Not sure about the temperatures and power readings. The spread is not great but the package power being at 55.8 max and hovering around 53 when on full load with Cinebench sounds correct…?
Power mode is set to performance. I toyed for a few days with undervolting but I couldn’t lower it in any significant way without causing instability and I couldn’t find a proper way to apply it permanently or only once at startup.
Is it worth it to contact support about it? Reading the thread makes it sound like it’s a gamble whether a replacement would fix it or I’d be asked to send the whole thing in.
For the 7940hs this is definitly to low. The Package Power looks okay, but but not the Score. But its alot better than many of us had. The 7940 should sit above 16k in this Benchmark. It’s either on you to opt for a Replacement and if Framework will perform the Replacement.
Mmm. I guess I’ll wait to see if Framework comes up with an official response. I’m not currently in dire need of extra performance but if it’s faulty it’d be nice to have a permanent fix. Maybe I’ll do the PTM7950 switch once the LM replacement guide is out, I’m not super confident I can do a good job without a guide. Thank you and everyone else here for sharing your findings.
I don’t think a replacement really solves the core problem, you basically have to receive a lottery winning thermal solution or not.
In my opinion there are 2 issues; one, the plate that’s between the die and vapor chamber is sometimes installed with too much thermal resistance (can only speculate on the cause). Two, insufficient liquid metal to account for “out flow” degrading the thermal performance over time.
One can be solved with your own paste or ptm7950, the other needs to be fixed by frameworks supplier, coolermaster.
That is an expensive fix as it would entail some type of replacement or repair.
I wonder if the core deltas are partly an AMD problem? It seems like even after a lot of effort, the overall performance scores and package wattage can be brought up, but the chips still show large core-to-core temp variation. I wonder if it’s partly a silicon lottery type of thing as well with these chips from AMD?
It is a good question, I wanted to look into it more but seems the people with more knowledge are not on this forum, as my question only appealed to crickets.
The worst part of all this is that I already got a replacement mainboard for an unrelated USB port issue (which wasn’t fixed by the replacement) so now I’m going to have replaced the mainboard twice in the same laptop through warranty. I’ll be surprised if I’m not outright blacklisted as a customer for this.
Well as you did Record and also had HWInfo Running i suspect you lost about 200-300 Points. Great Result nevertheless. Maybe you scored a Goal on the Heatsink Lottery (Also another Core is hotter than Standard )
Where did you get it from? From what I’ve heard (via LTT), it can actually be quite difficult to find the legitimate product, which is why they added it to their store after doing the leg work.
What’s strange, is that now code #5 is hot, instead of #4.
Re:
@BigT with the new heatsink it changed from #4 to #5.
Heatsink 1 and 2 resulted in core #4 being the hot one, while heatsink #3 moved from core 4 to core 5.
It can not be AMD the Troiblemaker at that Point. Any other Review/Benchmark i saw from the 7840/7940 had pretty even Temps with Deviation of 2-5K and all of them did sit well below the 100C even with 60w. Also the Heatsink of the Framework is pretty beefy it should handle it much better. Vapor Chamber + 3 pretty Big Heatpipes for the CPU Alone. The Air coming out of the Heatpipe is also not hot enough for the TDP and Temps its running. Thats an Indicator of the High Temperature Resistance.
That looks tipycal for PTM. For Burnin the Materials needs to be at above 45C and Cool down to Room Temp again. Over about 10Cycles it gets its End thickness and Distribution.
(Also another Core is hotter than Standard 
)
