Pre-ordered my Ionico 17 laptop just today. Here's why

[Macco26]

Adding a thread here in addition to the one I put in the italian forum (sorry for part of the details still in italian language, to lazy to copy/paste/edit from the account page):

Chassis & Display	Ionico Series: Widescreen 165 Hz sRGB 100 % LED opaco QHD 17,3" (2560 x 1440)
Processor (CPU)	Intel® Core™ i7 10875H 8 core (2.3 GHz, 5.1 GHz Turbo)
Memory (RAM)	DDR4 SODIMM Corsair 2666 MHz 16 GB (2 da 8 GB)
Graphics Card	NVIDIA® GeForce® RTX 3070 – RAM video 8,0 GB GDDR6 – DirectX® 12.1
1st M.2 SSD Drive	SAMSUNG 970 EVO PLUS M.2 1 TB, NVMe PCIe (fino a 3500 MB/R, 3300 MB/W) Partitions: 400GB, 600GB
Memory Card Reader	micro-SD integrato
AC Adaptor	1 x Adattatore 230W AC
Power Cable	1 cavo di alimentazione europeo 1 metro (tipo kettle)
Battery	Batteria agli ioni di litio integrata (91 Wh) - Serie Ionico
Thermal Paste	PASTA TERMOCONDUTTIVA ARCTIC MX-4 EXTREME
Sound Card	Audio alta definizione 2 canali + Jack microfono/cuffie
Bluetooth & Wireless	LAN GIGABIT e WIRELESS INTEL® Wi-Fi 6 AX200 (2,4 Gbps) + BT 5.0
USB/Thunderbolt Options	1 PORTA USB 3.2 (tipo C) + 3 PORTE USB 3.2
Keyboard Language	TASTIERA ITALIANA RETROILLUMINATA RGB IONICO 17 SERIES
Operating System	NESSUN SISTEMA OPERATIVO RICHIESTO
Operating System Language	Italia/Italia – Lingua italiana
Windows Recovery Media	NESSUN RIPRISTINO RICHIESTO
Office Software	Prova GRATUITA 30 giorni di Microsoft 365® (richiesto sistema operativo)
Anti-Virus	NO SOFTWARE ANTIVIRUS
Browser	Microsoft® Edge (solo con Windows 10)
Notebook Mouse	MOUSE TOUCHPAD
Webcam	WEBCAM HD 1 MP INTEGRATA
Warranty	Warranty Gold 3 YEARS (2 anni Ritiro e reso, 2 anni Ricambi, 3 anni Manodopera)
Dead Pixel Guarantee	GarWarranty dead pixel 30 days

Now, a couple of reasons I went for this, might help for others still deciding:
I was coming from a dead Clevo lasted 5 years, but whose last 2 were filled by 4 GPU failures (2 under warranty, 2 not). I paid for one only refurbished GTX970M replacement (it was a MXM module, easy replaceable) but the last one was a bit too much. Now laptop is dead right and I am writing on a very old Dell with GT445M... That explains why I can't really wait further for like AMD Zen3 additions, Tiger Lake 45H etc.
So by looking at the reviews published yesterday I understood the following (I already thought the same, but got confirmed nonetheless):
- Intel 10th gen CPU is still capable. Yes, Zen3 is like 18% faster in multithread, and 10% faster in single, but this barely matters in gaming. And seen the offers available with Zen3 would have delayed the PC even further and costed like 400 Eur more, I might pass, thank you, and 10th FTW.
- If coupled with 1440p (which the Ionico has) the difference in CPU is even more feasable. You can check OWNorDisown video about GE66 which basically test a GE66 with same CPU and RTX3070 Max-P of my Ionico, and compare with a Zen3 + RTX3070 Max-P Laptop review from Jarrod's Tech and see 1440p differences are in the 2-3 fps at best. It's fine.
- I saw the new Control Center of Tongfangs (Ionico is one of them) and frankly this is another level of customization vs the old one and especially the Clevo:

This is the version for AMD pictured in the video of Jarrod but it's the same for Ionico (beside the naming). What it's important is that:
- now you can suspend Battery recharging if you don't move the PC (like I do) and preserve wearing. This is not pictured here, but I do it's here, seen by other ODM rebranders out of PCS of the same Tongfangs
- you can choose the Power Limit for your CPU and GPU, and/or reduce the Temp for which the processor starts thermal throttle.
- This is a deciding factor. You know that new RTX 30 GPU have Dynamic Boost, that is 15W more, used only if CPU is very little used. My tests once the Ionico comes will be to try to cap the CPU at 35W max during gaming and see what happens. From what I've seen in some benchmarks (like the ones of Bob of All Trades on another PC (with a RTX Max-Q, but same applies with Max-P), is that if you clock your CPU lower it MIGHT ACTUALLY ramp up FPS during gaming because all the juice goes to the GPU, really starving otherwise during that frantic 1440p rendering.

I haven't seen this level of customization to try

 

[Bhuna50]

Have you done a search on TongFang chassis on this forum and read into some of the recent issues. Keyboard and performance on battery being the two main ones?

Also why partition and not get two separate hard drives?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Macco26]

I am coming from a dead Clevo, as I explained. So no dice either. I wanted to change. And keyboard keys scrapping or on-battery usage (which I don't) are marginal to my eyes, compared by the huge effort they put into their Control Center to try to lower heat, noise etc.
I DO had a Clevo. I know about them. Fine, but not outstanding. Time to check something else.
About the 2 partitions. that's merely for backups.
You know that 1 TB ssd is WAY faster than 512 GB ssd right? So buying two would have crippled performance. So I went with one.The reason I split in two is just this: OS in one partition and data in another. Should I brick my OS, I boot up a recovery app (like Macrium) and write it a restore point over the OS partition without any risk for my data. That's it. Same for games. Better keep them outside this OS partition, else the backup would be bigger and bigger and too much of a hassle to wait for recovery it every time.

 

[Bhuna50]

For backups? Are you backing up partition 1 on partition 2?

It’s the same drive so if it breaks you lose the lot and the back up.

Ah just re-read and understood how you are doing it

There are reasons why two drives are better than one regardless of size but you seem to know what you want


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Macco26]

Well in the era of spinning drives there were plus, yes. But now with SSD, having multiple reads/writes on the same drive does not count. Count a lot more having a larger SSD which parallelizes writes every time in as many chips as possible.
PS: of course my backup is on another external unit.

PPS: I just noticed the PCS editor cut in half my long OP message. Well, dang.

 

[Macco26]

This is the part which was missing from the INITIAL OP MESSAGE (more or less):

I haven't seen this level of customization allowing lowering thermals, noise, or sending the power where you do see fit (GPU/CPU). No other brand (MSI, Clevo, Asus, Gigabyte) does that. It's definitely a plus to whom cares of those things.

My only concerns with this unit might be:
- keyboard. Seriously, this is the 15" model keyboard cheaped out and fitted into the larger 17". One colomn of numpad missing for no reason. And being the space for keyboard cut from magnesium, they cheaped out cutting a simple big rectangle (instead of several holes for every key). Understandable, but keys now are side by side. Hope they are ok enough.
- thickness. I mean lack of thickness. This boy is very slim. I do hope the customization allowed by the CC allows me to avoid crazy temperatures. In the end last year model went full 120W in Turbo beast mode. I mean, no smart man would allow this for extended periods of time. I'll try 35W, 45W (offical rate for this CPU) at max, I guess and should be fine.

Oh and for last, I'll explain my 2 additional options:
- Dead pixel warranty within 30 days. My experience is that this defect comes with the production or very early days of the unit. Unlikely it appears in the age of it. So I should be fine and protected with those 30
- MX-4 repaste. I opted for this because Arctic warrants 8 year of duration of their paste. Given the fact I like avoiding access to the crazy heatpipe system of this system, I do hope I can avoid the repaste every 2 year everybody suggests, this way.

Hope it helps someone deciding for new RTX 30 laptops.

 

[ubuysa]

Well in the era of spinning drives there were plus, yes. But now with SSD, having multiple reads/writes on the same drive does not count. Count a lot more having a larger SSD which parallelizes writes every time in as many chips as possible.
PS: of course my backup is on another external unit.

PPS: I just noticed the PCS editor cut in half my long OP message. Well, dang.

This, to put it mildly, is not true.

You are thinking only in terms of the drive access time and completely ignoring the way I/Os are handled in a multi-user OS like Windows. The key point to remember is that there can be only one I/O (input/output) operation in progress at a time per physical drive. When you have only one drive then all I/Os use a single queue which means that Windows or application program I/Os are having to queue up behind I/Os for user data. Granted, an SSD means that the time spent on these queues is reduced but it is a fact that queueing for a shared resource is one of the major causes of poor performance.

Having at least two physical drives means that the I/O manager uses two completely separate queues, one for each drive. Windows and application programs queuing for I/Os is thus not impacted at all by queueing for the user data drive. With a busy user data drive this can have a very noticeable impact on overall performance.

Remember that Windows is running everything so that anything that slows Windows down impacts the whole system. I/Os to storage are the slowest component in any system (even with blistering fast NVMe SSDs) and anything you can do to speed up (or not slow down) those I/Os is beneficial to everyone. That's why at least two physical drives makes complete sense.

 

[Macco26]

You are correct IF the SSDs you are comparing were of the same speed. Then sure, decoupling the activities on two different 1 TB drives is better than using one single 1 TB drive.

But you know that, despite very fast, SSD are the lowest speed device in the queue CPU-RAM-Storage. Then if you use a 1 TB SSD which grants you DOUBLE the writing performance of a 0,5 TB SSD, you can't bottleneck the system, because the Storage writing is the critical path here, and doubling its performance is actually almost doubling the experience.

Sadly 0,5 TB SSD are a lot slower than 1 TB SSD (check spec sheets), because of their internal parallelization, so that's a thing. Of course this applies only to same generation of SSD. An SSD with SLC NAND 8x channels might be faster than a TLC or QLC NAND 8x channels SSD. But same model considered, you should always apply to buy the larger SSD you can.

 

[ubuysa]

But you know that, despite very fast, SSD are the lowest speed device in the queue CPU-RAM-Storage. Then if you use a 1 TB SSD which grants you DOUBLE the writing performance of a 0,5 TB SSD, you can't bottleneck the system, because the Storage writing is the critical path here, and doubling its performance is actually almost doubling the experience.

I'm afraid you're not doing your argument any good by talking about write speeds because they have minimal impact on performance. No thread is ever waiting for a write to complete. Once a thread has issued a write to storage instruction the thread can immediately continue executing, there is no loss of control because there is no need to wait for confirmation that the write has completed. A read on the other hand is a completely different kettle of fish because a thread is always waiting for a read to complete. When a thread issues a read from storage the thread cannot continue processing until the read buffer has been filled with the data from the device and must wait for the I/O to complete. It will lose control of the CPU as soon as the read is issued and even when the read has completed it will have to go back on the dispatcher queue and wait its turn to be dispatched on an available CPU. Thus a write has no performance impact on the thread that issues it but a read has a massive performance impact. Write speed only impacts the potential throughput of that device.

Sadly 0,5 TB SSD are a lot slower than 1 TB SSD (check spec sheets), because of their internal parallelization, so that's a thing.

Can you link to the spec sheets that show this marked difference in read speed please? Certainly the PCS configurator doesn't show any marked difference in read speeds between 500GB and 1TB NVMe drives and for some models it shows no difference at all.

The NVMe protocols certainly allow for parallel data transfers but they occur after the required data has been accessed (ie. when the data buffers are being filled). Starting the I/O operation however is only impacted by the parallelism of NVMe insofar as the device reports as busy far less often and for less time. If the device reports as busy when the startio command is issued then the I/O being started must be queued until the device reports as free. In addition, when the device driver is communicating with the device to start an I/O operation, it has to be serialised to prevent the same driver executing on another CPU trying to communicate with the same device before the current one has completed, that serialisation is done with spinlocks - they impact the performance of other processes trying to start an I/O with that device. Having multiple devices reduces the time a spinlock is held because they are device specific.

It's true that the effect of queuing on I/O performance is minimal with NVMe drives. The problem is that queuing is largely invisible because it's difficult to detect and on a very active device time spent queuing can have a significant impact on performance, not just on the application or system using the device but across all applications and systems that use it.

But two drives isn't just a better option for performance, it's generally a more cost effective option too. Not all files require the same speed of access. Consider for example a .dll file that needs to be loaded. If we assume it's a .dll used by a Windows function then we need that .dll file loaded as fast as it's possible to do, because Windows is running everything. This is why we always recommend the very fastest SSD you can afford for Windows. Compare that with an audio file, an .mp3 say. Audio files are processed by their application (a music player) in real time. Consequently they load a small buffer with the first part of the file and start playing that. A second buffer is then allocated and loaded whilst you're listening to the first buffer being played. When the end of the first buffer is reached the application immediately (and seamlessly) starts playing the second buffer. The first buffer is released and a third buffer is allocated and loaded, and so on. Thus the speed at which the buffer is loaded has no impact at all on the end user experience, the music sounds just the same whether the buffers are loaded quickly or slowly. All that matters is that the next buffer is loaded before the application reaches the end of the current one. Using a very fast NVMe SSD for music files thus makes no difference at all to the end user experience compared to using an HDD.

Fast NVMe drives are expensive. Whilst it's cost effective to have Windows on a blistering fast NVMe SSD it doesn't make good economic sense to put music (or video) files on there - it's a waste of a very expensive resource. It is far more sensible to have a hierarchy of drives; a very fast M.2 NVMe drive for Windows, a moderately fast M.2 ACHI drive or even a SATA SSD drive for important (or large) data files needing fast access, or even some program files (like games) that need fast (but not blistering fast) load times, and a SATA SSD or even a SATA HDD for files that don't need fast access time like music, videos and archived files.

I would suggest that you're getting much too wrapped up in the minutiae of SSD drive technology and failing to see the bigger (and more important) picture of how they fit into the wider system as a whole. At least two drives is a better option both from a system performance viewpoint, from a cost/benefit viewpoint and even from a system management viewpoint (because you can reinstall Windows without affecting your user data).

 

[Macco26]

I am flattered by the amount of detail you put in my thread. Still worth reading. And I agree on some of your points, definitely. Especially the fact that Reads are more important than Writes in a normal Desktop user experience (might not be the case in data centers etc. but that's not the case).
However I opened up the Anandtech website, SSD section and picked one of the latest reviews randomly. Here we are:

See that 2000, 3200, 3300, Sequential Read row? See the Random Read IOPS also? 95k I/O vs 550k I/O? That's just because of SSD capacity difference.
I think we can agree we can close the case here.
Note to self: Check SSD spec sheet in reliable sites (Anandtech is godsend for this), not from a part picker selector of a website.

PS: about your last sentence for backup ease, I'll make two partitions on the same SSD (all the argument we are discussing started from that) just because I agree with you: keeping OS separated by Data is actually faster to restore OS images, or backing up data. Being two different things is absolutely the go to.

Bye.

 

[Bhuna50]

The "argument" LOL. It started because I commented:

'Also why partition and not get two separate hard drives?'

You then went on to comparing 500gig with 1TB drives - but that was not necessarily my suggestion

 

[Macco26]

I may have use the word 'argument' in an unwanted way. I am not british mother tongue. It was meant 'the topic' in my sentence.
And yeah, 1 TB + 1 TB are better than one single 1 TB SSD, I get that. Could't agree more.

 

[ubuysa]

I am flattered by the amount of detail you put in my thread. Still worth reading. And I agree on some of your points, definitely. Especially the fact that Reads are more important than Writes in a normal Desktop user experience (might not be the case in data centers etc. but that's not the case).
However I opened up the Anandtech website, SSD section and picked one of the latest reviews randomly. Here we are:
View attachment 21768

See that 2000, 3200, 3300, Sequential Read row? See the Random Read IOPS also? 95k I/O vs 550k I/O? That's just because of SSD capacity difference.
I think we can agree we can close the case here.
Note to self: Check SSD spec sheet in reliable sites (Anandtech is godsend for this), not from a part picker selector of a website.

PS: about your last sentence for backup ease, I'll make two partitions on the same SSD (all the argument we are discussing started from that) just because I agree with you: keeping OS separated by Data is actually faster to restore OS images, or backing up data. Being two different things is absolutely the go to.

Bye.

Thanks for the data here, though it is just one example and the difference in data rates on these drives isn't borne out in the variety of NVMe drives that PCS offer, where these differences are not that apparent.

In any case, it is a mistake to make statements such as 'you're better off with just one SSD' without fully appreciating how the operating system uses storage drives, nor how applications use the data that's stored on them.

 

[Macco26]

The SSD picked for my build exactly here in PCS has exactly this Random Reads IOPS (official):

Aka if I had chosen 250GB for OS I'd have got 250k IOPS, but with 1 TB that I chose, well 600k IOPS. Whatever Windows might want to do with its I/O garbage, I'd have done a very bad decision by choosing a tiny 256 GB for OS and a second SSD for data.
Not to self: No matter what, 1 TB OS will give so much Random reads performance that a 250GB SSD, even if exclusively use that minuscle SSD for OS only.

Bye.

 

[Tron1982]

Hello, do you have the same data for the 2To SSD ?

 

[Macco26]

Hello, do you have the same data for the 2To SSD ?

I am away from pc but in this link you should find 2 TB 970 evo plus spec sheet:

Samsung 970 EVO Plus PCIe Gen3 NVMe M.2 SSD - 2TB

The ultimate in performance, upgraded. Faster than the 970 EVO, the 970 EVO Plus is powered by the latest V-NAND technology and firmware optimization. It maximizes the potential of NVMe bandwidth for unbeatable computing. In capacities up to 2TB, with reliability of up to 1,200 TBW.<br/>

www.ple.com.au

 

[Tron1982]

Thanks

 

[ubuysa]

The SSD picked for my build exactly here in PCS has exactly this Random Reads IOPS (official):
View attachment 21775

Aka if I had chosen 250GB for OS I'd have got 250k IOPS, but with 1 TB that I chose, well 600k IOPS. Whatever Windows might want to do with its I/O garbage, I'd have done a very bad decision by choosing a tiny 256 GB for OS and a second SSD for data.
Not to self: No matter what, 1 TB OS will give so much Random reads performance that a 250GB SSD, even if exclusively use that minuscle SSD for OS only.

Bye.

In your first (Sabrent) example, the 500GB drive has a read data transfer rate that is 62.5% of the 1TB and that is significant. In this (Samsung) example the read data transfer rate of all three drives are identical - as I was suggesting was more the case with other NVMe drives that PCS supply.

IOPS (I/Os per second for those who don't recognise it) is a measure of maximum capacity of the device, but the operating system may never achieve these sorts of I/O rates - and speaking as a former performance specialist, if you are getting close to these I/O rates on a drive then it's well past time that you added a second drive and split the active files across the two drives to avoid I/O queuing in the operating system!

You're also now comparing the 250GB with the 1TB when previously you've been comparing the 500GB with the 1TB....

You're being selective with your data because you've reached a conclusion and are seeking data to support that pre-determined conclusion. - and that's never wise. To refresh your memory, this was the conclusion you were seeking to prove...

Sadly 0,5 TB SSD are a lot slower than 1 TB SSD (check spec sheets), because of their internal parallelization, so that's a thing.

Unfortunately, the data you have presented here shows that conclusion to be false, the read data transfer rates (the ones that matter) are identical for all three drive capacities here. So it's not a thing after all......

 

[Macco26]

Whatever you think man. But you, as a 'former performance specialist' should know that Sequential Reads are not the ones impacting the OS, the responsiveness is given by the Random Reads, we agree on that right?
I agree with you that Queue Depth 32 might be not the standard OS scenario, but what I see is:
At QD1 (one single program asking something to the device) there is already a small variance: 17k vs 19k. It's 5%. Ok, 512 and 1024 are the same at this point at this stage, but move on. We don't know when they start dividing. For sure at QD32 there is a massive difference: 480k vs 600k, a good 25% difference. QD32 might be too much, but I think QD2 - QD4 could be very common: requests from the OS, your app in foreground, your background apps. I can't say if 512 and 1024 start acting differently at QD4, but I am prone to think they might start already.

In summary: I agree with you QD32 is too much for OS operation, but I stand that QD1 is literally too low. And we don't know when 1 TB starts being simply better than 512. For sure it is from the 256 GB since the beginning.
I'd like you start understanding my point that is: it depends. We just discussed now the EVO Plus 512 vs 1024. How many poeople picked a 256 GB and added another 1 TB SSD thinking they did a good decision? They didn't. And if those were Sabrent 512 vs 1 TB SSDs? Massive difference in my book. Probably because they are QLC, the new frontier more and more common these days.

So what have we learnt? It depends. It depends by the model of SSD. And your queue depth. The more multitasking you do, the more you should consider a larger SSD instead of small. That's what let me decide going for 1 single 1 TB and divide in two partitions. And have a full another M.2 slot for future proof.

PS: and by checking prices (Sabrent picture) you actually can save some if you pick large capacity vs two small ones, in some scenarios: 1 TB drive costs less than 2 512 GB SSD, go figure.

 

[Webster023]

Have PC Specialist confirmed anywhere what the TDP is for the 3070 in the Ionico? I couldn't see it.