Laptop reviewing and benchmarking comes with a unique challenge: We don’t typically get to hang onto review samples once the cycle is complete, unlike other review products, which limits regression testing for content like today’s. This means that we need to rely on some of our older testing and methodology, but we can still judge scaling based on old games – that should be mostly linear, with some exceptions (which we’ve accounted for in our summary of tests).
Fortunately, the upshot of revisiting older titles for comparative analysis is that those titles do not change. They don’t get updates to game code and they don’t get driver updates, so results should largely exist in a hermetically sealed state.
Regardless, today’s goal is to benchmark the GTX 1050 Ti notebook GPU. We still have a lot of work to do on notebooks as we work to rebuild our bench, but this will start us off. The GTX 1070 is next. We’re starting with an MSI GE72 7RE Apache Pro with GTX 1050 Ti and i7-7700HQ CPU. This isn’t a review of the GE72 – that’s upcoming – but just a GPU benchmark to help determine scaling and placement of the 1050 Ti against other notebook GPUs.
Our review of the notebook is forthcoming, as are a few feature benchmark pieces. It’ll be interesting stuff, as we’ve got some key things to point out with this one. Be sure to follow or subscribe to catch that. For today, let’s get into the 1050 Ti notebook benchmarks.
Corsair has jumped headlong into the ever-crowded gaming chair market. Initially announced at CES 2017, the prototype wasn’t quite ready as Corsair was still selecting what kind of casters to use. As of now, Corsair’s T1 Race is available.
“Inspired by racing, built to game” is the chosen mantra for the T1 Race, and hence its namesake, the T1 Race draws inspiration from bucket-seat, racing style chairs. The T1 Race is comprised of a streel frame, dressed in dense foam cushions and PU leather. PU (polyurethane) leather, also known as bicast leather, offers an affordable alternative to authentic leather and is generally considered easier to clean and maintain. Also included with the chair are PU pillows for neck and lumbar support, in clone-like fashion to the many other gaming chairs on the market (see: Vertagear, Dx Racer, HyperX chairs). Carbon fiber-esque adornments can be found upon the flanks of the seat and armrests.
AMD hosted its financial & analyst day today, revealing information on Vega, Threadripper, notebook deployments of its CPUs & GPUs, and data center products. Some timelines were loosely laid-out with initial benchmark previews, provided an outline for what to expect from AMD in the remainder of 2017.
Most of our time today will be spent detailing Vega, as it’s been the topic of most interest lately, with some preliminary information on the CPU products.
After pointing out that Intel’s budget-option Pentium G4560 CPU somewhat invalidates the Intel i3 lineup, particularly when that lineup is flanked by i5s and R5s, the next question was how good of a GPU can be paired with the G4560. Someone buying a $70 CPU won’t likely be buying a GTX 1080 – and probably not a 1070 – but we wanted to see how far up the scale we could go before encountering a CPU bottleneck. This kind of test has all manner of variables, naturally, so we’ve done our best to constraint them; the biggest is that of the games tested. Depending on graphics settings, GPU constraints could be imposed all over the place. We decided to opt for what we thought to be a somewhat realistic test: We took the G4560, paired it with GPUs ranging from ~$115 to ~$600, and then configured graphics to high/ultra with a 1080p resolution. We then included titles that are known to CPU choke, titles known to be more GPU constrained, and titles balanced in the middle. This gives a wide berth of tested content (FPS, RTS, and popular titles) from which we can draw some conclusions.
We are using the Pentium G4560 for this test, naturally. Included in our Intel Pentium G4560 GPU bottleneck test are the following GPUs (listed in order of price):
We previously wrote about the need for net neutrality, adding our voice to the chorus of others on and off the internet that demanded the internet and net neutrality be protected. As a result of this outcry – and, honestly, basic logic – the FCC moved to protect net neutrality by reclassifying ISPs as Title II. Unfortunately, the new chairman of the FCC, Ajit Pai, has revealed his plan to roll back net neutrality. 9 senators recently introduced a bill identical to a previous bill by the name of Restoring Internet Freedom Act. This bill seeks to remove the FCC’s jurisdiction over ISPs entirely and thus nullify the net neutrality rules the FCC previously set in place. These moves to kill net neutrality are just as disastrous of a choice as they were just a few years ago, so we naturally still oppose it. Before covering how you can let your opinion be known, let’s briefly review what net neutrality is and why it is needed.
This week’s hardware sales include a pair of 1050 Tis from EVGA and Gigabyte, an ASUS RX 580, and a discounted EVGA 500W PSU. As we get closer to Computex and the inevitable Vega launch from AMD, we should see more discounts in hardware prices.
This episode of Ask GN, now that we’re back on a bit of a roll (see: Episode 49), features a shorter list of questions with more detailed answers. We don’t plan to always run them like this, but some of the questions – like the one about Hybrid liquid cooler pump whine – have been common enough to deserve detail.
It’s more of an FAQ this week, in that way. We’re starting off with a discussion on how to fix pump whine on EVGA Hybrid GPU coolers, then talking Pascal voltage & power limitations, then laptops for deployment in extreme environments. We later talk liquid vs. air cooling on GPUs.
AMD’s RX 560 continues a trend of refreshing the Polaris line, but with a more notable change than the previous RX 580RX 570 refreshes: The RX 560 fully unlocks itself to 16 CUs, up from the previous 14 CUs of the RX 460. This change (in addition to voltage-frequency changes) instantly accounts for performance increases over the RX 460, theoretically making for a more exciting update than was had with the 580 & 570. That’s not to say that the predecessors of this 500 line were unworthy, but they certainly weren’t eye-catching for anyone who’d followed the 400-series launch.
Our review of the Sapphire RX 560 Pulse OC 4GB ($115) card is the first look at this new low-end line from AMD, updating the entry-level, sub-$120 market (in theory) with fresh competition. The incumbent would be the GTX 1050, which we previously thought a better buy than the RX 460. Today, we’re seeing how that’s changed in seven months.
To catch everyone up on the RX 500 refresh thus far, it’s mostly been a glorified BIOS update to the RX 580 and RX 570 cards, driving higher frequency, permitting higher voltage under OV, and trading more power for some performance. Nothing special, but enough to keep AMD in the game until its eventual Vega launch. We found the RX 580 to be a strong competitor to the GTX 1060, particularly at the price point, though noted that owners of RX 480 series cards shouldn’t bother considering an upgrade – because it’s not one. This 500 series is not meant for owners of the 400 series. Tune out until Vega, Volta, or high-end Pascal makes sense.
Sapphire’s RX 560 Pulse OC has one of the weakest cooling solutions we’ve seen of late, but – as we learn in our VRM+VRAM temperature testing – it’s sufficient for this type of card. A low-end GPU doesn’t draw much power, and so Sapphire skates by with its MagnaChip Semiconductor MDU1514 + MDU1517 3-phase power design.
As this content is relatively straight-forward, given the low price, let’s dive straight into testing.
NVidia’s Volta GV100 GPU and Tesla V100 Accelerator were revealed yesterday, delivering on a 2015 promise of Volta arrival by 2018. The initial DGX servers will ship by 3Q17, containing multiple V100 Accelerator cards at a cost of $150,000, with individual units priced at $18,000. These devices are obviously for enterprise, machine learning, and compute applications, but will inevitably work their way into gaming through subsequent V102 (or equivalent) chips. This is similar to the GP100 launch, where we get the Accelerator server-class card prior to consumer availability, which ultimately helps consumers by recuperating some of the initial R&D cost through major B2B sales.
Fractal’s Celsius S36 debuts alongside the company’s S24, coolers sized at 360mm and 240mm, respectively. The Celsius series uses an Asetek Gen5 pump, identical to the pump found on the EVGA CLC, NZXT X42/52/62, and Corsair H115i/H100iV2 coolers. This is a semi-custom Asetek solution that’s been loosely customized by Fractal Design, primarily focusing on the addition of G1/4” fittings (rad-side only), on-pump speed tuning, and an on-rad fan hub. It’s not as customized as, say, the NZXT Kraken series, but NZXT’s products also run more expensive. Fractal is looking at a launch price of $120 for the S36 that we’re reviewing today, and $110 for the S24.
Our focuses are on thermals and noise – not that you can focus on much else when talking coolers – with some new testing that looks at normalized noise output. We debuted this testing in our ASUS ROG Strix review and have carried it over to coolers.
Fractal’s coolers use 120mm fans that run a maximum RPM nearing 2000, with variable pump RPM from ~2000~3000. In our testing, though, it seemed a little simpler than that – pump RPM is based on liquid temp, and as we found in our 7700K review (the hottest CPU we've tested), liquid temp never really exceeds 30C. Given Fractal's curve, that means the pump stays at 2000RPM almost all the time. Rather than use software or suggest straight BIOS control – which we prefer – Fractal’s gone with a toggleable pump plate that switches into auto or PWM options. We’ve tested variable pump speeds in the past and haven’t found major differences in cooling efficacy, which is more heavily relegated to the fan spec and radiator size than anything else. This is more of a noise impact. We tested using the default, out-of-box “auto” setting, which kept our pump RPM fixed nearly perfectly at ~1960 throughout the tests (liquid temperature doesn't ramp up enough to push higher).
Fan speeds were manually controlled for the tests, though users could connect the fans to the on-rad hub. More on this in the conclusion.
Let’s get on with the testing, then run through the accessories and conclusion.