The good thing is, by adding 150Mhz to core clock, the GPU was able to maintain ~1150-1200Mhz, which gives a substantial performance increase. Overclocking again gave back the good fps.Ĭonclusion: Despite the GTX1060 (laptop) having an advertised base clock of 1404Mhz, the GPU inside the Blade was only able to sustain ~1000Mhz in BF1 AT STOCK due to heavy throttling. At this framerate, BF1 was pretty unplayable for me due to stuttering/ fps dips. The GPU usage is almost always at 100% and max temp was 79 C.ģ) So I decided to lower my GPU core clock back to stock and see what difference it makes (you can see this in a small section, past the half way point of the GPU clock graph, where the actual clock was lower than the rest (~950-1000Mhz)) Unsurprisingly, this gave me similar results as yesterday where I got low 40fps - low 50's or around 10-12 fps lower than the OC setting. More importantly, there aren't any more stutters, which imo really improved the gaming experience.
![gtx 1060 metro last light benchmark gtx 1060 metro last light benchmark](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8UDH9LuxePU/maxresdefault.jpg)
The actual core clock hovers around 1150-1200Mhz (see first 60% of the graph in the screenshot). Unsure why this is the case.Ģ) Prior to playing BF1, I decided to up the GPU core clock by 150Mz using afterburner and guess what? I was actually getting playable frame rates (low 50's - high 60's) after this one change. *This was vastly different from what the results I got yesterday. CPU usage hovers around 60-70% throughout my BF1 session. (as seen in the screenshot, I was using XTU for monitoring). I'm back to report what I found just now after playing BF1 again (ultra, 1080p) on the FHD Blade.ġ)First of all, I noticed was that my CPU doesn't throttle anymore at 81 C, and instead was able to maintain a max clock speed of 3.1Ghz, even at a temperature of up to 88 C.
GTX 1060 METRO LAST LIGHT BENCHMARK FULL
I guess I'm just disappointed at the fact I am not getting the full potential of the hardware inside it, which ultimately led to a sub-par experience so far. The build quality is amazing and that alone is enough to make me pull the trigger on this laptop. To be honest, I don't know what Razer could do at this point. (yes,i know that a desktop 970 is better, but it shouldn't out perform a 1060 by that much) If I compare this to BF1 on a desktop (4670k+ 970) the difference is day and night. Overall a fairly unsatisfying gaming experience. Gpu-z perfcaps shows that it alternates between power limit and voltage limit. This is the issue everyone is complaining about: not only are the frame rates pretty low, the fps dips so often that it is creating a stuttering effect. Temps: GPU and CPU hovers around high 70's (quiet fan profile)įPS: low 30's - high 50's. Test scenario: multiplayer Operations mode (Conquer Hell map)
![gtx 1060 metro last light benchmark gtx 1060 metro last light benchmark](https://ithardware.pl/artykuly/max/2701_1.jpg)
In-game settings: Ultra, 1080p, no v-sync.
![gtx 1060 metro last light benchmark gtx 1060 metro last light benchmark](https://www.digitalcitizen.life/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/gaming_7.png)
What really matters to me are actual games. It does not convey a complete user experience. IMO, Firestrike isn't a decent indicator of true performance as the whole benchmark lasts for less than 4 minutes.
GTX 1060 METRO LAST LIGHT BENCHMARK WINDOWS
Just here to give my opinion after using my FHD Blade 1060 for a couple of days.įirst of all, Firestike = 9073, with no OC, no throttlestop, quiet fan mode, balanced windows profile, no geforce experience.