I'm really surprised the Nvidia actually listened to the very vocal minority in this instance, given the knows risks of overclocking in a notebook and the very few people that do it.
They got nothing to lose anyway. They will put disclaimer that they hold no responsibility or whatsoever for using it. They will also gain more profit by selling more because overclocking = decrease lifetime law.
I for one am very doubtful there are significant risks involved. If your cooling isn't adequate, the chip might throttle, defeating your overclock. If the chip you have isn't a good sample, you might get random errors/crashes and would have to pull back the clock speed. With the safeguards built into chips today, it's nearly impossible to damage hardware by overclocking.
More severe consequences like thermal shutdown (causing you to lose unsaved work), happen only when the heatsink is so clogged with dust that air can barely get through. But in those cases, you'd have problems at stock speeds anyways. And the few reports I've seen of totally bricked laptops have come from BIOS modding. Unless you're doing that, I see just about zero risk from overclocking.
A few of us have notebooks with the thermal design robust enough to overlock and simultaneously undervolt a GPU by about 25% on the core clock, and 19% on the memory clock, and run it stably, going 3 years strong now. :)
Plays battlefield really nicely, too :)
A few of us love pushing our machines as far as they'll go and don't mind willingly taking the risks to do so. Let us have our fun.
If you really need more performance than what your mobile GPU offers, you really should buy a desktop. There's a reason these chunky boxes still exist.
Yes and no... the latest GTX 980M GPUs are very impressive and tend to handle 1080p "Max" settings in nearly every game. Where they fall short, it's often not by much, so being able to bump things up another 10% or so might be enough to hit 60 FPS. Still, I definitely see where NVIDIA is coming from, and I wonder how many GPUs/notebooks have had to be serviced after GPU overheating problems (with or without overclocking). The old GeForce Go 8000 series has likely left a bad taste in a few people's mouths, and NVIDIA would be better to err on the side of caution than to risk a repeat of that.
With the power and thermal limits I do not see disabling overclocking as having any significant impact on device longevity. Yes a few extra degrees may cause a BGA solder joint to fail sooner, but like you said, many fail without ever being overclocked. I have repaired several bad BGAs on GPUs, and I consistently find that the user never cleaned their GPU radiator after years of use, which I feel is a much bigger issue than extra stress from overclocking.
In addition, prior to overclocking being disabled, overvolting was disabled, and the overclock was limited to 135MHz in the vBIOS, which often on the 980m would be throttled back to stock of lower due to the power limit. The only way to overclock cards significantly since the 680m required flashing a modified vBIOS. Flashing a modified vBIOS with higher clocks would still overclock even with overclocking disabled in the driver, but disabling it in the driver made overclocking more of a hassle and harder to tweak just right.
With Nvidia reverting to just allowing a 135MHz overclock with no voltage or power limit control on stock vBIOS, I feel they are striking a good balance with keeping uninformed users from pushing their hardware too hard unknowingly, while still allowing the enthusiasts to flash a modified vBIOS to reach very high overclocks if desired.
Is that the way they're going to do it? Allow OC but fix the power and thermal limits? If yes: that's exactly the way it should be! No harm done unless you cross the stability border, yet the freedom to exploit whatever headroom the chip lottery gave you.
This is really a uninformed post. Lots of people happily game on a laptop, and GPU matters there just as it does on a desktop machine. An extra 10-20% is just that, more performance. That may mean enabling MSAA or hitting more acceptable frame-rates on newer games. For laptops that can be configured with dual GPUs, overclocking a single GPU (or lesser SKU) is essentially no problem at all. Jarred's comments on not attempting this on a thin and light laptop make a lot of sense. In the end, thermal throttling pretty much prevents failures or the like. So why not try, assuming you have a non-compact model?
There's a reason why laptops exist. Some people literally cannot get a desktop (like me) because of space and portability requirements. However, those people also desire the highest performance possible.
If they didn't have power and thermal throttling, you'd be right. But if you're not allowed to tamper with power targets, thermal targets, and voltage (like you can on a desktop)? There's really not too much harm in a slight overclock. You might have less consistent performance though, if you have it banging against the limit a lot. So you should only overclock as much as your cooling can handle (which likely means a very mild overclock).
Maybe. In three years, a GPU that routinely hits 85C (and then throttles a bit) is more likely to have problems than a GPU that stays at 75C and never throttles. Is it enough of a difference to matter? Probably not, as in three years the GPU will be getting old regardless.
My GPU by default is set to throttle at 110 Degrees C. It is by no means safe to run the GPU constantly at or near boiling point, that's just where it is unsafe to even run it temporarily. You should not rely on that, don't be an idiot.
As one of those minority enthusiasts myself, I am interested in seeing your laptop overclocking article. My own 980M handles +135/+200 like a champ and rarely exceeds 70°C - in a chassis that's only 28.8mm thick, so think what the even beefier models can achieve!
I have an Alienware M14xR2. The GPU is a 650m, with 2GB of GDDR5 on a 128bit interface.
I usually overclock the ram by 50%, from 1000mhz to 1500mhz (so 4000 to 6000MT/s) and the GPU from 745mhz to 1000mhz.
This makes a massive difference in performance to me, and I wouldn't use any GPU drivers that lock out my overclock. In fact, it puts me in 660m territory, and has been fine for over 2 years of heavy use.
To much defence of Nvidia's shady practices when oems are advertising gaming laptops with overclocking as a feature especially as this bait and switch deflects from their other false advertising escapades
If the OEMs are advertising the feature -- no NVIDIA -- then why is this a shady practice by NVIDIA? And you'll note it's being rolled back so overclocking will return.
Regarding the "other false advertising" bit, as an owner of two 970 cards that "only" have 3.5GB of high-performance RAM, I can also say that the whole thing has been a bit silly. Performance didn't change at all, and the number of cases where the extra 512MB RAM would make a real difference is trivially small. If a game actually exceeds 3.5GB RAM use, it's going to be dangerously close to 4GB anyway, and the difference between 4GB and 2GB in texturing is virtually impossible to spot.
Seriously: from Far Cry 4 to Assassin's Creed Unity to Dragon Age Inquisition, you can turn the texture quality down one step from maximum but leave everything else at max, and in practice the only way to see any difference is to take screen shots and carefully look for minor variations.
It's just a matter of how strict they are with the cooling requirements and how well they are designed. I still have a phobia with any kind of GPU on a laptop as they fail too often. Yet.....
A well designed mobile GPU should be able to increase its fan and throttle at the same time to enhance reliability/longevity. Overclocking should give more noise or throttle more often and gives users something to play with such as custom cooling systems for notebooks to improve on the issue. It's a win for everyone, Nvidia or AMD shouldn't be too lazy or too scared of it.
I have to say this article seems to be pretty misdirected. Nearly every justificaition raised for disabling overclocking on laptops applies *exactly* the same to desktops. For example:
"I think NVIDIA might have disabled overclocking because it’s a way to keep people from effectively turning a GTX 780M into a GTX 880M, or the current GTX 980M into a… GTX 1080M" How is that any different to overclocking on desktops?
"if you have a laptop that is already nearing the throttling point, overclocking the GPU is going to increase the potential of throttling or potentially even damage the hardware." How is that different to overclocking on desktops?
"overclocking potential on notebooks as it can vary even between units of the same model" How is that different to overclocking on desktops?
"in many cases it voids the warranty" How is that different to overclocking on desktops?
"in practice is that mobile GPU overclocking is mostly going to be of use for people with larger gaming notebooks" How is that different to overclocking on desktops?
Again, pretty much everything here applies just the same to overclocking GPUs on desktops. The only potential question is that of degree - and even then it's tentative. Not all desktop computers are gigantic full-ATX towers with watercooling and twenty fans. There's dedicated GPUs in mITX cases, SFFs, AIOs, etc. Desktop GPUs can throttle. Desktop GPUs can overheat. Desktop GPUs can fail. Overclocking desktop GPUs is not free from risk either, and that risk is entirely the user's own risk to take. It's their own equipment and their own choice to break it if they want to. They don't restrict overclocking on desktops depending what size of case you put your graphics card in.
The only real difference would be where laptop GPUs are soldered onto the mainboard - thus 'bricking' the mainboard in the case of a GPU failure. But then that also brings one of the biggest arguments *for* overclocking a laptop - where users cannot upgrade their GPU even if they wanted to. Yet half the time I find a replacement laptop mainboard costs less than a high-end desktop GPU anyway. And it's not as if it's impossible to fry a desktop mainboard from a screwed up graphics card overclock either.
How about offering the OC option on per model bases? Test a prototype in their (Nvidia's) lab to see if the particular model can or cannot handle a sustained OC. Then enable it in BIOS on the models that can with more stringent thermal throttling and a clear warning that any damage caused to the hardware because of OCing is not covered by a warranty.
Incidentally, for me, the expression "gaming laptop" has always been a bit of an oxymoron. You want to game? Getcherself a proper desktop system.
You might overclock nVidia GPUs above the 135 MHz limit with nVidia Inspector. At least that's what I'm doing with my GTX660M. In nVidia Inspector you just force the 2nd perfomance mode P5 (not the highest mode which is P0). The P5 step can be overclocked as high as the GPU allows. I'm OCing 660M from 835 MHz core to 1300 MHz and the memory from 2500 MHz to 1300 MHz. The laptop is Lenovo Y580. With this overclock I manage to score 2400 point in 3DMark FireStrike which is the best score for any GTX 660M in 3DMarks database. Here's the link: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/4124687
You force the P5 state by making a shortcut to the nVidia Inspector .exe file with this parameter: "C:\nvidiaInspector.exe -forcepstate:0,5". To go back to the default state you make a shortcut with this parameter: "C:\nvidiaInspector.exe -forcePState:0,16". You can choose which state to overclock in nVidia Inspector's GUI. You might find a broader description about how to do it on the net somewhere.
First of all, I think that Nvidia saying a "bug" allowed their mobile GPU's to be OC'ed is an eyewash. Secondly, the last time they put forward such "innocent lies" was the time of the 970 fiasco. I think they are again trying to hide some flaw in their Maxwell mobile GPU's by disabling the OC. It is strange that the author blindly supports Nvidia in the issue. I mean that any OC'ing is risky if one is not entirely technically sound about it and by that logic, Nvidia can disable OC'ing in their desktop cards also. The same thermal and visual issues apply to the desktop cards also while OC'ing. Then why just the mobile cards? Also, I have OC'ed fermi and Kepler cards even with the new driver and that means Nvidia has disabled them for Maxwell gen only. Why?????
The "flaw" in 970 manifests itself in the loss of staggering 1% to 3% of performance in 4Gb VRAM scenarios. Measurement deviation, in other words. So Jarred is completely justified in his unwillingness to confirm whatever delusions tinfoil hats may have.
I usually use the overclocking feature to underclock my card. If it were removed, I simply wouldn't be able to play most games, as the manufacturer of this laptop did not properly thermally insulate the laptop. Disabling clock adjustments even in third party tools was especially a douche move.
Totally agree. I try and keep heat down by underclocking and using lower graphic settings and vsync in games where I can't see the difference from higher settings. Or overclock as the GTX680M is starting to need it in some situations (and it easily does +135MHz core). I do utterly flog my gaming laptops, they spend probably 10 hours on average per day on as it doubles as my work machine. I've had a G51J which would get past 95C on stock clocks which I had to play around with a bunch of temperature based clock profiles to keep it in the low 90's, which is still working as a HTPC to this day nearly 6 years on (and needs another repaste as it idles in the 70s and the 60% underclock it runs gets high 80's) but has had a relatively easier life since I backed over it and wrecked the screen.
Which brings me to another point, just like cars, if I had to choose a 20yr old car I would much rather one with moderately high milage and a preventative service record than a 20yr old garage queen that's got a low milage and is still on original everything. As an 'enthusiast' I know how to look after my stuff and know the importance of cleaning, blowing out fan grilles and repasting heatsinks. As hard as it is to do those on most laptops by the OEMs that complained and got Nvidia to try this harebrained lockout in the first place ("bug" trololol) - this is one of the many reasons I've had Clevos for four years now and they fit my purposes perfectly.
And even though it's 17 inch and 3kg+ I can carry it in a backpack easily, and most importantly, sit on the couch. Or in the kitchen while cooking. Or outside. Which you can't do with your desktop as it's stuck on your desk. So can this stupid internet statement that gaming laptops are a stupid product just be ended forever. If you don't want one don't buy one. Kthx
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
36 Comments
Back to Article
RazrLeaf - Friday, February 20, 2015 - link
I'm really surprised the Nvidia actually listened to the very vocal minority in this instance, given the knows risks of overclocking in a notebook and the very few people that do it.Flunk - Friday, February 20, 2015 - link
Well, given the conditions they lose very little from allowing it either.Cakefish - Saturday, February 21, 2015 - link
Exactly! Let us 'very few people' have our fun :)WorldWithoutMadness - Saturday, February 21, 2015 - link
They got nothing to lose anyway. They will put disclaimer that they hold no responsibility or whatsoever for using it. They will also gain more profit by selling more because overclocking = decrease lifetime law.chlamchowder - Thursday, February 26, 2015 - link
I for one am very doubtful there are significant risks involved. If your cooling isn't adequate, the chip might throttle, defeating your overclock. If the chip you have isn't a good sample, you might get random errors/crashes and would have to pull back the clock speed. With the safeguards built into chips today, it's nearly impossible to damage hardware by overclocking.More severe consequences like thermal shutdown (causing you to lose unsaved work), happen only when the heatsink is so clogged with dust that air can barely get through. But in those cases, you'd have problems at stock speeds anyways. And the few reports I've seen of totally bricked laptops have come from BIOS modding. Unless you're doing that, I see just about zero risk from overclocking.
WinterCharm - Thursday, February 26, 2015 - link
A few of us have notebooks with the thermal design robust enough to overlock and simultaneously undervolt a GPU by about 25% on the core clock, and 19% on the memory clock, and run it stably, going 3 years strong now. :)Plays battlefield really nicely, too :)
A few of us love pushing our machines as far as they'll go and don't mind willingly taking the risks to do so. Let us have our fun.
r3loaded - Friday, February 20, 2015 - link
If you really need more performance than what your mobile GPU offers, you really should buy a desktop. There's a reason these chunky boxes still exist.JarredWalton - Friday, February 20, 2015 - link
Yes and no... the latest GTX 980M GPUs are very impressive and tend to handle 1080p "Max" settings in nearly every game. Where they fall short, it's often not by much, so being able to bump things up another 10% or so might be enough to hit 60 FPS. Still, I definitely see where NVIDIA is coming from, and I wonder how many GPUs/notebooks have had to be serviced after GPU overheating problems (with or without overclocking). The old GeForce Go 8000 series has likely left a bad taste in a few people's mouths, and NVIDIA would be better to err on the side of caution than to risk a repeat of that.Khenglish - Friday, February 20, 2015 - link
With the power and thermal limits I do not see disabling overclocking as having any significant impact on device longevity. Yes a few extra degrees may cause a BGA solder joint to fail sooner, but like you said, many fail without ever being overclocked. I have repaired several bad BGAs on GPUs, and I consistently find that the user never cleaned their GPU radiator after years of use, which I feel is a much bigger issue than extra stress from overclocking.In addition, prior to overclocking being disabled, overvolting was disabled, and the overclock was limited to 135MHz in the vBIOS, which often on the 980m would be throttled back to stock of lower due to the power limit. The only way to overclock cards significantly since the 680m required flashing a modified vBIOS. Flashing a modified vBIOS with higher clocks would still overclock even with overclocking disabled in the driver, but disabling it in the driver made overclocking more of a hassle and harder to tweak just right.
With Nvidia reverting to just allowing a 135MHz overclock with no voltage or power limit control on stock vBIOS, I feel they are striking a good balance with keeping uninformed users from pushing their hardware too hard unknowingly, while still allowing the enthusiasts to flash a modified vBIOS to reach very high overclocks if desired.
MrSpadge - Friday, February 20, 2015 - link
Is that the way they're going to do it? Allow OC but fix the power and thermal limits? If yes: that's exactly the way it should be! No harm done unless you cross the stability border, yet the freedom to exploit whatever headroom the chip lottery gave you.Khenglish - Friday, February 20, 2015 - link
That's the way it used to work, and I hope they revert to that model.Cakefish - Saturday, February 21, 2015 - link
I agree!ExarKun333 - Friday, February 20, 2015 - link
This is really a uninformed post. Lots of people happily game on a laptop, and GPU matters there just as it does on a desktop machine. An extra 10-20% is just that, more performance. That may mean enabling MSAA or hitting more acceptable frame-rates on newer games. For laptops that can be configured with dual GPUs, overclocking a single GPU (or lesser SKU) is essentially no problem at all. Jarred's comments on not attempting this on a thin and light laptop make a lot of sense. In the end, thermal throttling pretty much prevents failures or the like. So why not try, assuming you have a non-compact model?Meaker10 - Saturday, February 21, 2015 - link
980M SLI tweaked goes toe to toe with a 970 desktop sli system, except there is no 3.5gb issue and you actually have 8GB of vram.Cakefish - Saturday, February 21, 2015 - link
There's a reason why laptops exist. Some people literally cannot get a desktop (like me) because of space and portability requirements. However, those people also desire the highest performance possible.whyso - Friday, February 20, 2015 - link
Overclocking without touching the voltage is pretty much harmless. Considering you cannot touch the voltage....should have no problem.HighTech4US - Friday, February 20, 2015 - link
Harmless you say!!!Where exactly does the extra (maybe even excessive) heat go. You do know that upping the frequency does up the heat.
And excessive heat will kill GPUs and CPUs over time.
Alexvrb - Friday, February 20, 2015 - link
If they didn't have power and thermal throttling, you'd be right. But if you're not allowed to tamper with power targets, thermal targets, and voltage (like you can on a desktop)? There's really not too much harm in a slight overclock. You might have less consistent performance though, if you have it banging against the limit a lot. So you should only overclock as much as your cooling can handle (which likely means a very mild overclock).Cakefish - Saturday, February 21, 2015 - link
That's why throttling exists. They will throttle before they reach danger levels.JarredWalton - Saturday, February 21, 2015 - link
Maybe. In three years, a GPU that routinely hits 85C (and then throttles a bit) is more likely to have problems than a GPU that stays at 75C and never throttles. Is it enough of a difference to matter? Probably not, as in three years the GPU will be getting old regardless.watermark0n - Monday, February 23, 2015 - link
My GPU by default is set to throttle at 110 Degrees C. It is by no means safe to run the GPU constantly at or near boiling point, that's just where it is unsafe to even run it temporarily. You should not rely on that, don't be an idiot.Cakefish - Saturday, February 21, 2015 - link
As one of those minority enthusiasts myself, I am interested in seeing your laptop overclocking article. My own 980M handles +135/+200 like a champ and rarely exceeds 70°C - in a chassis that's only 28.8mm thick, so think what the even beefier models can achieve!JarredWalton - Saturday, February 21, 2015 - link
Which laptop is that?rtho782 - Saturday, February 21, 2015 - link
I have an Alienware M14xR2. The GPU is a 650m, with 2GB of GDDR5 on a 128bit interface.I usually overclock the ram by 50%, from 1000mhz to 1500mhz (so 4000 to 6000MT/s) and the GPU from 745mhz to 1000mhz.
This makes a massive difference in performance to me, and I wouldn't use any GPU drivers that lock out my overclock. In fact, it puts me in 660m territory, and has been fine for over 2 years of heavy use.
obsidian24776 - Saturday, February 21, 2015 - link
To much defence of Nvidia's shady practices when oems are advertising gaming laptops with overclocking as a feature especially as this bait and switch deflects from their other false advertising escapadesJarredWalton - Saturday, February 21, 2015 - link
If the OEMs are advertising the feature -- no NVIDIA -- then why is this a shady practice by NVIDIA? And you'll note it's being rolled back so overclocking will return.Regarding the "other false advertising" bit, as an owner of two 970 cards that "only" have 3.5GB of high-performance RAM, I can also say that the whole thing has been a bit silly. Performance didn't change at all, and the number of cases where the extra 512MB RAM would make a real difference is trivially small. If a game actually exceeds 3.5GB RAM use, it's going to be dangerously close to 4GB anyway, and the difference between 4GB and 2GB in texturing is virtually impossible to spot.
Seriously: from Far Cry 4 to Assassin's Creed Unity to Dragon Age Inquisition, you can turn the texture quality down one step from maximum but leave everything else at max, and in practice the only way to see any difference is to take screen shots and carefully look for minor variations.
zodiacfml - Saturday, February 21, 2015 - link
It's just a matter of how strict they are with the cooling requirements and how well they are designed. I still have a phobia with any kind of GPU on a laptop as they fail too often. Yet.....A well designed mobile GPU should be able to increase its fan and throttle at the same time to enhance reliability/longevity. Overclocking should give more noise or throttle more often and gives users something to play with such as custom cooling systems for notebooks to improve on the issue. It's a win for everyone, Nvidia or AMD shouldn't be too lazy or too scared of it.
qasdfdsaq - Saturday, February 21, 2015 - link
I have to say this article seems to be pretty misdirected. Nearly every justificaition raised for disabling overclocking on laptops applies *exactly* the same to desktops. For example:"I think NVIDIA might have disabled overclocking because it’s a way to keep people from effectively turning a GTX 780M into a GTX 880M, or the current GTX 980M into a… GTX 1080M"
How is that any different to overclocking on desktops?
"if you have a laptop that is already nearing the throttling point, overclocking the GPU is going to increase the potential of throttling or potentially even damage the hardware."
How is that different to overclocking on desktops?
"overclocking potential on notebooks as it can vary even between units of the same model"
How is that different to overclocking on desktops?
"in many cases it voids the warranty"
How is that different to overclocking on desktops?
"in practice is that mobile GPU overclocking is mostly going to be of use for people with larger gaming notebooks"
How is that different to overclocking on desktops?
Again, pretty much everything here applies just the same to overclocking GPUs on desktops. The only potential question is that of degree - and even then it's tentative. Not all desktop computers are gigantic full-ATX towers with watercooling and twenty fans. There's dedicated GPUs in mITX cases, SFFs, AIOs, etc. Desktop GPUs can throttle. Desktop GPUs can overheat. Desktop GPUs can fail. Overclocking desktop GPUs is not free from risk either, and that risk is entirely the user's own risk to take. It's their own equipment and their own choice to break it if they want to. They don't restrict overclocking on desktops depending what size of case you put your graphics card in.
The only real difference would be where laptop GPUs are soldered onto the mainboard - thus 'bricking' the mainboard in the case of a GPU failure. But then that also brings one of the biggest arguments *for* overclocking a laptop - where users cannot upgrade their GPU even if they wanted to. Yet half the time I find a replacement laptop mainboard costs less than a high-end desktop GPU anyway. And it's not as if it's impossible to fry a desktop mainboard from a screwed up graphics card overclock either.
D. Lister - Saturday, February 21, 2015 - link
How about offering the OC option on per model bases? Test a prototype in their (Nvidia's) lab to see if the particular model can or cannot handle a sustained OC. Then enable it in BIOS on the models that can with more stringent thermal throttling and a clear warning that any damage caused to the hardware because of OCing is not covered by a warranty.Incidentally, for me, the expression "gaming laptop" has always been a bit of an oxymoron. You want to game? Getcherself a proper desktop system.
watermark0n - Monday, February 23, 2015 - link
Go away.daerragh - Sunday, February 22, 2015 - link
You might overclock nVidia GPUs above the 135 MHz limit with nVidia Inspector. At least that's what I'm doing with my GTX660M. In nVidia Inspector you just force the 2nd perfomance mode P5 (not the highest mode which is P0). The P5 step can be overclocked as high as the GPU allows. I'm OCing 660M from 835 MHz core to 1300 MHz and the memory from 2500 MHz to 1300 MHz. The laptop is Lenovo Y580. With this overclock I manage to score 2400 point in 3DMark FireStrike which is the best score for any GTX 660M in 3DMarks database. Here's the link: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/4124687daerragh - Sunday, February 22, 2015 - link
You force the P5 state by making a shortcut to the nVidia Inspector .exe file with this parameter: "C:\nvidiaInspector.exe -forcepstate:0,5". To go back to the default state you make a shortcut with this parameter: "C:\nvidiaInspector.exe -forcePState:0,16". You can choose which state to overclock in nVidia Inspector's GUI. You might find a broader description about how to do it on the net somewhere.Atakelane - Sunday, February 22, 2015 - link
First of all, I think that Nvidia saying a "bug" allowed their mobile GPU's to be OC'ed is an eyewash. Secondly, the last time they put forward such "innocent lies" was the time of the 970 fiasco. I think they are again trying to hide some flaw in their Maxwell mobile GPU's by disabling the OC.It is strange that the author blindly supports Nvidia in the issue. I mean that any OC'ing is risky if one is not entirely technically sound about it and by that logic, Nvidia can disable OC'ing in their desktop cards also. The same thermal and visual issues apply to the desktop cards also while OC'ing. Then why just the mobile cards? Also, I have OC'ed fermi and Kepler cards even with the new driver and that means Nvidia has disabled them for Maxwell gen only. Why?????
Michael Bay - Thursday, February 26, 2015 - link
The "flaw" in 970 manifests itself in the loss of staggering 1% to 3% of performance in 4Gb VRAM scenarios. Measurement deviation, in other words.So Jarred is completely justified in his unwillingness to confirm whatever delusions tinfoil hats may have.
watermark0n - Monday, February 23, 2015 - link
I usually use the overclocking feature to underclock my card. If it were removed, I simply wouldn't be able to play most games, as the manufacturer of this laptop did not properly thermally insulate the laptop. Disabling clock adjustments even in third party tools was especially a douche move.bennyg - Friday, February 27, 2015 - link
Totally agree. I try and keep heat down by underclocking and using lower graphic settings and vsync in games where I can't see the difference from higher settings. Or overclock as the GTX680M is starting to need it in some situations (and it easily does +135MHz core). I do utterly flog my gaming laptops, they spend probably 10 hours on average per day on as it doubles as my work machine. I've had a G51J which would get past 95C on stock clocks which I had to play around with a bunch of temperature based clock profiles to keep it in the low 90's, which is still working as a HTPC to this day nearly 6 years on (and needs another repaste as it idles in the 70s and the 60% underclock it runs gets high 80's) but has had a relatively easier life since I backed over it and wrecked the screen.Which brings me to another point, just like cars, if I had to choose a 20yr old car I would much rather one with moderately high milage and a preventative service record than a 20yr old garage queen that's got a low milage and is still on original everything. As an 'enthusiast' I know how to look after my stuff and know the importance of cleaning, blowing out fan grilles and repasting heatsinks. As hard as it is to do those on most laptops by the OEMs that complained and got Nvidia to try this harebrained lockout in the first place ("bug" trololol) - this is one of the many reasons I've had Clevos for four years now and they fit my purposes perfectly.
And even though it's 17 inch and 3kg+ I can carry it in a backpack easily, and most importantly, sit on the couch. Or in the kitchen while cooking. Or outside. Which you can't do with your desktop as it's stuck on your desk. So can this stupid internet statement that gaming laptops are a stupid product just be ended forever. If you don't want one don't buy one. Kthx