DarkMain

That's the thing, I'm kind of looking for a range of recommendations to pick through. I mean, a simple school laptop could probably be had at Walmart for a few hundred... but is it a good value or are Walmart overcharging for the hardware? Are there better options at Amazon or Newegg for the same price? I was kinda thinking... say sub $500, $500-1000 and then $1000+ for the ranges, but its flexible. There's a lot to consider when it comes to laptops such as battery life, display quality (brightness, colour accuracy, size), portability/weight, keyboard and trackpad quality, upgradability, I/O... Some of of this stuff can be got from a product page, but others can't, and watching a heap of videos to narrow it down can be quite overwhelming. Getting a handful of recommendations and then watching reviews on those few is much more efficient. Side note: I'm going to guess this is exactly the kind of thing The LAB website will help with when its up and running.

Hey all, I've got a friend who's looking for a new laptop and is kind of overwhelmed with all the options available so we're looking for some suggestions (I'm a desktop guy and haven't looked at laptops in AGES so am kind of out of the loop on this). They are located in the US (GA if that makes any difference) and the main reason for the laptop is they are returning to school to study (business) so it doesn't need to be a massive power hungry gaming rig. I'm not sure what the budget is so a few different tiered suggestion would be helpful. Like I said, its going to be primarily for school but they also do photography (semi professionally) so something that has a decent screen and can edit photos would be a bonus. And lastly, maybe some options with some 'low' powered GPUs in them as they do game but don't have a heck of a lot of time for it at the moment, but having that ability might be nice (not a priority though), although I guess having a capable GPU would also help with the photo editing. I know its a pretty broad question with most laptops being suitable for this kind of thing, and I'll get a whole range of answers, but its a start. Even a point in the right direction would be helpful. Cheers.

I had thought of that, and it could be, but I have been running this monitor for about 4 and half years with no issues... The problem only started up when I connected a second display to my Vega GPU. I have run duel display about 4 years ago with a R9 295x2 and had no issues, then went back to a single display. While the GPU was being RMA'ed I ran the same setup with an RX 460 (My spare/backup GPU) and didn't have any issues for the month it was away and they only started again when the new GPU was put back into the system. It it was environmental interference then I would expect it to happen while it was the only display connected and it wouldn't matter what GPU it was connected too.

The BenQ monitor tech guy seems to think it could be a compatibility issue as well. The support department from the retail store I got the GPU from don't believe its a compatibility issue though (Their exact words were "It would be extremely strange if there was a compatibility issue between Ben Q monitors and Vega graphic cards.") And Sapphire haven't responded to previous support tickets so I haven't even bothered to open one with them about this (+ the refurbished card didn't come with a SN or PN sticker so I cant even fill out their form properly). Problem is, because the BenQ tech is unable to recreate the issue hes just making educated assumptions based on my reports and images and is unable to verify those assumptions.

When connecting a second display to my computer my BenQ XL2730Z exhibits some strange behavior. Two things happen... One is random display corruption (https://imgur.com/a/pzyvSB8) and the other is the screen going black for a few seconds and the returning to normal. This only happens when a second display is connected to my PC and only happens when connected via DisplayPort (I haven't seen it happen via HDMI). I have tried a bunch of different driver versions and they all exhibit the same issues. I have swapped out the Display Port cables to make sure they weren't faulty (tried two I had on hand and purchased two brand new ones as well). I tried swapping the ports on the back of the GPU and the BenQ display still has issues regardless of what DP is used (The second monitor doesn't show any issues). I have also tried running other monitors in a dual monitor setup and none of them have issues (none are high res, high refresh rate or support Freesync like the BenQ does). Now here is where things start to get confusing... The problem doesn't seem to happen if I use a different model of video card. I had a reference Vega 56 GPU and when I replaced it with my spare RX 460 the problems went away. Thinking it was a GPU problem I had the Vega 56 RMA'ed. During the month the card was away I ran the RX 460 and didn't have any problems using multiple displays (that I saw). The card was replaced with a Nitro+ Vega 56 and upon reinstalling this new GPU the problems started happening again. I have just had the BenQ monitor serviced at looked at, and the technicians couldn't find a fault with the display or even recreate the issue (but they didn't have any Vega cards to test with, and from my testing the fault only happens with a Vega card). This brings the fault back to being a GPU issue (or perhaps a compatibility one). I'm completely out of ideas on how to solve this problem (without spending an arm and a leg replacing either the display or the GPU) so I was hoping someone here might be able to help?

Nope. Nothing that resembles XFR under that section of my BIOS.

PBO is 100% enabled. I can't find any reference to XFR in the BIOS or manual (side note: the Strix x470-I has one of the WORST motherboard manuals I have EVER seen) but I do have both 'Performance Enhancer' and 'CPU Performance Boost' enabled. I can only assume one of them is related to XFR.

I have posted this a bunch of times on different sub reddits and am yet to get an answer so I'm hoping the people here might be able to help. I have a quick question regarding this CPU + Motherboard and boosting. When I'm running stock BIOS settings settings my CPU will only ever boost ALL cores to 3.6GHz. While its boosting this high Ryzen Master shows: PPT at 96% of 87W (Limit 1000W) TDC at 100% of 60A (Limit 114A) EDC 100% of 90A (Limit 168A) The temp sits nicely around 55 degrees. It does boost up to 3.9GHz under lower core workloads, but I have read a bunch of posts from other users that their CPUs get a higher all core boost. For example, This review shows the 2600 getting a 3750 all core boost clock - https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-5-2600/16.html Obviously I'm hitting a power limit (as indicated by the 100%s in Ryzen Master) but I'm curious as to why my all core boost seems to be so low compared to everyone else. Why aren't these other users hitting the same power limit? Is there a setting I'm missing? Is it because I'm on an ITX board and not a full sized one (Strix X470-F)? Did I just get incredibly unlucky with my CPU? t.b.h its not exactly a big deal, but I'm the kinda person who likes to know why something is doing what its doing (or in this case not doing). I'm also curious because if it IS a motherboard (ITX) limit then its something I will have to consider if I ever decide to upgrade the CPU. Note: I'm fully aware I can manually OC to an all core 3.9 OC. That's not my concern. I want to know why the auto boost doesn't seem to function as well as others and if it is likely to affect any future upgrades (with the new ZEN 2 CPUs, more and more its being recommended to just let the CPU do its thing and not to bother with a manual OC).

I'm just comparing two different OC settings (1.3v / Level 3 LLC vs. 1.31250v / Level 1 LLC) and looking at HWiNFO I realized that the CPU and Motherboard both report a core voltage. What one is more accurate or what one should I be looking at? For example: The 1.3v / Level 3 LLC has the CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN) as "Min:1.281v & Max:1.3v" & the motherboard sensor reads the Vcore as "Min:1.297 & Max:1.352" The 1.31250v / Level 1 LLC has the CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN) as "Min:1.262v & Max:1.312v" & the motherboard sensor reads the Vcore as "Min:1.308 & Max:1.330" The Level 3 LLC has a difference of 0.019v on the CPU but 0.055v on the Motherboard. The Level 1 LLC has a difference of 0.05v on the CPU but 0.022v on the Motherboard. Now I kind of understand what LLC is for (Its to combat vdroop... as current increases, voltage decreases. So LLC will bump up the voltage under load so it stays within voltage tolerance) and in an ideal world LLC would create a 'flat line'. I know these are well within safe voltages but I'm just curious as to what voltage number I should be looking at in HWiNFO

A bit of both. Usually I give it a min or two for background tasks to finish but sometimes I get impatient and run it right away. Yesterday during testing most of the runs were done after a good 30 mins of idle though. I would run a test, go away eat something, come back try again. I was also watching the F1 racing so that caused gaps between testing. Just to add to that, its also a fresh install of windows with only a handful of programs added to it. Cinebench, Ryzen Master, HWiNFO, and some of the Asus tools that came with the motherboard which were not loading on startup so there shouldn't have been a lot of background tasks to begin with.

Above you mentioned you only had "1 ram". I assume that's a single stick?

K, this is really weird. I loaded up HWiNFO and ran cinebench again to get your screenshots and this time I got a score of 1252. I didn't change a thing. In fact the previous run of 1086 was still on the screen. I have done a few more runs and its consistently around the 1240-1250 mark and I have restarted just to make sure its sticking. Bios still has the same settings as before as well (hasn't been touched). I'm now even more confused as to whats going on. I'm now going to try bumping up the core clock and see if that actually improves the score in an expected way (in line with other users).

16-16-16-36 are the timings the DOCP applies. Like I said, stability doesn't seem to be a problem with that but I some different speed and timings to see if the made any difference. Just checked the balanced profile and its min processor state is 5%.

I posted this on Reddit but didn't have much luck (It was even deleted from the AMD sub) so I figured I would try my luck here. So its been a while since I have built a new machine from scratch, but I just finished a nice new Ryzen 2600 ITX build. The parts are as follows: AMD Ryzen 2600 Asus ROG Strix x470-I Gaming 16GB (2x8) G.Skill Trident Z (F4-3600C16D-16GTZR) Corsair Hydro H60 Coolermaster Masterwatt 750W PSU Silverstone Sugo SG13 Case And not that it should matter, but the GPU is a Vega 56 with a 64 bios. I have updated the bios, loaded optimized defaults and then selected the DOCP profile for the ram. Got windows installed, run all the updates and downloaded the latest chipset drivers ect... Now according to this (https://www.techspot.com/article/1618-ryzen-2600x-vs-2600/) a stock 2600 should have a Cinebench score of around 1290 (single core 163) (Cinebench its self lists a score of 1270 for the 2600). Anandtech and Toms Hardware both have stock at about 1250. My score... 1100 if I'm lucky (single core 144). That seems rather low. During the test the all core clock speed is 3650 and single core performance sits on 3800 with an occasional jump to 3900 for a fraction of a second (its never sustained). I have tried the Balanced Power Plan and the AMD Ryzen Balanced Plan and it doesn't change the score. I have checked the temps and even though its an ITX build it tops out at around 62 degrees according to Ryzen Master. According to Ryzen Master and CPU-Z the memory is running at 3600 and has the correct timings (16-16-16-36). Like I said, its been a while (5 years) since my last brand new build so have a completely forgotten to do something and missed an obvious step? Or am I just expecting more from the CPU that it gives at stock? I do plan on overclocking, I just wanted to get it running at its best at stock so I could save a profile to fall back on in the bios before I start the OC process. Update since Reddit post: I have been told that 3600 might be too fast for the memory controller so I have dialed it down. I used the Ryzen memory calculator to get a fer settings. I tried 2933 (spec speeds). No crashes and no real difference in score. I also tried 3200 (3200-3400 seems to be the sweet spot). Also stable and also no improvement in score. I have also tried manually overclocking the CPU. I pushed it up to 3.9GHz on all cores with 1.35mv and my cinebench score hardly increased. It did go up but it still didn't break the 1200 mark which is even more confusing. :S Out of desperation I have also stripped down the ITX build (what a pain) to reseat the memory and CPU and am now running the thing in open air to rule out thermals on other parts of the M.Board (like the VRMS?) I get not all CPUs are the same but this seems like more than low quality silicon. Any help would be appreciated as I cant for the life of me figure out why this CPU is under performing by such a lot.