# Laptop undervolting and overclocking results... i7-10750H RTX 2060... MSI Raider GE75



## rruff (Mar 7, 2021)

This is my first laptop in a long time, and my first attempt at undervolting and overclocking. I'm definitely not an expert and suggestions and corrections are welcome! I muddled my way through, but it seemed to turn out pretty well. I got ~12% boost in GPU performance and a whopping 29% in multicore CPU. Now my 2060 is as fast as a stock MaxP 2070, and my i7 Intel processor is nearly as good as a Ryzen 4600H...   I used MSI Afterburner for the GPU and Throttlestop for the CPU (big thanks to @unclewebb!). I also used HWinfo for monitoring, Unigine Heaven and Superposition benchmarks, 3DMark Timespy Benchmark (those 3 are all GPU benchmarks), and Cinebench 20 for the CPU. For CPU stability I mostly used Prime95.

On my new laptop I started with the GPU. Unlike desktop systems, laptops have strict power limits that really nerf the GPU performance. This is set by the manufacturer and usually can't be changed. Mine is set to the highest value for a mobile 2060 (115W) but that is still very restrictive. Any time it has a high load it will slam into that 115W ceiling pretty quickly, even though the temperatures are fine (~75C with the stock fan curve). So even though the GPU is capable of running at ~2100MHz at the stock 1.063v, it never gets close because the power consumption would be over 115W. So in order to get higher performance you need to do a combination of undervolting and overclocking. I started with no changes to the default laptop configuration (ie I don't know what the power settings, Dragon Center settings, or anything else were). This looks like a good guide for Afterburner (though I didn't use it): https://www.msi.com/blog/get-a-free-performance-boost-with-afterburner-oc-scanner

Follow that guide and do the scan, then save this scan as Profile #5. Keep that so you have a good starting point for your tweaks. This is a trial and error process, but for this laptop I'd suggest trying a max voltage in the .925-.938 range. Hit shift+left mouse to select everything to the right of that point. Then click the last point on the curve and drag it down to value of the first point in the selection (say the frequency value at the .925 voltage). Sometimes that works, and sometimes it partially works. Be prepared to do a fair bit of futzing around. What you are trying to do is get the curve to be flat to the right of that point. This will keep the GPU from exceeding that voltage. When you like the look of it, hit the checkmark on the main panel, then save it as one of the profiles. Open HWinfo and go to the GPU section to monitor clocks and temperatures. Now fire up a benchmark (I used Superposition 4k optimized mostly) and let it run. If the temperature is below 80C, you're fine for now, otherwise you'll need to increase fan speeds. I don't know if this laptop temperature-throttles since I never pushed it that high; it was easy to stay ~75C or less. This laptop has a button to the right of the keyboard (the bottom one) that lets you set both fans to the max if you wish.

Now look at the max power. If you are getting over 110W, then drop the voltage even more (move lower on the curve). You are going to need some headroom for increasing Vram clocks, plus if you dare you can try raising above the scan curve (increase clocks at a given voltage). Look for artifacts in the benchmark runs (or crashes!) to let you know you went a bit too far...

I read that Nvidia switched to low voltage Vram on mobile 2060s for 2020, supposedly to improve performance by reducing Vram wattage and hence allowing more power for the GPU cores. Based on my testing I'm skeptical of that reasoning. That dropped the stock Vram clock down to 5500 from 7000... which is a lot. And I got a way bigger performance/watt boost (~5x!) overclocking the Vram vs the GPU. So I'd definitely suggest overclocking the Vram as much as you can. I was able to go up to 6750 (vs 5500 stock) and it's been stable with no artifacts in everything I've tried.

I produced curves at 4 different voltages/power settings, and checked to make sure they were stable. The summary of my results on the GPU is below. I also ran Timespy and got a score of 7312 vs 6587 stock; so ~11% improvement there similar to the Unigine benchmarks. These were before I did any CPU mods, but I checked a couple later, and it made little difference. In one of the images below you can see that I got a 6126 score in Superposition vs 6099 before CPU mods. That makes sense because the benchmarks are very GPU focused, but in games that use more CPU the gains might be even greater.




Tweaking the CPU was a bit more involved, but greater gains were had. First you need to enable overclocking in the bios. Since Plundervolt many laptops do not allow this, but MSI does.

To get into the bios, hit the delete key while booting.
1) To get into the extended bios, press these 4 keys together: Right ctrl+shift+left alt+F2.
2) Go the the Advanced tab, scroll down to Overclocking Performance Menu: Overclocking Feature [Enabled]
3) Hit the back button, and now scroll down to Power and performance: CPU Power management control: CPU Lock configuration: CFG Lock and Overclock Lock [Disable]
4) Save and exit

Unlike the GPU, the CPU isn't really power limited (after mods in Throttlestop); rather it's frequency and possibly temperature limited. The 6 core turbo limit appears to be locked at 4,290 MHz and my machine temperature throttles at 95C. I don't think I can change either. Using undervolting and other settings in Throttlestop I was able to get all 6 cores to run at the 4,290 Mhz max frequency at ~91C (fans on full bore), indefinitely. That consumes ~68W vs >80W on stock clocks; which would only be seen for a few seconds before it throttled.

The Throttlestop Fivr settings I settled on are shown below. Some "guides" will tell you that Core and Cache settings need to be the same, but I saw unclewebb mention that this is not true. On this processor it seems you can undervolt the Core a lot more. I didn't even try a more than -.200v offset because I thought that was huge, and it was stable. I tried -.085v on the Cache and it crashed in Prime95, but it seems stable at -.075.

I was frustrated for awhile because the CPU behavior seemed to be hardcoded to throttle to 45W after a few seconds even if temperatures were fine. Then I read about "Disable and Lock Turbo Power Limits" in Throttlestop; that did the trick! I was able to get the CPU to use my TPL settings instead. Like I  said earlier, I can run at max frequency and ~68W "forever" instead of dropping down to 45W, which makes a huge difference. My highest Cinebench 20 score was 3377 vs 2620 stock. The single core score was unchanged at 475; not too surprising I guess since a single core isn't throttled by power or temperature at the stock settings. I may change these settings depending on what applications or games I'm running, and how tolerant I am of fan noise.



It was kinda fun seeing how I could push the hardware and there is really no downside. It wasn't that hard even with no experience, and the gains were substantial. I highly recommend giving it a try.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 7, 2021)

@rruff - The FIVR window shows that when 6 cores are active, the maximum multiplier is 43 so your CPU will max out at 4290 MHz (43.0 X 99.767 MHz). That is as good as it gets. Your Cinebench results confirm that your CPU is running much better now. Pretty bad when you buy a new and improved laptop with a powerful 10750H and it initially runs slower than a well tuned 8750H. No more worries that an old school 8750H or 9750H will be kicking sand in your face.

For cache offset voltage, most 10th Gen CPUs like the 10750H seem to be stable somewhere around -75 mV. The older 6 core CPUs were usually good for -125 mV but not the 10th Gen. For most mobile CPUs, a maximum core offset request approximately -100 mV beyond the cache request seems to be where temperature or performance improvements in R20 stop. That means somewhere around -175 mV for the core offset for your 10750H. It is OK to go beyond this number. The CPU ignores any excess. You can set the core offset to a crazy number like -1000 mV. Most of that will be ignored.

In the TPL window you have your power limits set to 55W and 75W and then you set the turbo time limit to more than 3 million seconds which is ~42 days. That means if you run your CPU at full bore for 42 days, your CPU will finally switch the power limit from PL2 - 75W down to PL1 - 55W. I guess after running at full power for 6 weeks straight, the CPU needs a break. 

So I have to ask, why do people do this? Why do people set the turbo time limit to this value? I know lots of YouTube guides recommend this but to me it makes no sense. If you never want your CPU to drop down to 55W, set both power limits to 75W and set the turbo time limit to the default value which is 28 seconds. To the CPU and to me, that request makes sense. Whenever I see a setting of 3 million seconds I always think, there goes another guy that has no idea what that setting does.   

I thought about limiting this to 448 seconds. For some recent CPUs, Intel says that is the max value. I knew there would be complaints from the YouTube experts if I changed this so I just left it as is. 

Thanks for sharing your results.


----------



## rruff (Mar 7, 2021)

unclewebb said:


> So I have to ask, why do people do this?



Oh, I just wanted to lock it at 75W and see what happened. That was actually a leftover from when I was trying to figure out why it kept dropping to 45W. Once I'd checked the "Disable and Lock Turbo Power Limits" box that stopped (I could control the power). Since I was running benchmarks and it only went up to ~68W I just left PL2 where it was.

For general use I'll put a short timer on PL2 and fiddle with PL1 and the fan settings til I'm happy with the performance and noise.

Thanks again for this great software!


----------



## rruff (Mar 11, 2021)

Thought I'd submit an update...

I've been running the "TS Bench" a lot lately and found I was getting an occasional error.  So I moved the cache voltage up slowly, and settled at -.061v. That's seems to be error free. The CPU consumes slightly more power now, but only ~1W. 69W vs 68W running all cores at 4,290MHz. Speed is the same, since throttling is still not happening.

Is TS Bench the best thing to use for this? It's very easy anyway.

EDIT: Another thing, that probably no one but me will care about, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. I noticed that after running a video benchmark, power would continue to be fed to the GPU even though it was idle. ~9W constant, so it was not a small amount. If I played a video the iGPU would be used but the dGPU was still just sitting there consuming 9W. I intend use this laptop in a vehicle with a solar panel and batteries, so gratuitous watts are bad, even plugged in. The reason why normal people wouldn't care is because as soon as I unplugged the power, the 9 watts disappeared... and it stayed off after plugging back in. So, it would never happen while using the internal battery.

I tried changing all sorts of settings, power plans, etc... with no luck. Figured I could just unplug the cord or reboot if that was the only thing that worked. Then I started messing with Afterburner. First thing I noticed was that AB had a bunch of monitoring functions polling the GPU regularly. I turned these off, but it didn't fix the issue. Shutting down AB doesn't work either; the dGPU still stays at 9W. Then while I was randomly pushing buttons, I noticed that if I selected my 3rd profile (2nd fastest one), the dGPU power would drop to zero. It didn't happen with any other profile and works with that one every time! Weird... 

Turning off monitoring is still a good idea because AB will wake up the dGPU on a regular basis and waste watts if they are on.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 11, 2021)

rruff said:


> Is TS Bench the best


I like it but it is definitely not the best. There is no best. 

It is best to run a variety of stability tests. I have found that being error free in the TS Bench allows me to quickly fine tune the voltage very close to where it needs to be. This quick test does not use any AVX instructions so you should definitely find some more tests. If you like to game then you need to run some tests that also use your GPU at the same time.


----------



## yotano211 (Mar 11, 2021)

rruff said:


> Thought I'd submit an update...
> 
> I've been running the "TS Bench" a lot lately and found I was getting an occasional error.  So I moved the cache voltage up slowly, and settled at -.061v. That's seems to be error free. The CPU consumes slightly more power now, but only ~1W. 69W vs 68W running all cores at 4,290MHz. Speed is the same, since throttling is still not happening.
> 
> Is TS Bench the best thing to use for this? It's very easy anyway.


What specs is your ge75.


----------



## rruff (Mar 11, 2021)

yotano211 said:


> What specs is your ge75.


GE75 Raider 10SE-008


			https://storage-asset.msi.com/specSheet/us/nb/GE75%20Raider%2010SE-008.pdf


----------



## yotano211 (Mar 11, 2021)

rruff said:


> GE75 Raider 10SE-008
> 
> 
> https://storage-asset.msi.com/specSheet/us/nb/GE75%20Raider%2010SE-008.pdf


How did you undervolt the 10th generation processor. I tried it and failed on the same model laptop, same processor but a 2070super.


----------



## rruff (Mar 11, 2021)

yotano211 said:


> How did you undervolt the 10th generation processor. I tried it and failed on the same model laptop, same processor but a 2070super.


Instructions in the 1st post. I think all the MSIs allow this.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 11, 2021)

yotano211 said:


> How did you undervolt


Here is a video guide to unlock the MSI GS66.


----------



## rruff (Mar 11, 2021)

unclewebb said:


> Here is a video guide to unlock the MSI GS66.


That's an old video and he's missing step #3 in my original post. I read that MSI requires that step now due to a more recent bios update. At any rate I couldn't UV my laptop until I'd also done:

3) Hit the back button, and now scroll down to Power and performance: CPU Power management control: CPU Lock configuration: CFG Lock and Overclock Lock [Disable]


----------



## John Naylor (Mar 11, 2021)

Using P95 for stability testing will significantly lower your attainable OC.   Most folks use an older version of P95 so they don't hurt their hardware when AVX and other newer instruction sets are present.  That mean you OC is not necessarily stable when they are.  I have had 24 hour stable P95 OCs fail in 20 minutes under RoG Real Bench.  You can lower temps by about 7C or more with RB and therefore potentially get an extra 0.1 OC or more.

Another tip, custom build laptops usually don't have limiters found in popular gaming brands.  Remember back when if to tried to run certain stress tests and the lappie would refuse to run them ?... I was shocked when I tried and they all ran fine.  back then you'd even have an array of base chassis designs with desktop versions of CPUs and GFX cards.

Don't see that much anymore ... got an email this morning, a friend of my son is planning on  having this built for him when either tax refund or $1400 Stimulus check arrives ... I'll be installing OS and programs doing basic set up ... Im expecting problems ... may take me a week or 2 to get it just right  

10th i7-10870H Processor
HM470 Chipset
0 Dead Pixel warranty
RTX 3070  8GB6 Max-Q Design
Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut Thermal Compound - CPU + GPU 
32GB Dual Channel DDR4 SDRAM at 2933MHz - 2 X 16GB
500GB Samsung 970 EVO Plus M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD Boot and Program Drive
2TB SAMSUNG® 970 EVO™ Plus PCIe NVMe M.2  SSD (Slot 2) Data Drive
Intel® Wi-Fi 6 AX201 M.2 AX + Bluetooth® 5.1 Combo Card
Power Supply 180 watts

Will come in at about $1850 delivered


----------



## rruff (Mar 11, 2021)

John Naylor said:


> I have had 24 hour stable P95 OCs fail in 20 minutes under RoG Real Bench.  You can lower temps by about 7C or more with RB and therefore potentially get an extra 0.1 OC or more.


Found this regarding RB: https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/is-this-realbench-strong-enough.3208361/

Can't say I understand it, but it sounds like it's the most realistic?


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 11, 2021)

John Naylor said:


> Most folks use an older version of P95 so they don't hurt their hardware when AVX


No need to do this anymore. Prime95 lets you choose if you want to use AVX, AVX2 (FMA) or AVX-512.


----------



## rruff (Mar 15, 2021)

Looks like it's too late to edit my OP, but I discovered that there is really no reason to mess around with UV in Afterburner, if you are going for your max performance. It will be hitting the power limit all the time, but this isn't a bad thing. Saves trying to get that flat part of the curve to sit right! If you want to create lower power profiles, then flattening the curve is necessary.

Just do the scan and save it. To experiment with OC click on the "Core clock" slider on the main window and adjust this; it will move the whole curve up and down. Use arrow keys for fine tuning.

Heaven is a good benchmark to use for this because it will loop, plus you can run it in windowed mode so you can monitor and also tweak your AB settings in real time. This way you can adjust core and vram speeds and see right away if there are artifacts or other issues.


----------



## EEAM.Peru (Mar 31, 2021)

Thanks rruff for the detailed guide. Helped me with a MSI GL65 Leopard same cpu but 2070 Super.

Just a heads up for anyone reading this post. I followed this guide exactly but couldn't reach the 68W draw PL1 at first. It always went down to 45W after the sustained PL2 of 75. Looked everywhere turns out the MSI Dragon Center was set to Balanced. Changed it to Extreme Performance and now I can get that 68W sustained power draw instead of defaulting to 45W.

Besides that I dont know how are you hitting a 3300 score on Cinebench R20. Could it be because I haven't undervolted my GPU? (although it doesn't make sense since Cine doesnt use the GPU). Im hitting 2800 on an average of 5 tests (was 2700 on the same average before Undervolting). Can you tell me what tests you used and for how long each you used for testing stability? Thanks in advance.

PS. Disabling Prochot and amping the limit from 95 to 99 didnt increase the score on R20 just upped my overall temp limits (like it should I know)

Screens from my TS settings and HWINFO64 when running R20 Multi.


----------



## rruff (Mar 31, 2021)

Messing with your GPU doesn't affect Cinebench. One thing I noticed in HWinfo is that your CPU was running at 3.9 GHz instead of 4.3GHz. Is that the frequency you get for the run? You can have TS and HWI on top when you are doing a run to see what is happening.

Maybe you are temperature throttling due to insufficient fan speed? Did you hit the lower button below the power switch to turn both fans on max?

It seemed like TS bench was as good as anything for testing. Run all cores and see if any errors pop up; if it looks good then run it longer.  I then ran all the lesser core counts too. I ended up with -.06 and -.160.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 31, 2021)

@EEAM.Peru - Most people with bad benchmark scores have too much stuff running in the background on their computer. When your computer is idle at the desktop with only ThrottleStop open, what does ThrottleStop report for C0%? Here is what an idle computer reports.






I guess up to 0.5% is OK but if your computer is way higher than that, your Cinebench scores will not be great.



EEAM.Peru said:


> Screens from my TS settings and HWINFO64 when running R20 Multi.


HWiNFO64 is a wonderful program, lots of useful information, but I would not leave that running when benchmark testing. When running Cinebench, exit HWiNFO and only run ThrottleStop with the Limit Reasons window open. HWiNFO interferes with the Limit Reasons data within the CPU. Watch Limit Reasons when testing. Does anything light up red? Any power limit throttling or maybe thermal throttling? Perhaps this is the reason your Cinebench scores are low. 

Do another test and post a screenshot while Cinebench is in progress.

If you are using MSI Dragon Center to manage your turbo power limits, maybe in the ThrottleStop TPL window you can check, Disable Power Limit Control. You do not need both MSI Dragon Center and ThrottleStop fighting over your CPU power limits. If Dragon Center works, you do not need ThrottleStop managing your turbo power limits.


----------



## Balto (Apr 1, 2021)

EEAM.Peru said:


> Thanks rruff for the detailed guide. Helped me with a MSI GL65 Leopard same cpu but 2070 Super.
> 
> Just a heads up for anyone reading this post. I followed this guide exactly but couldn't reach the 68W draw PL1 at first. It always went down to 45W after the sustained PL2 of 75. Looked everywhere turns out the MSI Dragon Center was set to Balanced. Changed it to Extreme Performance and now I can get that 68W sustained power draw instead of defaulting to 45W.
> 
> ...



Made an account just to comment on this post. I managed a score of 3384 in R20 with a -0.090 undervolt on the CPU and -0.050 on the cache. And this was multiple, back to back passes that all resulted in the same exact score. Temps hit a max of 89C with cooler boost on. Score was down to about 3150ish with cooler boost off and the fans on 'silent' mode, so the CPU was thermal throttling to about ~4ghz(cooler boost is 4.3). The problem is, it's not stable whatsoever in games. I did the TS benchmark on every setting and got 0 errors, and ran probably 20 R20 benchmarks, no crashing or other issues. As soon as I fire up a game, it just BSOD's with a DPC watchdog violation and reboots. In games, I could only manage a 0.030 undervolt on the CPU/Cache. I guess some units undervolt better. YMMV.


----------



## rruff (Apr 2, 2021)

Balto said:


> I could only manage a 0.030 undervolt on the CPU/Cache. I guess some units undervolt better. YMMV.


That's kinda surprising... what game? And what is the CPU doing when it crashes? No GPU mods?

This person claims they got a -.140 cache with a 10750H  https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...-this-frequency-core-multiplier-to-50.278677/


----------



## Balto (Apr 2, 2021)

Balto said:


> rruff said:
> 
> 
> > That's kinda surprising... what game? And what is the CPU doing when it crashes? No GPU mods?
> ...


----------



## EEAM.Peru (Apr 8, 2021)

Thanks for the quick replies and sorry for taking so long to answer. A relative of mine got ill. She is better now.


1. Thanks ruff I didnt know I had a button for cooler boost that sets the fans to the max. Although the laptops becomes a Boeing 747 and temps improve I don´t know how viable is this for the longevity of the fans.

2. MSI Dragon center doesn't interfere with the voltage, any internal undervolting or power limits as far as I can tell and researched. It just gives fan profiles. Using Extreme provides the best scores.

3. Thanks unclewebb I didn´t know that about R20 and background processes.

4. Now for scores. I removed the TPL modifications from Ruff and only kept the cpu and cache undervolt for now. Remembered that Uncleweb mentioned something about speedshift and speed step in other posts (dont remember exactly whay I would need to check on that again) so also didn't use Ruff's modifications on those options.

Tested stability with The witcher 3 Novigrad 30 minutes all on ultra no crashes (2070s 115w no undervolt) + Aida 64 Extreme and Unigine heaven 90 minutes

A. Extreme profile + no cooler boost + no Undervolt: 3000 score (5 passes)

B. Extreme profile + no cooler boost + Undervolt -0.01590 undervolt on the CPU -0.059 on the cache : 3165 score (5 passes)
(numbers following Uncleweb recommmendation from other posts on this cpu model)

C. Extreme profile + cooler boost + Undervolt -0.01590 undervolt on the CPU -0.059 on the cache : 3170 score (5 passes)
(Barely any difference probable because of TPL limits)

The question is will removing power limits increase the performance while keeping temperatures or lowering them? If the answer is no, the performance will increase, but the temperatures will too I don't know if it's worth it in the long run. I've read Unclewebb's argument that pushing the temps a bit more wont matter to the cpu since they are designed to go up to 100 C° and I agree on that but putting more heat around all the components and the mobo helps the longevity of all the laptop? I think better scores and less temps is the holy grail most are looking for.

PS. From Jarrod's Tech review of this unit and his R20 scores (which are almost identical to mine) saw that he gained the most while dropping temps from using a laptop cooler since this model has good vents underneath it. Will get one this saturday.

Added screen is Extreme profile + no cooler boost + Undervolt -0.01590 undervolt on the CPU -0.059 on the cache without using Ruff's TPL modifications


----------



## rruff (Apr 9, 2021)

I disabled Dragon Center and the main MSI process (don't recall the name) simply because they are unnecessary. TS and AB and Silent Option give you great control over speed, frequency, temperature, fan speed, noise, etc. 

A cooling pad will help your CPU performance if you are thermal throttling, but you shouldn't be thermal throttling with a UV... not on a pure CPU test. Is your core undervolt really -.159 (rather than -.0159)? If so your UV is very similar to mine. If not, then you should set it to -.159 and make sure it is working in FIVR. I can run all cores at 4.3GHz indefinitely at ~69W. C20 scores are ~3360 (max 3390). Since your CPU maxed at 86W I question whether any undervolt is being applied at all. With no UV mine is about that.


----------



## EEAM.Peru (Apr 9, 2021)

rruff said:


> I disabled Dragon Center and the main MSI process (don't recall the name) simply because they are unnecessary. TS and AB and Silent Option give you great control over speed, frequency, temperature, fan speed, noise, etc.
> 
> A cooling pad will help your CPU performance if you are thermal throttling, but you shouldn't be thermal throttling with a UV... not on a pure CPU test. Is your core undervolt really -.159 (rather than -.0159)? If so your UV is very similar to mine. If not, then you should set it to -.159 and make sure it is working in FIVR. I can run all cores at 4.3GHz indefinitely at ~69W. C20 scores are ~3360 (max 3390). Since your CPU maxed at 86W I question whether any undervolt is being applied at all. With no UV mine is about that.


Thanks for the reply,

Yes the undervolt for the cpu core is -.157 amd cpu cache is -.059. Thought that maybe you meant also cache to -.159, chaged it and it went up straigth to a bsod haha fun times.

Disabled Dragon Center, but dont know about the process (there are many MSI processes) and also applied your TPL settings according to your screens on your first post. 
How are you getting a max 69W if your TPL2 is set to 75W (which can be seen on the screens below). 

Double checked and the only option different from yours is IccMax which I have on default. What it does I dont know so I didn't touch it (I should read about it), but don't think is the one keeping my max watt at 74.9.


----------



## rruff (Apr 9, 2021)

Ya, the cache is the important one to get right IME. Setting the core an extra .1v lower than cache works fine. 

You don't *need* to disable Dragon Center or other MSI stuff... it was on during my initial UV. You can worry about that later if you want. Just make sure it's on extreme or whatever max performance is. 

I get 69W because that's all it needs to run all cores at 4.3GHz. Go ahead and set both limits to 90W just so you're sure it won't power throttle at all. With PL1 set to 55W you'll be power throttling for most of the C20 run. Monitor your core speed... should be 4.3GHz for all of it... unless it temperature throttles, which I doubt with fans on max.

I don't know what IccMax is either but I saw unclewebb say to set it as high as it goes, so that's what mine is now.


----------



## EEAM.Peru (Apr 9, 2021)

Thanks for the reply,

When set both PL's to 90W it draws 80W aprox and then drops to 50W because of thermals. So I set both to 69W and now Im getting 69 Max constant. The problem is the cpu doesn't go up to 4.3 Ghz it stays at 4.0Ghz at 98.8% cpu load and its not thermal throttling. I believe there lies the problem. Weird because I haven't changed any internal settings on Windows since it's a new laptop and my settings are identicalto yours.

Set both Iccmax to max btw


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 9, 2021)

EEAM.Peru said:


> then drops to 50W because of thermals


It would be very unusual for a CPU to drop from 80W to 50W because of thermals. That sounds like power limit throttling. 

Turn on the ThrottleStop Log File option or open Limit Reasons and show that in your picture when your CPU is loaded running Cinebench. Showing ThrottleStop after Cinebench is finished is not going to show what the problem is. Remember to exit HWiNFO when using Limit Reasons. A log file while running Cinebench is going to show the problem.


----------



## rruff (Apr 9, 2021)

Your CPU will run at 4.3GHz in that test unless something is throttling it. It will be either a power limit or temperature limit. >80W sounds like no UV to me. If you set both PLs to 69W and get ~4.0GHz, that also sounds like no UV is being applied.


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 9, 2021)

rruff said:


> no UV is being applied


The FIVR monitoring table shows that the undervolt is being applied. The cache is at -60 mV. Not a huge undervolt but it is being applied.

CPU power consumption data from Intel CPUs is not measured power consumption. It is an approximation that can vary from one CPU to the next, even if they have the same model number. Some report high and some report low. Actual power consumption could be exactly the same. When it is not properly measured, no one knows.

The ThrottleStop screenshot posted shows PL1 is set to 55W. Hopefully that screenshot was taken before he increased the power limits.


----------



## EEAM.Peru (Apr 9, 2021)

Thanks again both for your replies.

The following is TPL1-TPL2 55-75 and then 69-69
Cooler bost on (max fans button) + No other background program besides TS and R20 + Dragon Center doesn't make a difference on my tests (with and without)

69-69 seems to be the best IMO since it doesn't thermal throttle. all the options on TS are the same difference is only changing TPL1 and TPL2
Scores between both favors 69-69 by 50-60 on R20.


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 9, 2021)

EEAM.Peru said:


> 69-69


At 69W or even 75W, your CPU is power limit throttling. That is why it does not maintain the full 43.00 multiplier. If you found a way to improve cooling, you could raise your power limits higher and get a little more performance but not much. Maybe 4300 MHz instead of 4000 MHz. Most real world apps or games are not going to fully load all 12 threads of your CPU so they should be able to run at full speed without any power limit or thermal throttling. For Cinebench, you are right on the edge of both of those limits.


----------



## EEAM.Peru (Apr 9, 2021)

unclewebb said:


> At 69W or even 75W, your CPU is power limit throttling. That is why it does not maintain the full 43.00 multiplier. If you found a way to improve cooling, you could raise your power limits higher and get a little more performance but not much. Maybe 4300 MHz instead of 4000 MHz. Most real world apps or games are not going to fully load all 12 threads of your CPU so they should be able to run at full speed without any power limit or thermal throttling. For Cinebench, you are right on the edge of both of those limits.



Thanks again for the reply,

I suppose Ruff's model has better cooling being a 17 inch laptop (they usually have more room for cooling and fans) and thats why he can sustain those 4.3 Ghz. I forgot that he also has a MSI Raider which is more expensive and better on quality compared to this Leo GL65.

Tomorrow Im getting a cooling pad with fans. I will retest with that and post my final results here so it can help others.


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 10, 2021)

EEAM.Peru said:


> cooling pad with fans


Most cooling pads only lower temps by a degree or two. Make sure you can return it to the store if it does not solve your problem.


----------



## rruff (Apr 10, 2021)

EEAM.Peru said:


> I forgot that he also has a MSI Raider which is more expensive and better on quality compared to this Leo GL65.


In the 69W run you are power throttling at 4.0GHz, while I reach 4.3GHz with that reading. The reason for that may be what unclewebb stated regarding the "approximation" of power readings. Cooling wouldn't account for it. Your temperature is also reaching 95C which could be a cooling issue. I've been testing in ambient temperatures ~20C; maybe it's warmer where you are? The Raiders are a little more expensive but they share the same chassis as the Leopard... and I think the same cooling. The size might be a difference as you mentioned. Another contributor could be thermal paste. I regularly see 7-8C core temp variations in a test like this, and yours are even higher at 9C. Another thing you could try is simply raise the back of the laptop a little by resting it on something to improve airflow... just make sure you don't block the vents. 

Tuning to run benchmarks is fun, but not so practical. I really like TS for being able to set different profiles. I set limits via frequency rather than power as I suspect this gives more stable performance.


----------



## LcT89 (Apr 15, 2021)

EEAM.Peru said:


> Thanks rruff for the detailed guide. Helped me with a MSI GL65 Leopard same cpu but 2070 Super.
> 
> Just a heads up for anyone reading this post. I followed this guide exactly but couldn't reach the 68W draw PL1 at first. It always went down to 45W after the sustained PL2 of 75. Looked everywhere turns out the MSI Dragon Center was set to Balanced. Changed it to Extreme Performance and now I can get that 68W sustained power draw instead of defaulting to 45W.
> 
> ...


Just a question: I have your exact same laptop model, but in you screenshots cache ratio min/max is 8/47. Mine can't go higher than 43 (i have alredy unlocked the overclock inside the bios). How is that possible?


----------



## rruff (Apr 15, 2021)

LcT89 said:


> Just a question: I have your exact same laptop model, but in you screenshots cache ratio min/max is 8/47. Mine can't go higher than 43 (i have alredy unlocked the overclock inside the bios). How is that possible?


Mine says 8-47 also, and I'm pretty sure I didn't touch that. Don't know what it means.


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 15, 2021)

rruff said:


> Don't know what it means.


It does not mean too much. When ThrottleStop starts up for the first time, if there is no previous ThrottleStop.INI configuration file, it will read this information from the CPU. Whatever the BIOS sets this to will be read by ThrottleStop. It might vary from one laptop to the next depending on what values the BIOS programs this to. 

The important number is the Cache Ratio value in the FIVR monitoring table. That is the cache multiplier that the CPU is using. The cache multiplier on the locked non K CPUs are usually limited to 3 less than the core multiplier. Even if you set the cache Max to 100, you will still be limited by what the CPU is capable of.


----------



## LcT89 (Apr 15, 2021)

unclewebb said:


> It does not mean too much. When ThrottleStop starts up for the first time, if there is no previous ThrottleStop.INI configuration file, it will read this information from the CPU. Whatever the BIOS sets this to will be read by ThrottleStop. It might vary from one laptop to the next depending on what values the BIOS programs this to.
> 
> The important number is the Cache Ratio value in the FIVR monitoring table. That is the cache multiplier that the CPU is using. The cache multiplier on the locked non K CPUs are usually limited to 3 less than the core multiplier. Even if you set the cache Max to 100, you will still be limited by what the CPU is capable of.


It's possible that something happened on my CPU and now can't go above 43? Watching the table and making stress tests, even resetting the ini file and bios, it varies from 8 to 43.


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 15, 2021)

@LcT89 - What CPU model do you have? If you try to set Cache Max to a big number in ThrottleStop and then press Apply, it will automatically be reduced to what the CPU supports. What happens when you do this?

The cache ratio in the FIVR monitoring table can vary depending on what speed the CPU cores are running at.


----------



## LcT89 (Apr 15, 2021)

unclewebb said:


> @LcT89 - What CPU model do you have? If you try to set Cache Max to a big number in ThrottleStop and then press Apply, it will automatically be reduced to what the CPU supports. What happens when you do this?
> 
> The cache ratio in the FIVR monitoring table can vary depending on what speed the CPU cores are running at.


i7-10750h, laptop MSI GL65 10sfsk Leopard.
If I set any number above 43, it resets the number to 43.
It seems strange to be because when I search screenshots of this with i7-10750h, I always see the 47 limit


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 15, 2021)

LcT89 said:


> It seems strange


You are right. It is strange. In the ThrottleStop FIVR window on the right hand side, what does it show for your Microcode version? I have seen 10750H screenshots that have a Max 47 cache multiplier. They show microcode 0xC8.

When fully loaded, the maximum CPU multiplier is 43. Try doing a quick 12 thread TS Bench test. What cache ratio is reported in the FIVR monitoring table when the CPU is loaded? Typically the cache runs at 3 less than the core so you should see a cache ratio of 40 during this test if the multiplier is able to maintain 43. If there is power limit or thermal throttling, the cache ratio will drop with the multiplier.

Edit - Are your turbo ratios set to their default values?


----------



## LcT89 (Apr 16, 2021)

unclewebb said:


> You are right. It is strange. In the ThrottleStop FIVR window on the right hand side, what does it show for your Microcode version? I have seen 10750H screenshots that have a Max 47 cache multiplier. They show microcode 0xC8.
> 
> When fully loaded, the maximum CPU multiplier is 43. Try doing a quick 12 thread TS Bench test. What cache ratio is reported in the FIVR monitoring table when the CPU is loaded? Typically the cache runs at 3 less than the core so you should see a cache ratio of 40 during this test if the multiplier is able to maintain 43. If there is power limit or thermal throttling, the cache ratio will drop with the multiplier.
> 
> Edit - Are your turbo ratios set to their default values?


my microcode is 0xE2 AND i suspect that could be the answer.
Dell G7 i7-10750H undervolting | TechPowerUp Forums
also this guy has the E2 and i remember a recent intel optional update delivered by microsoft (laptop is brand new but a 2020 model, so i made all updates in the past weeks)


With all defaults (deleted ini, reflashed bios from official MSI laptop's repository):
on single core bench, cache stays at 43
on multi core (12) starts from 40, then drops at 38 when all CPU drops. Same behaviour with cinebenchr23 (except the fact that it drops earlier)
I have to redo the undervolt, but with a -125 on cache, -100 on core, -60 on gpu intel and -40 on igpu unsilce, also mantaining a lower prochot of 89 instead of 95, two days ago i scored 8100 on a single iteration of cinebenchr23.

Edit: 8500 with all fans at max speed
Edit2: 8200 with a little less undervolt for stability and auto fan speed

Ps. it's been a long time since I wrote in english, so i'm sorry for that


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 16, 2021)

LcT89 said:


> my microcode is 0xE2


That is probably what happened. ThrottleStop reads the maximum cache ratio value from the CPU. Intel must have changed this in the most recent microcode so now the maximum value is 43 instead of 47. This might reduce single thread performance a tiny amount. When fully loaded or playing a game, the cache ratio will probably be the same so this change will probably not make any real world difference.


----------



## rruff (Apr 16, 2021)

LcT89 said:


> Edit2: 8200 with a little less undervolt for stability and auto fan speed


I get >8800 in C23. Max temp 91-92C. All cores 4.3GHz. Ring/LLC at 4.0GHz... is this what you are looking at? If so then ours are running the same despite mine have a higher ratio. On single core Ring/LLC hit a max of 4.6, but it was ~4.35 on average. Score was 1265.

If higher fans help your score, then you must be temp throttling. 95C should be fine on your CPU; no good reason to drop it since it already has a big safety margin. 

I've been using a core UV that is -.100V relative to cache. Cache is the critical one IME. Mine is only -.061V, with -.161V on core.  If you can set you cache -.100 or less that is excellent.

Your english is great!


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 16, 2021)

rruff said:


> On single core Ring/LLC hit a max of 4.6


Do not update your BIOS or your microcode or your cache will be limited to 4.3 GHz.


----------



## rruff (Apr 16, 2021)

unclewebb said:


> Do not update your BIOS or your microcode or your cache will be limited to 4.3 GHz.


I think I have updates turned off... 

I'm curious how much difference it makes in performance... or why Intel changed it? I tried setting the ratio to 43 and TS locked up my computer (twice).


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 16, 2021)

rruff said:


> TS locked up my computer


ThrottleStop did not lock up your computer. You did it!!  

Did you lower the Cache Ratio Max value?





You should be able to adjust the CPU core or cache ratios at any time to any value without the computer locking up. If it does lock up, this is usually a sign that your undervolt is on the edge of stability. Try increasing your voltages.

Maybe Intel changed this because some of these CPUs are not 100% stable at the higher cache ratios. That is usually why something changes. Reduce the warranty claims.


----------



## rruff (Apr 16, 2021)

unclewebb said:


> ThrottleStop did not lock up your computer. You did it!!
> 
> Did you lower the Cache Ratio Max value?


Yes, that's the number I changed. I could expect that raising it might cause an issue, but lowering? Sure enough, I set all my voltages back to default, and no issues changing it to 43 then 

I ran TS Bench single core a few times with 43 and 47 and there appears to be ~0% difference in speed. So I don't think having it maxed at 43 is something to worry about.


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 16, 2021)

rruff said:


> I set all my voltages back to default, and no issues changing it to 43


I think you just came up with a new stability test. No need to run Prime95 for hours on end torturing your CPU. To test your undervolt, just make sure you can adjust the core and cache multipliers without your computer locking up. That was the logic behind the Random option in the TS Bench test.


----------



## LcT89 (Apr 16, 2021)

rruff said:


> I get >8800 in C23. Max temp 91-92C. All cores 4.3GHz. Ring/LLC at 4.0GHz... is this what you are looking at? If so then ours are running the same despite mine have a higher ratio. On single core Ring/LLC hit a max of 4.6, but it was ~4.35 on average. Score was 1265.
> 
> If higher fans help your score, then you must be temp throttling. 95C should be fine on your CPU; no good reason to drop it since it already has a big safety margin.
> 
> ...


Wow, big score! Have you tried the tvb option?



unclewebb said:


> Do not update your BIOS or your microcode or your cache will be limited to 4.3 GHz.


I don't think that is a bios update, but one of the many optional KBs from Microsoft...


----------



## rruff (Apr 17, 2021)

LcT89 said:


> Wow, big score! Have you tried the tvb option?


Just did since you mentioned it. It dropped the frequency from 4.3 to 4.2GHz. -Boost. 



unclewebb said:


> I think you just came up with a new stability test. No need to run Prime95 for hours on end torturing your CPU. To test your undervolt, just make sure you can adjust the core and cache multipliers without your computer locking up. That was the logic behind the Random option in the TS Bench test.


Put my UV back and ran the random TS Bench a few times on 1 and 12 threads. No problem there. Freezes right away if I try to change the cache ratio from 4.7 to 4.3 though.


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 17, 2021)

LcT89 said:


> one of the many optional KBs from Microsoft...


Try doing a search in the Windows File Explorer. Go to C:\Windows\System32 and search for mcupdate.

mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll contains the microcode update. You can try to delete this file if you want to go back to a previous microcode version. You can also search C:\Windows for mcupdate and you will probably find some previous versions of this file. Delete mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll and replace it with an older version. After that you can take ownership of this file away from Windows so Windows can never update it. You will need to reboot so ThrottleStop can update the microcode version number.


----------



## LcT89 (Apr 17, 2021)

rruff said:


> Just did since you mentioned it. It dropped the frequency from 4.3 to 4.2GHz. -Boost.
> 
> 
> Put my UV back and ran the random TS Bench a few times on 1 and 12 threads. No problem there. Freezes right away if I try to change the cache ratio from 4.7 to 4.3 though.


Yeah. That's a side effect. The main purpose, from what I read, is to dynamically set the voltage according to temps and at the same time boosting the frequencies when temp and power are under specific values (65°C and 40W on laptop's CPUs).

Have you set a fixed value for speedstep? Maybe the problem is that the CPU can't go down when the speedstep is set with a value that requires more voltage.

I can't go over 8500 on C23. Are voltage and CPU/cache the only settings that you changed from defaults? (When I say default I mean the very default pc settings: balanced win battery profile, balanced dragon center profile, TS equivalent to a config with locked OC option from bios)



unclewebb said:


> Try doing a search in the Windows File Explorer. Go to C:\Windows\System32 and search for mcupdate.
> 
> mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll contains the microcode update. You can try to delete this file if you want to go back to a previous microcode version. You can also search C:\Windows for mcupdate and you will probably find some previous versions of this file. Delete mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll and replace it with an older version. After that you can take ownership of this file away from Windows so Windows can never update it. You will need to reboot so ThrottleStop can update the microcode version number.
> 
> View attachment 197038


I'll give it a try. Sure that the downgrade/upgrade doesn't need an instruction to actually load the microcode to CPU? Other than obviously shut down and boot.


----------



## rruff (Apr 17, 2021)

LcT89 said:


> I can't go over 8500 on C23. Are voltage and CPU/cache the only settings that you changed from defaults? (When I say default I mean the very default pc settings: balanced win battery profile, balanced dragon center profile, TS equivalent to a config with locked OC option from bios)


I'm not running Dragon Center. CPU is controlled by TS, GPU is controlled by AB, and fans are controlled by Silent Option. But if I was using DC I'd set it to max performance for benchmarks. 

I set the other voltage options in TC the same as my cache; -.06V. Speed Shift EPP = 0. Speedstep isn't checked.

You should be running at 4.3GHz and getting about the same score as me unless something is throttling; power, temperature, or frequency. Find out which it is, and why.


----------



## LcT89 (Apr 17, 2021)

rruff said:


> I'm not running Dragon Center. CPU is controlled by TS, GPU is controlled by AB, and fans are controlled by Silent Option. But if I was using DC I'd set it to max performance for benchmarks.
> 
> I set the other voltage options in TC the same as my cache; -.06V. Speed Shift EPP = 0. Speedstep isn't checked.
> 
> You should be running at 4.3GHz and getting about the same score as me unless something is throttling; power, temperature, or frequency. Find out which it is, and why.


Ok tried your first post guide + core at -0.165, cache+gpu+igpu+sa -0.06, Speedshift 0, disabled tpl lock in fivr, but I'm still temps limited: at some point in C23 it goes above 95°C and then throttles. The max I can get is 8608 with max power fans. So sad.

Edit: uninstalled dragon center after setting it to balanced (and leaving the battery limit to 65%, the only useful thing).
Now, with the cooler boost on (= two fans at 100%) I can reach 8830 on C23 without even a yellow alarm in limit reasons.


----------



## rruff (Apr 17, 2021)

The lower score might have been from something besides C23 using the CPU... but that wouldn't explain the temperature throttling. Maybe it was just very close. What was the temp when you got the 8830?


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 17, 2021)

LcT89 said:


> to actually load the microcode to CPU?


As far as I know, when Windows boots up, if it finds mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll, it will apply that microcode update automatically. If it does not find that file, it will use whatever microcode the BIOS is using.


----------



## LcT89 (Apr 17, 2021)

rruff said:


> The lower score might have been from something besides C23 using the CPU... but that wouldn't explain the temperature throttling. Maybe it was just very close. What was the temp when you got the 8830?


One iteration (not the standard 10min) reaches the 94°C at the very end


----------



## LcT89 (Apr 18, 2021)

@rruff my conclusion is that the only difference is the size: with more room for dissipation, a 17'' laptop can push down temperatures by 3-4 degrees in the 90°-95°C range, the exact difference that I need to avoid completely the thermal throttling at 75W.
I think I'll buy a cooling pad with movable fans and some day (after warranty expiration, probably) I'll repaste CPU/GPU and change all thermal pads


----------



## rruff (Apr 19, 2021)

LcT89 said:


> I think I'll buy a cooling pad with movable fans and some day (after warranty expiration, probably) I'll repaste CPU/GPU and change all thermal pads


You might try just tilting the back up a cm or two to let air flow more easily. 

Curious if you've done any testing on your 2070 Super... I'd like to know how much faster it is vs my 2060, and how much you're able to OC it.


----------



## LcT89 (Apr 19, 2021)

rruff said:


> You might try just tilting the back up a cm or two to let air flow more easily.
> 
> Curious if you've done any testing on your 2070 Super... I'd like to know how much faster it is vs my 2060, and how much you're able to OC it.


I have to reinstall timespy, but before the CPU undervolt I remember something like 8500 or similar! Before the gpu overclock I think I'll wait the additional fans, for now there is alredy too much heat inside this piece of plastic/metal!


----------



## rruff (Apr 19, 2021)

LcT89 said:


> I have to reinstall timespy, but before the CPU undervolt I remember something like 8500 or similar! Before the gpu overclock I think I'll wait the additional fans, for now there is alredy too much heat inside this piece of plastic/metal!


GPU overclock won't make any more heat. You are limited to 115W just like me. You'll just get more frequency at a lower voltage. In the GPU tests the CPU isn't taxed at all, and the GPU temperatures are easy to keep in control. On mine OCing the Vram was the most performance/watt boost by a lot.

The free 3DMark tests are annoying. Unigine tests are better, especially Heaven which loops... and can be run in windowed mode which is great for tweaking settings on the fly.

8500 is more than I expected. Someone told me the 2070 model stock was about the same as my 2060 with the OC (~10% faster than the 2060 stock). 8500 is ~30% faster! That would almost be worth paying real money for


----------



## LcT89 (Apr 20, 2021)

@unclewebb , I was trying to modify the "Non Turbo Ratio" parameter: now is 25, max is 26 and min is 0. But when I change it (with or without locking), even after a reboot and/or a sleep-wake cycle, nothing seems to change. What is it's purpose?


----------



## EEAM.Peru (Apr 20, 2021)

Hey everyone, sorry for the late reply

Unless I get a decent cooling pad (40$) the air flow wont make a difference. Also this laptop is for a client so a cooling pad is not considered in the buget. I buy new laptops from the states and sell them here in Peru. I like to tune them as an extra before delivering them. Undervolt is one of those mods I provide.

@rruff all my testings were done using a support with an angle of 30° aprox. my room temps is around 18-20 °C

The 17" having better cooling is something I've always seen in temps tests from reviewers (mostly Jarrod Tech)

Sadly I cant repaste this laptop since it would lose it's warranty. I could contact MSI, but I really doubt they will agree. Shame because some grizzly could probably give me that sweet 4.3GHZ.

Regarding the new problem with the cache ratio from 4.7 to 4.3 I dont have that modification. As of today 20/04 I have all windows updates and dont have that micro code update. This is also a GL65 Leo 10SFSK. Maybe it's a BIOS update, but I would need to that manually. I guess I wont be doing that.

Sadly I have to deliver this laptop soon and dont have more time to do the 2070 Super 115W OC + Undervolt (And also have spent too much time on this unit and my client wont use it for gaming just Autocad). Maybe with the next laptop I could try. I bring many units from time to time.

If anyone stumbles upon this post:

Final settings are the following:

Stable
No repaste
Support at °45 no fans
Tested 90 minutes AIDA64 Extreme + Unigine Heaven (following r/suggestalaptop testing guide)
No max Fans
MSI Dragon Center Extreme Performance + Game Mode ON
TS Bench Random 5 passes
The Witcher 3 Ultra settings Max all settings 30 minutes Novigrad (or whatever it's spelled)

C20 improved by 110-150 points aprox from stock (Remember to always test with only C20 and TS open, close all other apps). Temps stayed the same as stock.

Not the best, but decent UV for a i7 10th gen considering all of the above . Repaste, max fans and good cooling pad (with decent airflow not the cheap ones) could really improve those numbers.

Thanks @rruff  and @unclewebb


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 20, 2021)

LcT89 said:


> Non Turbo Ratio


If Speed Shift is enabled, I do not think the Non Turbo Ratio setting is used anymore. The CPU ignores this setting.

My 4th Gen laptop does not support Speed Shift. I used to set the Non Turbo Ratio to 1. This trick turned every multiplier request into a request for the maximum multiplier. Without this trick, my Lenovo laptop would disable turbo boost when the Nvidia GPU was active. Setting this to 1 was an easy way to avoid that type of throttling.


----------



## LcT89 (Apr 21, 2021)

Now I am a little bit disappointed and confused. I've proceeded with the downgrade of every previous bios version, deleted the mcupdate DLL from system32 (so reverted to 0xC8 microcode) and the maximum cache ratio is still 43. How is that possible?


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 21, 2021)

LcT89 said:


> How is that possible?


Not sure. I have never been able to find in the Intel documentation what the default cache ratio is supposed to be. Perhaps these CPUs come in two different varieties. That sounds a little crazy but with Intel, anything is possible. If you do not document what the cache ratio is supposed to be then you can make a change on the assembly line. No one can complain that it does not run at spec if there is no publicly documented spec for the CPU cache ratio to live up to.

I guess you are forever stuck with a cache ratio max of 43.


----------



## rruff (Apr 21, 2021)

LcT89 said:


> Now I am a little bit disappointed and confused.


Don't worry... it has little affect on performance.


----------



## LcT89 (Apr 22, 2021)

unclewebb said:


> Perhaps these CPUs come in two different varieties.





rruff said:


> it has little affect on performance.


If it is a factory choice I'm ok with it. My only concern is if it could be a symptom of some kind of defective CPU. 
Or my fault.
A week ago I tried to set the prochot to 98/99, closer to the 100°C intel's safety limit, and the laptop shutted down immediately when the temp has reached those values in a bench (just for a sec, I was constantly monitoring it). Could be possible that I broke the CPU and fu***d up that value?


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 22, 2021)

LcT89 said:


> I broke the CPU


The chance of that is zero. It makes virtually zero difference to performance. No need to lose sleep over this. When doing anything important, multiple cores will be active and the cache will rarely if ever be over 43 anyhow. Having a 43 max cache limit is like having a speedometer that only goes to 150 mph instead of 200 mph. It is not important.


----------



## LcT89 (Apr 22, 2021)

unclewebb said:


> The chance of that is zero


Good to know.

The other doubt of a defect comes from some weeks earlier. I use the free version of VMware player for internship purposes and with the old i5-4000 series I had no problems. Now, with the i7-10750, when I create a VM and set to virtualize performance counters, I receive an error. I can also leave without it, but it's the second anomaly in two weeks for a 1700€ laptop (yes, sadly in Italy we have high prices and taxes for electronics)

The worst thing is that on internet there isn't much on both anomalies, intel's datasheets aren't helpful and obviously I can't call Amazon's or MSI's support guys talking about virtual performance counters and cache ratios (unless I want to hear "have you tried to restart the laptop and clean the cookies?")


----------



## rruff (Apr 22, 2021)

LcT89 said:


> Now, with the i7-10750, when I create a VM and set to virtualize performance counters, I receive an error.


My first thought is to try without the UV settings and see if it still occurs.


----------



## LcT89 (Apr 22, 2021)

rruff said:


> try without the UV settings



UV settings? If you mean the undervolt, the error was before that



rruff said:


> Don't worry... it has little affect on performance.


At this point I have only one doubt about this: 47 is your max limit or you can raise over it? Not that you have to actually test the stability of it, but to understand if it's set as a fused maximum limit inside the CPU or not.


----------



## rruff (Apr 22, 2021)

LcT89 said:


> At this point I have only one doubt about this: 47 is your max limit or you can raise over it? Not that you have to actually test the stability of it, but to understand if it's set as a fused maximum limit inside the CPU or not.


If I put in a higher number it reverts to 47 when I save it.


----------



## LcT89 (Apr 22, 2021)

rruff said:


> If I put in a higher number it reverts to 47 when I save it.


ok so it seems like actually a fused value from factory


----------



## LcT89 (May 1, 2021)

rruff said:


> GPU overclock won't make any more heat. You are limited to 115W just like me. You'll just get more frequency at a lower voltage. In the GPU tests the CPU isn't taxed at all, and the GPU temperatures are easy to keep in control. On mine OCing the Vram was the most performance/watt boost by a lot.
> 
> The free 3DMark tests are annoying. Unigine tests are better, especially Heaven which loops... and can be run in windowed mode which is great for tweaking settings on the fly.
> 
> 8500 is more than I expected. Someone told me the 2070 model stock was about the same as my 2060 with the OC (~10% faster than the 2060 stock). 8500 is ~30% faster! That would almost be worth paying real money for


After a very basic overclock (+120 clock, +1000 memory and no fine-tuning) I can reach 8900 in time-spy graphics score. But I can't go higher with fine-tuning on the curve. I've seen that the top score on 3dmark timespy, with same CPU and GPU, it's over 10'000 on graphics score but I can't explain myself how is that possible


----------



## LcT89 (May 2, 2021)

@rruff made a (maybe obvious) discovery:
after shifting from 84 to 0 the Speedshift-EEP in Throttlestop, graphics scores jumped up from 9050 to 9227.
Suggestion: in the afterburner curve, try to rise the low voltage values before the high ones. A good start-point is to watch the 3dmark / other benchmark report and choose the MHz(V) values on the curve corresponding to the most used frequency steps during the benchmark itself


----------



## rruff (May 2, 2021)

LcT89 said:


> @rruff made a (maybe obvious) discovery:
> after shifting from 84 to 0 the Speedshift-EEP in Throttlestop, graphics scores jumped up from 9050 to 9227.
> Suggestion: in the afterburner curve, try to rise the low voltage values before the high ones.


You're getting a very good score! Almost makes me wish I'd sprung for the Raider 2070 Super when it was on sale. You are now 26% faster than my OC score. CPU score is basically the same. 

One thing I noticed is that your vram clock is quite slow... even slower than mine, and I have the crappy low voltage vram that Nvidia switched to in 2020 on the 2060s. The way Timespy measures it's ~1690 Mhz. Have you maxed that out? On mine it was a much bigger FPS/W bonus than the GPU clock, and since we are wattage constrained, that's very important. 

Unigine Heaven is a good one to use for tweaking on the fly. You can run in windowed mode and it loops... so you can adjust your vram OC in real time til you get artifacts, then back off til there are none... ever. The free version of Timespy is annoying to use, because it makes you go through a demo each time... Superposition is another good one to check.


----------



## LcT89 (May 2, 2021)

rruff said:


> You're getting a very good score! Almost makes me wish I'd sprung for the Raider 2070 Super when it was on sale. You are now 26% faster than my OC score. CPU score is basically the same.
> 
> One thing I noticed is that your vram clock is quite slow... even slower than mine, and I have the crappy low voltage vram that Nvidia switched to in 2020 on the 2060s. The way Timespy measures it's ~1690 Mhz. Have you maxed that out? On mine it was a much bigger FPS/W bonus than the GPU clock, and since we are wattage constrained, that's very important.
> 
> Unigine Heaven is a good one to use for tweaking on the fly. You can run in windowed mode and it loops... so you can adjust your vram OC in real time til you get artifacts, then back off til there are none... ever. The free version of Timespy is annoying to use, because it makes you go through a demo each time... Superposition is another good one to check.


just a 3dmark error, the memory was at 2000 MHz!


----------



## Bachluong (May 3, 2021)

Hello, 

FIrstly, I would like to say thank you all for this informative thread. I followed all the references and was able to boost the performance of my 10750H by almost 20%, according to CinebenchR20.

The chassis is MSI GF75 with mediocre cooling ability, so I was only able to run it with full load up to 67W before the CPU temp reached thermal throttle stage (I think MSI set it at 95). 

At 67W, the core clock maxed out at 4090MHz for the first 2/3 of the test before the chip automatically drop back to 54W and 3800MHz (I thought the TDP is 45W, so it's weird), so I set all cores in FIVR up to 41. The rest of the settings in FIVR as you can see are simply trial and error.

Before performing the run on CinebenchR20, I reboot the system, set the fan at max (6000RPM), select power option to Ultimate Performance (I dont think It does anything for my case), turn off all non-essential, even dim the screen to minimum... The best score I got is just below 3090 and I think I that's my limit in this setup.

Any suggestion / input is very welcome,

Regard,


----------



## LcT89 (May 4, 2021)

Bachluong said:


> Any suggestion / input is very welcome,


Sure that you have removed the power limits inside the bios?



rruff said:


> To get into the bios, hit the delete key while booting.
> 1) To get into the extended bios, press these 4 keys together: Right ctrl+shift+left alt+F2.
> 2) Go the the Advanced tab, scroll down to Overclocking Performance Menu: Overclocking Feature [Enabled]
> 3) Hit the back button, and now scroll down to Power and performance: CPU Power management control: CPU Lock configuration: CFG Lock and Overclock Lock [Disable]
> 4) Save and exit



1) completely uninstall dragon center & MSI SDK (you can gain A LOT uninstalling the two, dunno what it does on the CPU but it does it BAD) and restart the pc. If you want to tweak the fan, use silent option. If you want to tweak GPU, use afterburner. If you use the battery limit, you can set it before uninstall: it will stay the same after.
2) Start with a fresh folder/install of throttlestop
3) Keep the turbo as stock (50,49,47,46,45,43) , try -125mV on core and -90mV on cache and start from those values in -5mV steps if you want downvolt more(i suspect that -200 on core isn't applied at all from the proc.).  Tick "Disable and Lock Turbo Power Limits".
4) SpeedShift EEP at 0, untick speedstep, tick c1e.
5) Run C23 with colerboost enabled, just to see the absolute maximum at fixed condition. C23 is a little more intensive on cpu compared to C20, so better for testing. Your goal is to see, during all the test, a stable clock of 4290 MHz. If all goes as it should, you should stay in the 8700-8850 range.
6) if you want to test CPU & GPU in game, @rruff suggested some good benchmark softwares. Personally for now I tried only the 3dmark suite (now on sale for a few dollars) and found that the port royal and dlss tests are the best (inside the suite) to find overclock limits

@unclewebb
A suggestion: in the past week, at the office, I found that I change a lot the prochot limit to make sure that the laptop stay absolutely in silence. It is possible to add a prochot value for every profile inside throttlestop? It could be very useful


----------



## rruff (May 4, 2021)

Bachluong said:


> The chassis is MSI GF75 with mediocre cooling ability, so I was only able to run it with full load up to 67W before the CPU temp reached thermal throttle stage (I think MSI set it at 95).


It makes sense that the GF75 would have poorer cooling ability... but again there is the weirdness of you only being able to get 4.1GHz at 67W even with a bigger UV than mine. 

The 45W TDP doesn't mean anything apparently. But I wonder if the 54W 3.8GHz limit (after ~60 sec?) is unique to your model. If you haven't tried yet, set the frequency to 3.9GHz and see if it still happens, and if it's always at the same time. Mine will power throttle (can't remember if it's 54W or something else) if I'm using the GPU and CPU at the same time, but it's after a couple minutes. On a pure CPU test it doesn't throttle.

Also, if you want to set your max frequency to avoid temperature and power throttling, you only need to adjust down the 6-core value to 4.1GHz. You can leave the 1 and 2 core values as high as possible and maybe drop the others down .1GHz.


----------



## unclewebb (May 4, 2021)

LcT89 said:


> Is it possible to add a prochot value for every profile inside throttlestop?


That sounds like a good idea. Maybe I will add that feature to ThrottleStop someday.


----------



## Bachluong (May 5, 2021)

rruff said:


> The 45W TDP doesn't mean anything apparently. But I wonder if the 54W 3.8GHz limit (after ~60 sec?) is unique to your model. If you haven't tried yet, set the frequency to 3.9GHz and see if it still happens, and if it's always at the same time. Mine will power throttle (can't remember if it's 54W or something else) if I'm using the GPU and CPU at the same time, but it's after a couple minutes. On a pure CPU test it doesn't throttle.
> 
> Also, if you want to set your max frequency to avoid temperature and power throttling, you only need to adjust down the 6-core value to 4.1GHz. You can leave the 1 and 2 core values as high as possible and maybe drop the others down .1GHz.



I tried your suggestions and here are a few things I found:
- At lower Watt setting (67W or less), tempt slowly crawl up to over 90, and it take longer for the 54W Power Throttle to kick in (around 45s ).
- At higher Watt setting (73W or more), tempt goes up fast to PROCHOT (95) and the 54W Power Throttle also kick in earlier (around 38s).
- I set the 6th core at 4.1 and the other cores at higher values (4.5 & 4.3). During the bench run, frequency seems to stuck at the lowest core (4.1) regardless.

Here is the screenshot of when the Power Throttle kick in, as you can see I only run CPU test only.








LcT89 said:


> Sure that you have removed the power limits inside the bios?
> 
> 
> 
> 1) completely uninstall dragon center & MSI SDK (you can gain A LOT uninstalling the two, dunno what it does on the CPU but it does it BAD) and restart the pc. If you want to tweak the fan, use silent option. If you want to tweak GPU, use afterburner. If you use the battery limit, you can set it before uninstall: it will stay the same after.




I did every step that you mentioned. MSI BIOS is definitely very user friendly.

Thank you for the tip on Silent Option. I got rid of Dragon Center as soon as I got this fan control alternative.

I found that Dragon Center took a damn long time to boot up (probably due to SDK loading). So it sure as hell has some negative effect on the CPU idle.

WIth some tweaks on the setting (4.2 GHz / 73W), I was able to break the 3100 bar with almost zero thermal limit, definitely a result I can go to sleep with.


----------



## rruff (May 6, 2021)

Bachluong said:


> I tried your suggestions and here are a few things I found:
> - At lower Watt setting (67W or less), tempt slowly crawl up to over 90, and it take longer for the 54W Power Throttle to kick in (around 45s ).
> - At higher Watt setting (73W or more), tempt goes up fast to PROCHOT (95) and the 54W Power Throttle also kick in earlier (around 38s).
> - I set the 6th core at 4.1 and the other cores at higher values (4.5 & 4.3). During the bench run, frequency seems to stuck at the lowest core (4.1) regardless.


Well... I just did the TSBench long test and discovered that my processor also power throttles.... but only down to 65W, which is close to the ~69W it uses at 12x 4.3GHz. It kicked in after ~110s when max temperature was ~90C. If I get bored I may look around in the bios and see if there is a way to change that. It's been long enough since I've been focused on this that I forget a lot of the things I've tried... 

In Cinebench20 it never throttles with the single pass. Got a score of 3395 in that, which I think is the highest I've seen. 

If you choose all cores in a benchmark then the CPU will use your settings for all cores. The reason for increasing the frequency at lower core counts is because you can... and you won't have thermal issues. A lot of software only uses one core, and many don't use them all. If you run TSBench with different #thread settings you'll see a difference... or C20 on single core.


----------



## Bachluong (May 7, 2021)

rruff said:


> On my new laptop I started with the GPU. Unlike desktop systems, laptops have strict power limits that really nerf the GPU performance. This is set by the manufacturer and usually can't be changed. Mine is set to the highest value for a mobile 2060 (115W) but that is still very restrictive. Any time it has a high load it will slam into that 115W ceiling pretty quickly, even though the temperatures are fine (~75C with the stock fan curve). So even though the GPU is capable of running at ~2100MHz at the stock 1.063v, it never gets close because the power consumption would be over 115W. So in order to get higher performance you need to do a combination of undervolting and overclocking. I started with no changes to the default laptop configuration (ie I don't know what the power settings, Dragon Center settings, or anything else were). This looks like a good guide for Afterburner (though I didn't use it): https://www.msi.com/blog/get-a-free-performance-boost-with-afterburner-oc-scanner



Apologize ahead of time for continuously hijacking your thread, but the whole Nvidia forum doesn't seem to be as helpful as this thread alone lol. I spent hours trying to boost the performance of my GTX 1650 with little success (I know it's a crappy card but that's the only option came with the GF75 in my region, next best thing was 1660ti but only in a GF65 chassis).

So basically, I tried 4 different ways to unlock the Core Voltage control on MSI Afterburner and only the method that seems to work was modifying the "VEN_10DE&DEV_1341&SUBSYS_2281103C&REV_A2&BUS_10&DEV_0&FN_0" file in the Profile folder. However, after unlocking the voltae slider and moving it to any given position, as soon as I hit "apply", the setting went back to default (0). Bottom line is, I'm stuck with the first 3 unusable sliders.

Moving on to the funny part, I can let the Core Clock run at any position from -500 to +200 and the GPU would just ignore the value and crank it up to 1380MHz under light load and 1785MHz under heavy load. Core Clock will be be stabilized "forever" at 1785MHz if I give it a setting of at least +100 or so. I selected core +212, app crash under load. I selected core +220, everything crashed. If I uninstall the MSI Afterburner, I wont be able to monitor the core but I suspect it will automatically crank up to 1785MHz aswell. I was hoping to get close the 2000MHz for the Core Clock as some guys on youtube said they did on GTX 1650 desktop, but I highly doubt it's possible on this mobile version.

The only slider seem to work (fully under my command) is the Memory Clock. I can crank it up to maximum +2000 which give me total of 8000MHz. Since my GTX 1650 is the newer DDR6 version, I have 6000MHz base Memory Clock to start with instead of 4000MHz on the older DDR5 version. Last but not least, according to the spec sheets below, Core Clock 1785MHz is the boost frequency of GTX 1660, not 1650 DDR5 or 1650 DDR6, which does not make any sense to me ...









						NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Specs
					

NVIDIA TU117, 1665 MHz, 896 Cores, 56 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 4096 MB GDDR5, 2001 MHz, 128 bit




					www.techpowerup.com
				












						NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 GDDR6 Specs
					

NVIDIA TU117, 1590 MHz, 896 Cores, 56 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 4096 MB GDDR6, 1500 MHz, 128 bit




					www.techpowerup.com
				












						NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Specs
					

NVIDIA TU116, 1785 MHz, 1408 Cores, 88 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 6144 MB GDDR5, 2001 MHz, 192 bit




					www.techpowerup.com
				




Here is the screenshot of Afterburner when I give the GPU some load. I have seen the power usage up to around 50W under full load, not sure if It can go further without the working core voltage slider.


----------



## rruff (May 7, 2021)

You don't appear to be using the scan or the generated curve. Any reason for that? Leave the voltage slider alone... you don't need it.

50W is probably a hard limit on your laptop. But it would be odd if it was frequency locked.


----------



## Bachluong (May 7, 2021)

rruff said:


> You don't appear to be using the scan or the generated curve. Any reason for that? Leave the voltage slider alone... you don't need it.
> 
> 50W is probably a hard limit on your laptop. But it would be odd if it was frequency locked.



OC scan doesn't work for me. I tried a couple other MSI Afterburner versions and all show same error. I suspect it only works with RTX cards. 

I can open up the curve but not sure what to do with it without a proper OC scan.


----------



## rruff (May 7, 2021)

Google that error and see if you can learn anything.

From what I can see of the graph it appears to be applying your OC. Try running Heaven in windowed mode and use HWinfo for monitoring while it runs. I'd start with something smaller like a +100 OC. If +2000 is stable on vram, that's pretty awesome.

BTW... found several instances of people running the scan and OCing a 1650 laptop, but YMMV. AB isn't supported on laptops so it doesn't always work.


----------



## Bachluong (Jul 20, 2021)

rruff said:


> The 45W TDP doesn't mean anything apparently. But I wonder if the 54W 3.8GHz limit (after ~60 sec?) is unique to your model. If you haven't tried yet, set the frequency to 3.9GHz and see if it still happens, and if it's always at the same time. Mine will power throttle (can't remember if it's 54W or something else) if I'm using the GPU and CPU at the same time, but it's after a couple minutes. On a pure CPU test it doesn't throttle.


 
After alot of reading on other threads, I can confirmed that the 55W long term power limit is enforced by MSI on (AFAIK) the GF Thin series. I've seen some GS users figure out a way to trick their BIOS to remove such limit ... Well, i'll dig into that at a later time.



rruff said:


> It makes sense that the GF75 would have poorer cooling ability... but again there is the weirdness of you only being able to get 4.1GHz at 67W even with a bigger UV than mine.



Believe it or not, I thought about this line for a very long time. At the default settings of TS, I could not get all 6 cores to run 4.3GHz without at least 80W on PL2 (BIOS says I can push 91W so no problem there). Even then, as you can guess thermal was bad and R20 score didnt improve very much. So I was happy to keep my cache at around -102.5 for awhile.

Recently, I have been playing around with the Cache Ratio min/max and Speed Shift min/max on TS and I found out several interesting tweaks:

- If you set the Cache Ratio at a lower number, you get more Mhz out of the same Watt input. At the same time, stability also decrease (the opposite is true).  

- Cache Ratio will go no lower than 9, even if you put 0-8 on min.

- Cache Ratio will go no lower than the min value on Speed Shift minus 3 (If I set Speed Shift min = 26 and Cache Ratio min = 1, the Cache Ratio = 23). There are many other threads on the webs about this topic of Cache Ratio vs Multiplier so I wont go into details here, but most of them intel users also recommend Cache Ratio to be no more than 300Mhz below the CPU operating frequency. _*"light bulb"*_

- More negative cache offset = more Mhz out of the same Watt input. At the same time, stability also decrease. (This one is nothing new, but It's related to the first tweak)

So after some deductive resasonings, I come up with a theory that: I can pull the Cache Offset slider further to the left to get more Mhz out of the same Watt, at the same time increase the Cache Ratio to get more stability. Now I can run 6 cores at the higher frequency that I want with the lower PL2 limit, therefore reduce alot of heat and delay the point of thermal throttling. Below is my initial testing and result:


Here is the screenshot before (Cache Offset = -102.5 / Cache Ratio = 12 / Speed Shift min = 12)







Here is the screenshot after (Cache Offset = -125.0 / Cache Ratio = 23 / Speed Shift min = 26)







As you can see, the R20 score hit a new record for me. I now can run 4.2 Ghz all core with less than 72W vs full 75W previously. System run very stable so far, both in or out of games, so I believe this is not the limit. We all know that we can not just pull the slide forever to the left, there is always a point of diminishing return, and I dont know if I'm there yet. I need a lot more testing as there are more variables on the table now, but this is very promising.

Enjoy,


----------



## yotano211 (Jul 20, 2021)

Bachluong said:


> After alot of reading on other threads, I can confirmed that the 55W long term power limit is enforced by MSI on (AFAIK) the GF Thin series. I've seen some GS users figure out a way to trick their BIOS to remove such limit ... Well, i'll dig into that at a later time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


On the ge75 with the 10750h I get 4.3ghz 100% at 62w with a .70v undervolt in the msi bios.


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 20, 2021)

yotano211 said:


> .70v undervolt


I think you mean a -70 mV undervolt which is -0.070 V.

No CPU is going to be stable with a -0.70 undervolt.


----------



## yotano211 (Jul 20, 2021)

yotano211 said:


> On the ge75 with the 10750h I get 4.3ghz 100% at 62w with a .70v undervolt in the msi bios.


I meant to say -70mv.


----------



## Bachluong (Jul 20, 2021)

Either way, seems like you won the silicon lottery.


----------



## yotano211 (Jul 21, 2021)

Bachluong said:


> Either way, seems like you won the silicon lottery.


Not really, I use liquid metal for TIM. It helps with the temps. -.70mv is about average for undevolt. I saw a few people use .90mv and higher without freezing.


----------



## Bachluong (Jul 21, 2021)

yotano211 said:


> Not really, I use liquid metal for TIM. It helps with the temps. -.70mv is about average for undevolt. I saw a few people use .90mv and higher without freezing.


Good to hear. Im still on factory paste, so there is room for improvement after warranty period.


----------



## yotano211 (Jul 21, 2021)

Bachluong said:


> Good to hear. Im still on factory paste, so there is room for improvement after warranty period.


My laptop is still on warranty period. 
Are you in the US?


----------



## Anarchy0110 (Jul 21, 2021)

Bachluong said:


> Good to hear. Im still on factory paste, so there is room for improvement after warranty period.



Glad to see a fellow countryman here in this forum. Nice little journey you have here in the topic, and a warm welcome to the forum as well (if you haven't got one!)


----------



## rruff (Jul 21, 2021)

yotano211 said:


> Not really, I use liquid metal for TIM. It helps with the temps. -.70mv is about average for undevolt. I saw a few people use .90mv and higher without freezing.


True. The 62W @4.3GHz is the unusual part, and the paste won't help with that... but as uncleweb has stated the self reported power isn't reliable. 

Did you run benchmarks before/after to compare thermal performance?


----------



## Bachluong (Jul 21, 2021)

Faith[ROG].Anarchy said:


> Glad to see a fellow countryman here in this forum. Nice little journey you have here in the topic, and a warm welcome to the forum as well (if you haven't got one!)



Xin cảm ơn. Best tech forum I've been to in years. 

Thank you again to rruff and unclewebb for all the contributions, you all helped turning my overpriced electric frying pan into an adequate gaming machine.


----------



## yotano211 (Jul 22, 2021)

rruff said:


> True. The 62W @4.3GHz is the unusual part, and the paste won't help with that... but as uncleweb has stated the self reported power isn't reliable.
> 
> Did you run benchmarks before/after to compare thermal performance?


I didn't run any benchmarks. I don't really like benchmarks. Plus I'm moving to a laptop with a 11800h cpu, I won't be borthing with this laptop anymore.


----------

