S-xps 1645 I7 4670

Low score in 3dmark, only P5259
I use 130w adapter
A12 BIOS
Latest ATI driver and Intel from ati and intel web
All settings set to perfomance and enabled

I reinstalled Windows 7 ultrimate 64 (no viruses and other apps)
Catalyst set to Default

CPU Score is normal, only GPU lags
GPU work on 675/800 temp 72c max

There is no change when i try on battery or 90w or 130w always the same score +-40p

Please help where can be a problem?
I think something like ATI card bios is limited in power...

 

have checked to make sure your Windows Power Plan is set to Balanced or High Performance? as well check that your ATI Power Play setting is set to Optimal Performance, or whatever the setting is called.

i thought 5259 pts is pretty decent for a 4670? or am i remembering incorrectly?

 

You should get like 2000 points more.
Take a look at this thread: http://forum.notebookreview.com/del...your-xps-16-futuremark-3d-mark-06-scores.html

 

All set to perfomance and in Catalyst and in Windows
CPU min 100% and max 100% too

daver160, yep

 

I think GPU is limited in power use

 

If you are concerned about power consumption, have you tried dimming the screen while you run the test, turning off wifi adaptors, unplugging peripherals (keyboard, mouse, etc), and the like? Also could try to use an external monitor.

Trying these things might be a good way to test if it is a power consumption issue or if it is something else.

 

RacingGun. the same score when i use it on external monitor ..
no change, laptop not take more than 90W even on 130w adapter....

 

In BIOS does it say 130W adapter?

 

Even if this was true (it only gets 90W out of the 130W adapter), it would not impact your 3DMark06 score. Secondly, you can tell this is the case as per your previous logs which showed no issues with CPU or GPU going to the right clocks (which they wouldn't if you had power issues).

Just saying the GPU issue is something else as far as logs go..

 

JKleiss, yes 130w

And where can be a problem ?

 

That's the question.. I don't know.

As we have similar machines (my extra 4GB or SSD don't change 3DMark06 score), I've tried getting similar scores as you but can't (either running on Battery and/or when running CCC PowerPlay in Maximise Battery life mode). It's not your RGB as you've tried external monitor and you've tried other BIOS versions (main ones being A09 and A12).

Unless you can see something new in the CPU/GPU logs between adapter/battery runs, then they're going to the right clocks so it's not lack of power.

Have you thought about using RivaTuner? You could use this to lock the GPU to the higher clocks for the full run (raise core or memory by 1). See if there's a difference.

 

I borow from friend digital wattmeter
on 90w adapter laptop eat 89w max
on 130w adapter laptop eat 92w max
i tested on 3dmark

 

I played crysis on high with lags on 130w adapter
laptop only takes 80w... why?

 

Because 80w is enough for it's purposes, your laptop won't draw more than it needs. Crysis just doesn't stress the CPU enough, and though it stresses the GPU, it's not a constant enough draw to really get heat/power consumption up. You need to use something like Prime95 + FurMark to get power consumption to anywhere near 130W.

 

Mixuil, it might be informative for yourself and for everyone trying to help you if you ran throttlestop (sorry I don't have the link to it, but you can search these forums to find it) while playing crysis or running 3dmark and then post the log here. ThrottleStop will tell you if you laptop is actually downclocking/reducing multipliers for your CPU or GPU, or if you are simply expecting too much out of your system. While these laptops are more than capable of running many games at acceptable speeds, they are by no means to be consider top-of-the-line gaming laptops.

Having said that I play games on mine all of the time, and love it... but often have to reduce graphics settings to get it to run well.

 

He already did so here: http://forum.notebookreview.com/dell-xps-studio-xps/521990-bios-modding-gpu-oc-fun-profit-32.html There was no throttling. We went through about 6 pages of troubleshooting, including a fresh install of the OS. There doesn't seem to be any problems, though his scores are about 1000 points lower than they should be. I'm really stumped as to why. If you want to look through the above linked thread and see if there's any test or possible problem/misconfiguration that we missed, please do.

 

FurMark - OpenGL benchmark and VGA Stress Test - Scores | oZone3D.Net
I Use furmark

I use stability test for 6 min
Avg=8fps
max temp 83c
111watt max

Xtreame burning mode, displacement mapping, PostFX enabled
1280x1024


Standart test http://www.ozone3d.net/benchmarks/furmark_score_180.php?id=94716f062223c1ea304a0f1a5a64f272

 

Sounds a bit high. Where did you get 111W?

The only method I've got is monitoring battery draw using TS. Furmark at 1920x1080 (everything ticked like you and clocks at 750/900) shows it's drawing 76.2W at max after few mins.

When I do Prime (small FTTs) it gets to 61.1W.

Can't do both combined as that kills the laptop if tried when on battery. Unclewebb explained this monitors the draw using the same method as Windows itself.

 

error-id10t, i have 130w adapter pluged into digital wattmeter ..

 

error-id10t, what is you score in 3dmark06 ?

 

Few days ago I was back at standard clocks and when I ran it I was getting 7208 (+/- 5 points) on few runs.

 

can you do just gt1
I want to know what is avr fps
i have 16.4

 

Can someone write catalyst 3d settings ?

 

Im assuming you have tried re-downloading new drivers and loading them or even going to ati/amd and using theirs. Also have you tried using throttle stop to see if you may possibly be throttling?

Even with my less wattage 5730 I max out at 115 (usually between 100-109 on max cpu and gpu usage), so seeing 111watts for a 4670 machine is actually pretty good. Most were maxing the 130watt adapter.

 

Defaults.. stay with them. I don't have that game you mentioned earlier so can't help there.

Unless I misunderstood his post, he was only running Furmark alone with no Prime.

I can't run them both at the same time to do this test, but if we put the numbers together from the individul Prime and then Furmark run, mine showed 137W all up.