Huge performance loss due to faulty cpu clockrate on Acer Aspire 3 A315-41-R2GU - how to fix it?

JackE

@ilhamzap Press Winkey+Rkey. Enter msinfo32.exe. What BIOS version number do you see in right panel? Jack E/NJ

ilhamzap

BIOS Version/Date Insyde Corp. V1.09, 27/07/2018

SMBIOS Version 3.1
Well, I just updated the firmware at the beginning, no problem with cinebench results.
Just tried cinebench again, turn on PC then wait for programs that using too much disk-cpu-etc ended, got 516, then immediately try the test again got 490.
My Acer is a different model but same CPU and GPU (iGPU) A315-41-R97J

JackE

@ilhamzap  >>>Well, I just updated the firmware at the beginning>>>

Yeah, well, I was kinda hoping that you hadn't done that. I was trying to determine if the machine as originally shipped from the factory with the original firmware had the same issues. A firmware update should never be applied unless it specifically states that it fixes a problem that the machine is having.      Jack E/NJ

ilhamzap

In the beginning, I just get flashing issue when playing video on YouTube and blocks Chrome taskbar (need to force close it). That's why I try to update the firmware. I got the firmware from official Acer driver & support.
No changes on cinebench results. And I'm not sure something like updating windows regularly causes the problem.

JohnnyK

I updated because of "1. Improve system performance." (V1.08) - who doesn't want optimal system performance? I can't say for sure that this problem existed with the factory shipped BIOS, because I haven't tested it that much back then. Is it possible to get that from somewhere? I would like to try to flash it - the BIOS version check (which prevents flashing an older BIOS) can be disabled by editing a line in the platform.ini of the BIOS package, so that won't be a problem.

ilhamzap said:

Just tried cinebench again, turn on PC then wait for programs that using too much disk-cpu-etc ended, got 516, then immediately try the test again got 490.
My Acer is a different model but same CPU and GPU (iGPU) A315-41-R97J

Can you download CPU-Z and check the clocks on each core (right click on "core speed") while you are benchmarking? Please test it a few times tell me the results.

JackE

Some success has been reported for similar Radeon laptops by using 3rd party software, Display Driver Uninstaller, to clear remnants of earlier drivers that seem to linger in the registry causing issues like this. After using the uninstaller, try to re-install the latest ACER driver again from https://www.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/support-product/7540?b=1 . Then open Device Manager. Go to the display adapter folder. Right click on the AMD driver and then let Windows try to update it again. Jack E/NJ

JohnnyK

JackE said:

Some success has been reported for similar Radeon laptops by using 3rd party software, Display Driver Uninstaller, to clear remnants of earlier drivers that seem to linger in the registry causing issues like this. After using the uninstaller, try to re-install the latest ACER driver again from https://www.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/support-product/7540?b=1 . Then open Device Manager. Go to the display adapter folder. Right click on the AMD driver and then let Windows try to update it again. Jack E/NJ

I think this is directed to ilhamzap. But I tried it anyways, didn't resolve my issue.

JackE

Sorry. Thought it'd be worth a shot since I've yet to find firmware archives or backup tools earlier than those listed in downloads. My own rule on firmware updates is that they're only installed as a last resort to try to fix a significant problem that is more than just an annoyance. Three reasons. (1) They carry significantly more risk of bricking than any other type of installation (2) While they can fix a specific issue, they sometimes create unintended new ones in doing so. (3) The original factory-installed BIOS version is arguably the most thoroughly tested. Jack E/NJ            

ilhamzap

Can you download CPU-Z and check the clocks on each core (right click on "core speed") while you are benchmarking? Please test it a few times tell me the results. 

Uh, clocks changed every time and I'm not sure it's a good option to check the clocks, because stress test, temp rises up, and clock speed may getting slower every second. 
I'm using AMD Devtool, and this is the screenshot, the second chart just cropped from the second screenshot. So, CineBench runs for approx. 85 seconds. Because of thread from the same core = same clock, only 4 graphs here (from the graph, up to down, core 3, core 4, core 1, core 2).
1st and 2nd core processor P-State changed from 1 to 2 and mostly 2 every time, that's mean minimum performance while 3rd and 4th at 0 states, maximum performance/ boost possible.
Only getting 467cb for this full load and 100% to CineBench, high-performance and plugged in as always, last 2 days, my maximum 543cb and sometimes downed to around 450.
A lot of internet example suggest 510 is min, and many got 600+ score.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Ryzen-5-2500U-SoC.258646.0.html (and youtube test, not gonna drop links here)
My maximum score is 584 back then, but mostly not reach 550, and always more than 500 ofc. That time I just use high performance, plugged in, make sure no background using CPU, etc. Not yet updating anything for days. After tried to update, still no problem till 2+ weeks later.

Well, sounds weird already, someone replaced his new Acer Aspire 3 for defective USB parts with new one, then surprisingly he got a high score from 500-ish to 600-ish (620 actually). While others (at least 2) people asking why he got such high score while they only got 500-ish.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/KomunitasAMDIndonesia/permalink/2165724843709436/
Every product must not in same quality I guess or something like that.
Although, my OpenGL score still higher than his, 40 vs 35 fps.
My 2500u TDP is 15W, not getting any near 15W when at full load with monitoring software like Aida64 and HWMonitorPro, only getting max a little bit higher than 13W, not even touch 14W.
15W from CPU-Z and Aida64.
(This AMDuProf got issue calculating power usage, Aida64 admin already discussed with AMD that this official tool, sadly, inaccurate for power monitoring)
Got some temp problem I think, hotter than usual and airflow from exhaust doesn't even feel normal, not enough heat sucked out? Or maybe heat-pipe or thermal paste isn't good or something.
I think I'll take my Laptop to the service center, but I feel weird if I go to the service center just for this kind of problem. 

ilhamzap

That's only around 2,1 GHz avg all 4 cores (only 0,1 GHz higher than base 2,0 GHz) while capable of going to 3,6 GHz according to CPU specification. Although, according to the source I found 3,6 GHz boost only for 1 core.
130cb, my best 140cb last week, or 142 in the beginning (At least 3,4 and lmost reaching 3,5 if I recall it correctly).
The last test now, temp for single core didn't even hit 60°C, and multi-core seems to throttle at around 75°C and barely reach 80°C meanwhile R5 2500U designed operational temp is maxed 95°C. And when idle/ minimum, around 41°C.

And this is my single core run with CineBench. Not even reaching 3,5 GHz (3,4 maximum I think).

JohnnyK

Thank you for providing my requested information. I'm not sure if you've read the whole thread, but the following two pictures describe my problem (and maybe yours too) pretty clearly:

Laptop uptime >15min, one cinebench R15 run:

The clocks are completely uneven (3.4 GHz to 1.6 GHz), 77°C and the power draw is 45W at the socket.

Directly after that I did a "cold boot" (shutdown, wait 10 seconds and boot it back up) and made another cinebench R15 run:

The clock is at 2.8 GHz on all cores (like it should be), 72°C and the power draw is 40W at the socket.

Since your chart is slightly similar to my first, your laptop might have the same problem (besides additional heat problems). Maybe you can test that again straight after a cold boot and post the results here.

ilhamzap said:

Although, my OpenGL score still higher than his, 40 vs 35 fps.

Thats due to the graphics driver. I get 35 FPS with the old one (provided by ACER) and also around 40 FPS with a newer one (installed manually). I don't think the Service can help you, especially when we haven't nailed down the issue yet. I changed the thermalpaste myself, but I don't recommend doing that.

ilhamzap

Well, yeah. I rere that that cold boot, but I don't think I waited for at least 10s back then.
One day I keep plugged-in power source, only hibernate for fast boot than sleep. Score keep downed to 450 and max 500.
When I'm brought my Laptop to hometown, about 2 hours unplugged, then tried to take a test again, hit 540cb (not sure how good core clock was, not even monitoring em that time)
Your laptop up time just around 15+ minutes and faulty clock cores happened again? So, the only time this hardware could do normally/ optimally only for few moments after cold boot?

Test after cold boot.
Still the same. 498cb at least.

I don't have adevice to detect powerdraw.

ilhamzap

Your first graph before cold boot still better, clock rate managed to stay stable for few seconds.
Mine both before or after cold boot, clockspeed graph immediately dispersed.
And I think this happen from beginning, the only difference is higher clock rates, if I recall it correctly.
Core P-State level (frequently scaling, variable frequency or something like that according to internet) for 1st and 2nd core stay at level 2 (minimim, sometimes at level 1), while the rest 0 (maximum), I have no idea this is a feature to controll core speed or just some terms about core speed at low, medium or high speed.

JohnnyK

ilhamzap said:

Your laptop up time just around 15+ minutes and faulty clock cores happened again? So, the only time this hardware could do normally/ optimally only for few moments after cold boot?

I don't know exactly why and when it happens, but that's the minimal uptime I discovered until it became faulty (sometimes it takes >30mins).

ilhamzap said:

Your first graph before cold boot still better, clock rate managed to stay stable for few seconds.

Yes, but soon after that the clocks go crazy, the CPU voltage goes through the roof to maintain the 3.4 GHz on one core, so does the power draw - which is very inefficent. When they are faulty, the battery begins to discharge itself after a few minutes of continious benchmarking, which is even worse.

ilhamzap said:

Mine both before or after cold boot, clockspeed graph immediately dispersed.

And I think this happen from beginning, the only difference is higher clock rates, if I recall it correctly.

I need the graph of the core clocks after the cold boot (not that I don't trust you, just for the sake of documentation ). In case your laptop is suffering from additional temperature problems, the cb score is obviously lower, because it should clock itself down on all cores evenly. Please test it once or twice again.

ilhamzap said:

Core P-State level (frequently scaling, variable frequency or something like that according to internet) for 1st and 2nd core stay at level 2 (minimim, sometimes at level 1), while the rest 0 (maximum), I have no idea this is a feature to controll core speed or just some terms about core speed at low, medium or high speed.

Yeah, it shouldn't result in a 1 GHz clockspeed difference (like in your graphs) on an equally distributed task. Since we can't disable "Turbo Boost" or "Cool 'n' Quite" in the BIOS, we can't do much. You could also try to lower the "maximum cpu performance" the advanced power settings (for the Highend powerplan) to i.e. 50%, 75% and 95% and check how the clockrates change under load. I find this odd that mine are stuck at 1.6 GHz on 1-99%, only 100% gives the full boost.

This laptop has SO much potential and they ruined it due to "misconfiguration". I managed to get a cb score of ~690 a few months ago, which is just awesome.

ilhamzap

JohnnyK said:

I don't know exactly why and when it happens, but that's the minimal uptime I discovered until it became faulty (sometimes it takes >30mins).

So, your problem still not yet solved I guess. No one wants to pay bucks just to get maximum performance or optimal product quality just for a few minutes. Hardware is not supposed to get faulty just because of uptime.

JohnnyK said:

You could also try to lower the "maximum cpu performance" the advanced power settings (for the Highend powerplan) to i.e. 50%, 75% and 95% and check how the clockrates change under load. I find this odd that mine are stuck at 1.6 GHz on 1-99%, only 100% gives the full boost.

Maybe because CPU fixed speed only can be set to 1.6 GHz, 2 GHz (100%, maximum, base clock, could be boosted). So, if you set max 0-99%, will be stuck at 1.6GHz
I sometimes change the maximum CPU rate to 50% or 99% to release some power to GPU when playing heavy graphics games, because of only 15 default TDP. GPU clock will more stable and stay at the high clock rate.
This may reduce game performance if they mostly rely on CPU. But mostly, my games not even hit 100% load when limiting 50% or 99% maximum CPU state.
Actually if you set X as your max CPU value in power options, 0-50% ≤ X% < ??-99% will result to max 1.6 GHz CPU clock rate and 50-??% < X% ≤ 99% will result to max 1.7 GHz (well, I'm not wanna to check one by one %)
I couldn't see any GPU performance difference when limiting to 50% or 99%, and not even want to take the test to Unigine Heaven 4.0 for it.
Because of more 0.1 GHz could get a bit faster loading times in games, and almost no GPU performance difference.
(Vega 8 iGPU ofc) No problem and no need to limit CPU to achieve even always at maximum GPU clock if your use R3 2200U + Vega 3. And more problem and not worth money if you pick R7 2700U (although overall performance still slightly increased, and decently increased if only CPU or GPU "focused"). Same 15W default TDP.

A feature gone from Power Options after updating windows or something, it's called Core Parking, 1-2 or 3 core could be parked/ idle/ sleep to improve battery saving or could be an alternative solution to improve GPU performance especially when running games that rely only on to the single core. I could hit 142cb back then, single core (I'm sure max at 3,5 or near 3,6 maximum specification, not like now 130+ max 3,4 or 3,45GHz or maybe because I'm testing it with no core parked). And now gone, I also couldn't execute powercfg feature. Maybe the new windows version, new problem. But yeah, this faulty CPU clock happen from the beginning (fresh laptop, after updating bios or other stuff), nothing to do with core parking. I update because of some reason (include that faulty CPU clock rate, flashing when playing video in Chrome, some graphical error looks like artifact but only to page, already clean Chrome, add-ons, update etc no difference, no problem with video software), but well no changes and I feel want to go back.
Using additional software like CPU core parking manager v3, no effect, still all cores enabled, unlike at the beginning, using windows feature also works, not it's gone.

A lot of people getting this problem I guess. As I said multiple times, that new replaced product case (from a bit more than 500 to 620cb), other people with same laptop and spec only getting a mediocre score, and so many references around internet suggest 510 is for super thin and super lightweight laptop, score rises to 550 then up to 620, and there you got 690. Misconfigured laptop manufacturing or something.

Well, I guess I'll ask this further to Acer center to make sure what happens.
Nice Acer product, satisfied, but I just want to get optimal performance as it should be if possible.

And this results after taking cold boot again. 493cb.

ilhamzap

I'm also doing cold or warm boot multiple times to get max score since the beginning I got this laptop. No difference and 584 scores were surprising because the rest was just 510-550 if I recall it correctly.
And this, I just found my screenshots, it's 587 max multi-core and 141 single core, and 41.96 fps max OpenGL, my mistake, but idk why I'm sure once I got single 142 and 42.xx OpenGL (well, forget about this).
Windows 10 build number hidden by GUI unfortunately.

JohnnyK

somehow this post needs approval by an admin (posted it this morning, still not there) ...

ilhamzap said: No one wants to pay bucks just to get maximum performance or optimal product quality just for a few minutes. Hardware is not supposed to get faulty just because of uptime.

This would be a problem if I would use the laptop for tasks with 100% cpu load, but normally I don't - but it's still a malfunction and should be fixed.

ilhamzap said: Maybe because CPU fixed speed only can be set to 1.6 GHz, 2 GHz (100%, maximum, base clock, could be boosted). So, if you set max 0-99%, will be stuck at 1.6GHz I sometimes change the maximum CPU rate to 50% or 99% to release some power to GPU when playing heavy graphics games, because of only 15 default TDP. GPU clock will more stable and stay at the high clock rate.

I also did that in some games (i.e. Forza Horizon) which increased the FPS by 20% - this also shows that the "algorithm" that balances the clocks on the CPU and GPU is not always optimal, but it works fine for most of the games.

ilhamzap said: (Vega 8 iGPU ofc) No problem and no need to limit CPU to achieve even always at maximum GPU clock if your use R3 2200U + Vega 3. And more problem and not worth money if you pick R7 2700U (although overall performance still slightly increased, and decently increased if only CPU or GPU "focused"). Same 15W default TDP.

Yes you're right, the R7 2700U might have a better single core performance and the Vega 11 GPU, which only helps in in either games from 2005 or more GPU bound games - imo not worth the money. I got mine for 499€ back then, so the performance matches at least the price.

ilhamzap said: Well, I guess I'll ask this further to Acer center to make sure what happens. Nice Acer product, satisfied, but I just want to get optimal performance as it should be if possible.

Have you checked your temperatures in detail? What's the room temperature? If its around 20°C you could try to improve the performance by replacing the thermalpaste (if you wanna void the warrenty) or let ACER deal with it, but I don't have high hopes that they would do anything to a mostly new laptop and just brush it of with: "That is totally normal." If the heatpipe would be damaged, I suppose the scores would be much much lower, but maybe they can replace it too. Not sure if you would have to pay anything, but I don't think it would be worth the money.

Thanks for the screenshots!

ilhamzap

JohnnyK said:

Have you checked your temperatures in detail? What's the room temperature? If its around 20°C you could try to improve the performance by replacing the thermalpaste (if you wanna void the warrenty) or let ACER deal with it, but I don't have high hopes that they would do anything to a mostly new laptop and just brush it of with: "That is totally normal." If the heatpipe would be damaged, I suppose the scores would be much much lower, but maybe they can replace it too. Not sure if you would have to pay anything, but I don't think it would be worth the money.

Not sure, but I think around 25°C that time.
Yea, already told everything to Acer Customer Service Center and I think they aware what's happening with my Laptop.
Going to backup data now, and will go there again in few hours, and waiting another 5 business days, maybe more.
I'll post again later when it done.

ilhamzap

Well, it seems will take more than half of month.
10 Nov in service, 5 business days estimate done by 16 Nov.
It's seems software, entire hardware checking didn't solve the problem.
And they shipped a motherboard replacement (include processor ofc, one of "unremovable" component because safety issues) arrived 16 Nov and will be sent from my country capital city to the service point on approx. 20 Nov then dditional 5 business days (estimate), will be done this late November, 27.

I literally told em everything about processor problem include several reference like what I mentioned in this thread. Well a bit surprised it was really a significant problem so they need to ship a motherboard lol.

JohnnyK

ilhamzap said:

Well, it seems will take more than half of month.
10 Nov in service, 5 business days estimate done by 16 Nov.
It's seems software, entire hardware checking didn't solve the problem.
And they shipped a motherboard replacement (include processor ofc, one of "unremovable" component because safety issues) arrived 16 Nov and will be sent from my country capital city to the service point on approx. 20 Nov then dditional 5 business days (estimate), will be done this late November, 27.
I literally told em everything about processor problem include several reference like what I mentioned in this thread. Well a bit surprised it was really a significant problem so they need to ship a motherboard lol.

I bet you can add a few weeks on top of that. If they use the same shi**y thermal paste again, i doubt u will see any difference. But lets hope for the best.

I sold my laptop and bought an old "Lenovo ThinkCentre 91m" workstation with an i5 2400, 120 GB SSD, 320GB HDD, 6GB RAM incl. Win10 for 100€. I also bought a used GTX 1050 for 70€ which doesn't need an addtional power connector. So the whole system cost me 170€ and it's 2x faster in (most) games than the laptop without reducing the resolution. It only scores 440 in CinebenchR15, but the cores get utilized to 80-100% (i.e. in Fortnite), while the laptop only uses 40-50% @ ~ 2.5 GHz of the cpu (which is equal to ~300cb) and ~700MHz of the gpu, which further throttles the laptop's performance in the end.

To sum up: The laptop is still a solid product regarding the price/performance/wattage ratio, but in the end it would need a 65W PSU, a better cooler, different bios settings (temp limit, voltage settings) to enjoy it's full potential. I hope the new Ryzen 2 gen (7nm) laptops will be better in the next year.

Greetings