbase.de/2017-12/intel-core-i7-8700-turbo-takt-oem-pc/ ) which seems to be because the manufacturer has a distorted understanding of TDP. And you can see the massive performance hit from not getting full boost frequencies there.

But - no CPU or GPU should power throttle to below its base clocks.

That's what the base frequency is for.
One possibility is that CCC is reducing the voltage to maintain good temps, but this may be starving the CPU of power and explain the below-base clocks.

You'll need to investigate the frequencies carefully before drawing any conclusions. Use something like CPU-Z to measure frequencies rather than Windows Task Manager (because Task Manager lies..). But if you've spotted below-base frequencies under load, this definitely warrants looking into.

As the CPU was still quite cool when running Prime95, it seems like a deliberate decision to undervolt/throttle the CPU to leave rooms for the GPU. It's just my impression though, I'll be able to confirm when I test them again as above.

 

[fnf]

Thanks Oussebon, my last post is awaiting moderation, not sure what triggered it.

 

[Oussebon]

TDP =/= power consumption, especially where Intel CPUs are concerned. I think the 8700k can happily run over 100W power draw under heavy load.

Undervolting ofc doesn't necessarily mean throttling, in fact undervolting can help avoid power throttling. Undervolting my ULV CPU reduces the power it consumes without reducing the frequency, and by reducing power usage means it can run at higher frequencies for longer before it has to power throttle to remain within the 15W TDP envelope.

But yeah, if your 8700k is down to .9v it's probably getting heavily throttled by something...

Do the above statements still apply if the system isn't given enough power?.

Well, if the system isn't given enough power e.g. the PSU is inadequate for the system, then ofc one would see power throttling.

But the Octane has a 330W PSU, which should be enough to feed the CPU and the GPU, and the other bits that will use a nominal amount of power (fans, RAM, storage, etc uses tiny amounts). There'd be no point selling an Octane laptop with a desktop CPU if it didn't offer the full performance of one.

 

[fnf]

I will do these 3 tests to confirm the power throttling issue:
1) Run Prime95 alone
2) Run Furmark @ 1080p alone
3) Run both Prime95 & Furmark @ 1080p
All tests will be performed for short periods of under 1 minute from idle temperature i.e., 45C. 1) and 2) are expected to run at max TDP and frequencies for the CPU & GPU, respectively. If 3) causes the CPU to become starved even if the CPU & GPU temperatures are well under 90C then I'll be able to confirm that power throttling is the issue here, I will make notes of the total TDP.

I've run tests 1) and 2) but not 3) because I've been able to confirm that CCC throttles the CPU when both the CPU & GPU is loaded.

I cannot post a really long reply so I'm splitting it up.

Here is HWMonitor info when the system is idle:

	IA Voltage Mode		PCU adaptive
	IA Voltage Offset	0 mV
	GT Voltage Mode		PCU adaptive
	GT Voltage Offset	0 mV
	LLC/Ring Voltage Mode	PCU adaptive
	LLC/Ring Voltage Offset	0 mV
	Agent Voltage Mode	PCU adaptive
	Agent Voltage Offset	0 mV
	TDP Level		95.0 W @ 37x

	Temperature 0		51 degC (123 degF) (Package)
	Temperature 1		47 degC (116 degF) (Core #0)
	Temperature 2		40 degC (104 degF) (Core #1)
	Temperature 3		40 degC (104 degF) (Core #2)
	Temperature 4		49 degC (120 degF) (Core #3)
	Temperature 5		41 degC (105 degF) (Core #4)
	Temperature 6		53 degC (127 degF) (Core #5)
	Voltage 0		+0.00 Volts (IA Offset)
	Voltage 1		+0.00 Volts (GT Offset)
	Voltage 2		+0.00 Volts (LLC/Ring Offset)
	Voltage 3		+0.00 Volts (System Agent Offset)
	Voltage 4		1.20 Volts (VID #0)
	Voltage 5		0.71 Volts (VID #1)
	Voltage 6		0.71 Volts (VID #2)
	Voltage 7		1.28 Volts (VID #3)
	Voltage 8		0.71 Volts (VID #4)
	Voltage 9		1.25 Volts (VID #5)
	Power 00		10.13 W (Package)
	Power 01		7.06 W (IA Cores)
	Power 02		n.a. (GT)
	Power 03		3.07 W (Uncore)
	Power 04		2.16 W (DRAM)
	Clock Speed 0		4390.32 MHz (Core #0)
	Clock Speed 1		898.02 MHz (Core #1)
	Clock Speed 2		898.02 MHz (Core #2)
	Clock Speed 3		4390.32 MHz (Core #3)
	Clock Speed 4		898.02 MHz (Core #4)
	Clock Speed 5		4290.54 MHz (Core #5)
	Core 0 max ratio	47.0 (effective 45.0)
	Core 1 max ratio	47.0 (effective 46.0)
	Core 2 max ratio	47.0 (effective 46.0)
	Core 3 max ratio	47.0 (effective 46.0)
	Core 4 max ratio	47.0 (effective 46.0)
	Core 5 max ratio	47.0 (effective 45.0)

The system idles at ~45C which is about average from what I've seen.

Here is the same info when Prime95 was running with the Small FFTs test:

	IA Voltage Mode		PCU adaptive
	IA Voltage Offset	0 mV
	GT Voltage Mode		PCU adaptive
	GT Voltage Offset	0 mV
	LLC/Ring Voltage Mode	PCU adaptive
	LLC/Ring Voltage Offset	0 mV
	Agent Voltage Mode	PCU adaptive
	Agent Voltage Offset	0 mV
	TDP Level		95.0 W @ 37x

	Temperature 0		90 degC (194 degF) (Package)
	Temperature 1		87 degC (188 degF) (Core #0)
	Temperature 2		86 degC (186 degF) (Core #1)
	Temperature 3		89 degC (192 degF) (Core #2)
	Temperature 4		90 degC (194 degF) (Core #3)
	Temperature 5		87 degC (188 degF) (Core #4)
	Temperature 6		87 degC (188 degF) (Core #5)
	Voltage 0		+0.00 Volts (IA Offset)
	Voltage 1		+0.00 Volts (GT Offset)
	Voltage 2		+0.00 Volts (LLC/Ring Offset)
	Voltage 3		+0.00 Volts (System Agent Offset)
	Voltage 4		1.02 Volts (VID #0)
	Voltage 5		1.03 Volts (VID #1)
	Voltage 6		1.03 Volts (VID #2)
	Voltage 7		1.03 Volts (VID #3)
	Voltage 8		1.02 Volts (VID #4)
	Voltage 9		1.03 Volts (VID #5)
	Power 00		94.85 W (Package)
	Power 01		91.65 W (IA Cores)
	Power 02		n.a. (GT)
	Power 03		3.21 W (Uncore)
	Power 04		2.11 W (DRAM)
	Clock Speed 0		3491.46 MHz (Core #0)
	Clock Speed 1		3491.46 MHz (Core #1)
	Clock Speed 2		3491.46 MHz (Core #2)
	Clock Speed 3		3491.46 MHz (Core #3)
	Clock Speed 4		3491.46 MHz (Core #4)
	Clock Speed 5		3491.46 MHz (Core #5)
	Core 0 max ratio	47.0 (effective 45.0)
	Core 1 max ratio	47.0 (effective 45.0)
	Core 2 max ratio	47.0 (effective 45.0)
	Core 3 max ratio	47.0 (effective 45.0)
	Core 4 max ratio	47.0 (effective 45.0)
	Core 5 max ratio	47.0 (effective 45.0)

The CPU reached 90C, consuming ~92W (although I've seen it consumed 118.64W which is incidentally very close to the 118.75W "Power Limit 2" set in CCC) and was slightly throttled, running at 3.5GHz.

 

[fnf]

When Furmark was running at 1080p:

	IA Voltage Mode		PCU adaptive
	IA Voltage Offset	-102 mV
	GT Voltage Mode		PCU adaptive
	GT Voltage Offset	0 mV
	LLC/Ring Voltage Mode	PCU adaptive
	LLC/Ring Voltage Offset	-102 mV
	Agent Voltage Mode	PCU adaptive
	Agent Voltage Offset	0 mV
	TDP Level		95.0 W @ 37x

	Temperature 0		56 degC (132 degF) (Package)
	Temperature 1		47 degC (116 degF) (Core #0)
	Temperature 2		49 degC (120 degF) (Core #1)
	Temperature 3		55 degC (131 degF) (Core #2)
	Temperature 4		48 degC (118 degF) (Core #3)
	Temperature 5		58 degC (136 degF) (Core #4)
	Temperature 6		47 degC (116 degF) (Core #5)
	Voltage 0		-0.10 Volts (IA Offset)
	Voltage 1		+0.00 Volts (GT Offset)
	Voltage 2		-0.10 Volts (LLC/Ring Offset)
	Voltage 3		+0.00 Volts (System Agent Offset)
	Voltage 4		1.11 Volts (VID #0)
	Voltage 5		1.18 Volts (VID #1)
	Voltage 6		1.09 Volts (VID #2)
	Voltage 7		1.11 Volts (VID #3)
	Voltage 8		1.18 Volts (VID #4)
	Voltage 9		1.16 Volts (VID #5)
	Power 00		22.03 W (Package)
	Power 01		18.70 W (IA Cores)
	Power 02		n.a. (GT)
	Power 03		3.34 W (Uncore)
	Power 04		2.25 W (DRAM)
	Clock Speed 0		4390.32 MHz (Core #0)
	Clock Speed 1		4390.32 MHz (Core #1)
	Clock Speed 2		4390.32 MHz (Core #2)
	Clock Speed 3		4390.32 MHz (Core #3)
	Clock Speed 4		4390.32 MHz (Core #4)
	Clock Speed 5		4390.32 MHz (Core #5)
	Core 0 max ratio	47.0 (effective 46.0)
	Core 1 max ratio	47.0 (effective 46.0)
	Core 2 max ratio	47.0 (effective 46.0)
	Core 3 max ratio	47.0 (effective 46.0)
	Core 4 max ratio	47.0 (effective 46.0)
	Core 5 max ratio	47.0 (effective 46.0)

A -100mV voltage offset was automatically applied. The CPU was not throttled.

This is an excerpt of GPU-Z's sensor log when running Furmark:

        Date        , GPU Core Clock [MHz] , GPU Memory Clock [MHz] , GPU Temperature [°C] , Memory Used [MB] , GPU Load [%] , Memory Controller Load [%] , Video Engine Load [%] , Bus Interface Load [%] , PerfCap Reason [] , VDDC [V] ,
2018-07-12 18:26:27 ,              139.0   ,                101.3   ,               45.0   ,           1954   ,          2   ,                       10   ,                   0   ,                    0   ,              16   , 0.5750   ,
2018-07-12 18:26:28 ,              139.0   ,                101.3   ,               45.0   ,           1955   ,          1   ,                       10   ,                   0   ,                    0   ,              16   , 0.5750   ,
2018-07-12 18:26:29 ,              139.0   ,                101.3   ,               45.0   ,           2027   ,         21   ,                       19   ,                   0   ,                    4   ,              16   , 0.5750   ,
2018-07-12 18:26:30 ,             1607.0   ,               1251.5   ,               52.0   ,           2018   ,         97   ,                       99   ,                   0   ,                    0   ,               1   , 0.8500   ,
2018-07-12 18:26:31 ,             1582.0   ,               1251.5   ,               53.0   ,           2018   ,         98   ,                      100   ,                   0   ,                    0   ,              16   , 0.8430   ,
2018-07-12 18:26:32 ,             1620.0   ,               1251.5   ,               55.0   ,           2018   ,         97   ,                      100   ,                   0   ,                    0   ,               1   , 0.8500   ,
2018-07-12 18:26:33 ,             1607.0   ,               1251.5   ,               56.0   ,           2018   ,         98   ,                      100   ,                   0   ,                    0   ,              16   , 0.8500   ,
2018-07-12 18:26:34 ,             1404.5   ,               1251.5   ,               56.0   ,           2018   ,         98   ,                       96   ,                   0   ,                    0   ,              16   , 0.7620   ,
2018-07-12 18:26:35 ,             1404.5   ,               1251.5   ,               56.0   ,           2018   ,         98   ,                       95   ,                   0   ,                    0   ,              16   , 0.7620   ,
2018-07-12 18:26:36 ,             1404.5   ,               1251.5   ,               57.0   ,           1970   ,         98   ,                       96   ,                   0   ,                    0   ,              16   , 0.7620   ,
<snip>
2018-07-12 18:26:43 ,             1404.5   ,               1251.5   ,               61.0   ,           1970   ,         98   ,                       96   ,                   0   ,                    0   ,              16   , 0.7620   ,
2018-07-12 18:26:44 ,             1404.5   ,               1251.5   ,               61.0   ,           1970   ,         98   ,                       96   ,                   0   ,                    0   ,              16   , 0.7620   ,
2018-07-12 18:26:45 ,             1404.5   ,               1251.5   ,               62.0   ,           1970   ,         98   ,                       96   ,                   0   ,                    0   ,              16   , 0.7620   ,
2018-07-12 18:26:46 ,             1404.5   ,               1251.5   ,               62.0   ,           1970   ,         98   ,                       96   ,                   0   ,                    0   ,              16   , 0.7620   ,
2018-07-12 18:26:47 ,             1404.5   ,               1251.5   ,               63.0   ,           1970   ,         98   ,                       96   ,                   0   ,                    0   ,              16   , 0.7620   ,
2018-07-12 18:26:48 ,             1404.5   ,               1251.5   ,               63.0   ,           1970   ,         98   ,                       95   ,                   0   ,                    0   ,              16   , 0.7620   ,
2018-07-12 18:26:49 ,             1404.5   ,               1251.5   ,               64.0   ,           1970   ,         98   ,                       96   ,                   0   ,                    0   ,              16   , 0.7620   ,
2018-07-12 18:26:50 ,             1404.5   ,               1251.5   ,               64.0   ,           1970   ,         98   ,                       96   ,                   0   ,                    0   ,              16   , 0.7620   ,
2018-07-12 18:26:51 ,             1404.5   ,               1251.5   ,               64.0   ,           1970   ,         98   ,                       96   ,                   0   ,                    0   ,              16   , 0.7620   ,
2018-07-12 18:26:52 ,             1404.5   ,               1251.5   ,               65.0   ,           1970   ,         98   ,                       96   ,                   0   ,                    0   ,              16   , 0.7620   ,
2018-07-12 18:26:53 ,             1404.5   ,               1251.5   ,               65.0   ,           1970   ,         98   ,                       96   ,                   0   ,                    0   ,              16   , 0.7620   ,
2018-07-12 18:26:54 ,             1569.0   ,               1251.5   ,               66.0   ,           1970   ,         98   ,                       99   ,                   0   ,                    0   ,              16   , 0.8310   ,
2018-07-12 18:26:55 ,             1569.0   ,               1251.5   ,               67.0   ,           1970   ,         98   ,                      100   ,                   0   ,                    0   ,               1   , 0.8310   ,
2018-07-12 18:26:56 ,             1569.0   ,               1251.5   ,               67.0   ,           1970   ,         98   ,                      100   ,                   0   ,                    0   ,               1   , 0.8310   ,
2018-07-12 18:26:57 ,             1569.0   ,               1251.5   ,               68.0   ,           1970   ,         98   ,                       99   ,                   0   ,                    0   ,               1   , 0.8310   ,
2018-07-12 18:26:58 ,             1569.0   ,               1251.5   ,               68.0   ,           1970   ,         98   ,                      100   ,                   0   ,                    0   ,               1   , 0.8310   ,

I didn't leave it running for more than a few minutes but I think it'd stabilise at a higher temperature like it did yesterday. The perfcap reason shows that performance was capped at several points, all due to power limit (1 is NV_GPU_PERF_POLICY_ID_SW_POWER).

The CPU/GPU are probably throttled based on the power usage, I can trigger the voltage offset if I run Prime95 at the same time/shortly before running Furmark. I'm less stoked about it now because the reason for the apparent low CPU temperature was due to throttling. I am not too bothered by it though as this appears to be a conscious decision made to keep temperature in check.

Could you please let me know your thoughts?. If the standard is for a system to never thermal/power throttle at stock speed then was I just unlucky?. I see many posts complaining about high temperature in this forums, are they the exception rather than the norm?.

 

[Oussebon]

The CPU reached 90C, consuming ~92W (although I've seen it consumed 118.64W which is incidentally very close to the 118.75W "Power Limit 2" set in CCC) and was slightly throttled, running at 3.5GHz.

I'm not 100% sure how accurate the power consumption readings on software are for the CPU and GPU.

90 degrees is ofc very hot, but not necessarily unreasonable for an 8700k in a laptop chassis with no undervolt.

If it was only running at 3.5GHz, however, that doesn't sound right. Which version of Prime95 are you running? If it's a recent one, have you disabled AVX and tested without that?
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/stress-test-cpu-pc-guide,5461-2.html

Furmark doesn't really load the CPU iirc, it's a torture test for the GPU. So you shouldn't expect to see the CPU complain about anything if just running furmark.

The GPU results are only for 30 seconds so might not tell us much, at least about thermals.

Power limit isn't automatically problem as a performance limiter. It just means the GPU has hit its power limit, which every GPU has (my 970 is 225W iirc) and it's that other than, say, Vrel or utilisation that's the cap on the performance. I'm not sure what's going on with the core clocks, why they keep changing their mind between ~1404 and 1569.

 

[fnf]

90 degrees is ofc very hot, but not necessarily unreasonable for an 8700k in a laptop chassis with no undervolt.

Thanks, That's good to hear .

If it was only running at 3.5GHz, however, that doesn't sound right. Which version of Prime95 are you running? If it's a recent one, have you disabled AVX and tested without that?
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/stress-test-cpu-pc-guide,5461-2.html

I hadn't disabled AVX because I wanted to test how hot it gets.

Here are the figures with AVX/AVX2/AVX512F disabled:

	IA Voltage Mode		PCU adaptive
	IA Voltage Offset	0 mV
	GT Voltage Mode		PCU adaptive
	GT Voltage Offset	0 mV
	LLC/Ring Voltage Mode	PCU adaptive
	LLC/Ring Voltage Offset	0 mV
	Agent Voltage Mode	PCU adaptive
	Agent Voltage Offset	0 mV
	TDP Level		95.0 W @ 37x

	Temperature 0		91 degC (195 degF) (Package)
	Temperature 1		87 degC (188 degF) (Core #0)
	Temperature 2		89 degC (192 degF) (Core #1)
	Temperature 3		90 degC (194 degF) (Core #2)
	Temperature 4		91 degC (195 degF) (Core #3)
	Temperature 5		88 degC (190 degF) (Core #4)
	Temperature 6		89 degC (192 degF) (Core #5)
	Voltage 0		+0.00 Volts (IA Offset)
	Voltage 1		+0.00 Volts (GT Offset)
	Voltage 2		+0.00 Volts (LLC/Ring Offset)
	Voltage 3		+0.00 Volts (System Agent Offset)
	Voltage 4		1.09 Volts (VID #0)
	Voltage 5		1.11 Volts (VID #1)
	Voltage 6		1.09 Volts (VID #2)
	Voltage 7		1.09 Volts (VID #3)
	Voltage 8		1.09 Volts (VID #4)
	Voltage 9		1.09 Volts (VID #5)
	Power 00		94.95 W (Package)
	Power 01		91.56 W (IA Cores)
	Power 02		n.a. (GT)
	Power 03		3.39 W (Uncore)
	Power 04		2.20 W (DRAM)
	Clock Speed 0		3987.32 MHz (Core #0)
	Clock Speed 1		4087.00 MHz (Core #1)
	Clock Speed 2		3987.32 MHz (Core #2)
	Clock Speed 3		3987.32 MHz (Core #3)
	Clock Speed 4		3987.32 MHz (Core #4)
	Clock Speed 5		3987.32 MHz (Core #5)
	Core 0 max ratio	47.0 (effective 43.0)
	Core 1 max ratio	47.0 (effective 43.0)
	Core 2 max ratio	47.0 (effective 43.0)
	Core 3 max ratio	47.0 (effective 43.0)
	Core 4 max ratio	47.0 (effective 44.0)
	Core 5 max ratio	47.0 (effective 43.0)

It didn't get hotter than 90C but it stayed at 4GHz so it was thermally throttled.

Furmark doesn't really load the CPU iirc, it's a torture test for the GPU. So you shouldn't expect to see the CPU complain about anything if just running furmark.

The GPU results are only for 30 seconds so might not tell us much, at least about thermals.

I have longer logs but it should stabilise around 84C going by yesterday's testing, however it could reach 90C if I run Furmark at the same time.

I will take a dab at undervolting once I finished setting up the system and everything remains stable at the stock speed, it will probably take me a few days.

I was concerned that you might say to return this because from everything I'd seen so far this looks to have been built to specifications .

 

[Oussebon]

I was concerned that you might say to return this because from everything I'd seen so far this looks to have been built to specifications .

It's too early to say, but I'm minded to say return it.

Obviously you'd contact PCS first, maybe there's a new version of CCC or a BIOS update available / in the pipeline that would resolve these matters.

But it's not meeting the CPU frequencies that I would expect it to. And I'm not sure about the GPU ones either.