The Ryzen 7 7840HS processor has a configurable TDP between 35-54W. Assuming it’s not configurable by the user, what TDP is Framework shipping these with?
The FW16 specification page indicates 45W TDP, but maybe that’s average. Engineering would need to confirm.
1 Like
Idk how I glossed over that, thanks!
1 Like
I agree that we need confirmation. Even if the thermal system could only take 45W continuous, there may be options of increased fan speed to push it further - and some loads, like compiling for a few dozen seconds every few minutes, do not have the same continuous requirement at all. So I truly hope the supporting power system can support up to 65W (though ofc I suspect it will be configured to 45W by default). I know some mini PCs using these chips (e.g. BeeLink GTR7 [PRO]) come preconfigured with 65W TDP, not even just 54W
The usual approach by everyone else seems to have enough power delivery to push the TDP to the max and cooling is the limiting factor. I certainly would expect the framework to be the same.
Is this really “Solved”? Has anyone seen anything official confirming what the sustained operating power limit with the cooling solution they’ve got is? Since the performance of these is very similar you’d need to be able to run the 7940 at higher power to justify the price delta I think – really need that information to make an educated assessment.
Since the original question was only asking for TDP of the 7840HS and the FW16 specification gives the TDP, it looks like solved to me.
You can certainly ask if that is “really truly” what the current stock cooling solution can sustain indefinitely, but that wasn’t the original question here. So if you want to ask that, and not have it be under a thread marked [solved], you could create a separate thread for it.
2 Likes
Correct, this question was specifically about what the 7840HS chip was configured with as seen by the BIOS. It’s set to 45W, which answered my question.
Personally I don’t believe the performance delta, if there is one, will be worth the additional cost. Even if Framework answers your question, you’d still want that to be verified by a 3rd party reviewer which likely won’t happen until the device is released. If it’s mission critical for you, I’d recommend waiting for reviews on your purchase. Personally, I’ve ordered a Batch 1 7850HS model.
1 Like
I have to agree on that. If the 7940HS had something like 14-16 compute units on the GPU compared to the 7840HS’ 12 then I could see the price difference being fair, but $200 for a 100-200MHz boost is more than I can personally justify. The other way to look at it is that for a $200 increase you are half way to the GPU module itself, so I don’t know that even more compute units on the 7940HS makes sense.
1 Like
Exactly. I’ve done the whole “performance at all costs thing,” heck, my Desktop right now has RTX 3090’s in SLI (yes, I know). Comparing how much I’ve enjoyed my Uber-desktop
and how much I’ve enjoyed my Steam Deck, I’ve come to accept that raw performance isn’t the whole equation.
If this were any other laptop, that $200 could make a little more sense, but seeing as how I can just replace the motherboard/cpu in a year or two and get a real performance difference for my money, I’d much rather play the long game. I’m speaking less to you FlyingTypeTrainer, and more sharing my thoughts out loud for anyone who stumbles across this thread.
1 Like
Yep. I might be in the market for the top tier performance since I do plan to use this as a high-end VR rig eventually (with eGPU via OcuLink of course) so I don’t have to spent the same kind of money again on a new desktop platform. But even then, the 200$ is just too much considering I still don’t even know if I’ll be able to make full use of it - which depends on the Bios implementation:
TDP, per-core curve optimiser voltage offsets, etc. would all need to be adjustable within the bios itself for it to be even remotely worth it. And seeing as that is non-standard for other vendors, and Framework seem to mostly just use a customised bios from a 3rd party vendor, I’m just not sure we’ll get that.
Since this is the first result on google, I thought I would add some info from my new (batch 8) machine: (7840HS, 7700S GPU)
AMP Speedshift defaults to a max SYSTEM TDP of 60W. It assigns 18W to the CPU and integrated graphics and 41W to the dedicated graphics (I got the 7700S) but this can shift with demand.
Under a peak CPU load I see spikes of 60W (4.5GHz all core) to the CPU but it quickly (within seconds) drops to 30W (3.6Ghz) when under all core load (CPU-Z stress test.)
Max temp of 73*C. Feels like the system should have FAR more headroom than this…
Unplugging the charger drops max TDP to 50W combined and CPU to max 18W (windows energy saving profile)
65W or 100W charger seems to make no difference. Am I missing something to get the full 45W TDP out of my processor?
The 180W charger maybe?
Man I don’t envy framework here, half the forum is screaming “why is battery discharging under heavy use” and the other “why is it not going full brr on a 65W charger” XD
Understandable. I had assumed a 100W charger would be enough to get 45W out of the CPU with a full battery. (or decent power from the GPU but I know not both.)
I think the real issue here is a lack of documentation. Some kind of manual page or notification
Max TDP with battery: 40W “turbo” 15W continuous (power saver)
Max TDP with battery: 55W “turbo” (thermal throttles) with 7700S disabled.
Max TDP with 60W charger: 36W “turbo” and 36W continuous.
Max TDP with 65W charger:
Max TDP with 95W charger:
Max TDP with 100W charger: 60W “turbo” 30W continuous
Max TDP with 180W charger:
I have access to 65, 95, and 100W USB-PD chargers so I may try to get this info unless someone from Framework wants to chime in.
Max TDP with 7700S disabled: 60W “turbo” 51W continuous. 100C ON DIE!!!* (100W or 60W charger)
Notes:
60W charger is a anker 736 on the “tablet” port (60W max)
100W charger is a “Spigen” arcdoc 1204/PD2100 but was also tested with the 100W of the anker 736.
Other than battery as noted, all tests were performed with max performance settings in windows.
For the cpu only 100W is more than enough for 45W of sustained cpu load, hell my 13 can do that but the power profiles have to take into account that you could use the gpu too.
Not sure if those power limits are smart enough to do stuff like that dynamically.
After further testing, the CPU seems to be able to hit 60W sustained (ignoring thermal limits) unless you enable the dedicated graphics. Seems like a lot of this comes down to bad AMD Speedshift tuning. See my prior post for updated table.
When I’m gaming on my FW 16, I use an eGPU and the cpu holds a steady clock of 4.7Ghz all core, you’ve got me curious how much power that draws. If I game on the iGPU, it drops to ~4.5Ghz like what you shared.
I have begun a new topic with my findings:
I felt that this information would be better as the first post so it is easier to find for others.
+1 
Act
Actually, many posters have power supplies not providing enough power.
When I game, I use the 180W power supply from Framework, and after 4 hours heavy gaming (Cyberpunk or Star Citizen alpha 1.22.1) I am still at 85% batery charge level (configured in the BIOS to go to 85%).
And - I have the 7700S onboard 
PS: My WD19TB Dell dock even though having a 140W power brick, only provides 60W … So no gaming with that one.