April 19th, 2020 at 7:50 AM
THE NUMBERS: HP ENVY x360
(Still WIP, will update continuously)
Here's the current HP x360 Envy's scores.
PCMark 10 - 3084
Unigine: Heaven (PasteBin)
Unigine: Valley (PasteBin)
3DMark 11: Fire Strike - 1440
GeekBench 5: CPU
OVERCLOCKS:
3DMark 11: Fire Strike - 1604 (OVERCLOCKED GPU)
PCMark 10 - 2970 (OVERCLOCKED GPU)
GeekBench 5: GPU [CUDA]
GeekBench 5: GPU [OpenCL]
UL/FutureMark claim that with consecutive testing, results should typically fall into a ~3% delta. So, with those standards, anything that has a % delta (last column) of -3% to +3% should be disregarded.
I increased my GPU clock by 135MHz, and Memory clock by 185MHz. That's +14% and +14.5%, respectively.
I know that changes don't increase linearly with the frequency increases, as Hz is reciprocal, but I would hope for some bigger gains than whatever PCMark is throwing back at me.
Perhaps I'll re-run the tests.
Notes:
(Still WIP, will update continuously)
Here's the current HP x360 Envy's scores.
PCMark 10 - 3084
Unigine: Heaven (PasteBin)
Unigine: Valley (PasteBin)
3DMark 11: Fire Strike - 1440
GeekBench 5: CPU
OVERCLOCKS:
3DMark 11: Fire Strike - 1604 (OVERCLOCKED GPU)
PCMark 10 - 2970 (OVERCLOCKED GPU)
GeekBench 5: GPU [CUDA]
GeekBench 5: GPU [OpenCL]
Code:
PCMark 10: | Stock GPU | OC GPU | % Delta
===================================================================
Overall: | 3084 | 2970 | - 3.7%
Essentials: | 7024 | 7018 | - 0.0%
* App Start: | 9346 | 9517 | + 1.8%
* Web: | 6710 | 6499 | - 3.2%
* Video Con. | 5526 | 5590 | + 1.2%
Productivity:| 5568 | 4863 | - 12.7%
* Spreadsh. | 6304 | 4753 | - 24.7%
* Writing | 4918 | 4976 | + 1.2%
DCC: | 2036 | 2085 | + 2.4%
* Video Edit:| 2830 | 2844 | + 0.5%
* Photo Edit:| 2312 | 2425 | + 4.9%
* Rendering: | 1291 | 1315 | + 1.9%
Code:
3DMark 11: FS | Stock GPU | OC GPU | % Delta
===================================================================
Overall: | 1440 | 1604 | + 11.4%
Graphics: | 1648 | 1807 | + 9.6%
* T1 Avg. FPS: | 8.12 | 8.24 | + 1.6%
* T2 Avg. FPS: | 6.42 | 7.51 | + 16.9%
Physics: | 4638 | 4886 | + 5.3%
* Avg. FPS: | 14.73 | 15.51 | + 5.3%
Combined: | 484 | 563 | + 16.2%
* Avg. FPS: | 2.25 | 2.62 | + 16.2%
UL/FutureMark claim that with consecutive testing, results should typically fall into a ~3% delta. So, with those standards, anything that has a % delta (last column) of -3% to +3% should be disregarded.
I increased my GPU clock by 135MHz, and Memory clock by 185MHz. That's +14% and +14.5%, respectively.
I know that changes don't increase linearly with the frequency increases, as Hz is reciprocal, but I would hope for some bigger gains than whatever PCMark is throwing back at me.
Perhaps I'll re-run the tests.
Notes:
PCMark 10 Wrote:Overall pretty satisfied with the numbers. Yeah, the overall score is low; it even lists it as lower than your typical Office machine. Granted, but what's actually bringing the score so low? Two things: Rendering (1291) & Digital Content Creation (2036.) Photo Score gets an honourable mention (2312) for the top 3.
But the other scores are well above average, for instance the Apps score at a whopping Over 9000.
It basically measures how fast things can start up, so the speedy NVMe drive certainly helps. But Web/Essentials are also pretty high.
So I'm confident that if the GPU was better, this score would be DRASTICALLY higher.
3DMark 11 Wrote:The fans started maxing even while starting the application. Chrissake.
The software warned me that I should disable G-SYNC before running any of the tests, as it could negatively affect performance.
I decided 'f*** it' since I ran every other benchmark already and want as much control variables as possible. So I left it on.
Overclocking Wrote:In the past I've mentioned how difficult it is to overclock this d*** GPU.
And it is.
But magically, using a tool from 2014 called Nvidia Inspector, I got it to +135MHz for processing clock and +180MHz for the Memory clock.
Apparently, those are probably the safest performance vs. stability numbers out there.
And it looks like a bad(?) Nvidia Driver update broke MSI Afterburner that for their OC. I use a ? because they probably did it to stop people from OC'ing.
I suspect that something went seriously wrong during the OC PCMark 10 Spreadsheet test. I'll have to look into it, but the only thing I did differently was OC the GPU, which should have little to no effect at all.
Invalid GPU Wrote:Both 3DMark and PCMark are owned by UL, and their sysinfo can't seem to figure out what my GPU is.
When the application is open here I see the name and all the info, but on the results page there's that little 'Invalid' warning. For whatever reason, the results formally display as 'Generic VGA' or whatever.
I think that might have something to do with faulty/outdated Intel drivers. Since HP never approved an update past 2018 for the 620, I need to manually install the files and hope my whole computer doesn't blow up.