1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Core i7 920 = 1.6 GHz?

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by FordGT90Concept, Apr 23, 2009.

  1. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    15,088 (6.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,711
    Location:
    IA, USA
    I wrote an app (attached) which detects the core speed for all cores in the computer it runs on and then graphs the speeds to monitor it for changes. It has worked correctly on a Pentium 4 w/ HT, a Pentium dual core, Opteron 180, and Xeon 5310; however, this app, and every other app I try on this computer, it always returns a speed of 1.6 GHz. It might be SpeedStep but even when I put 100% load on the processor, the clock remains at 1.6 GHz.

    I can't figure out what's wrong. :(


    It requires .NET 2.0 to run.
     

    Attached Files:

    Crunching for Team TPU
  2. ShogoXT

    ShogoXT New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    Messages:
    974 (0.36/day)
    Thanks Received:
    84
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    What if you turn hyperthreading off?
     
    FordGT90Concept says thanks.
  3. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    15,088 (6.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,711
    Location:
    IA, USA
    I just turned Hyperthreading off. Now we have...
    Column 1 Column 2
    0 0 1597
    1 1 1597
    2 2 1596
    3 3 1597

    The reported speeds are unaffected (except 4 cores are now gone). I'll try disabling EIST next.

    Edit: EIST disabled, Hyperthreading back on:
    Column 1 Column 2
    0 0 1597
    1 1 1597
    2 2 1597
    3 3 1597
    4 4 1597
    5 5 1597
    6 6 1597
    7 7 1597


    Can anyone else with a Core i7 verify that this is normal? I wonder if I got a bad CPU. In any case, this is very odd.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2009
    Crunching for Team TPU
  4. human_error

    human_error

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    1,806 (0.75/day)
    Thanks Received:
    551
    Just tested on my core i7 920 overclocked to 3.7ghz with speedstep and power saving options fully enabled (ht on as well)

    the app is not reading the full speed, it's stopped at 3500mhz, but is a lot higher than what yours is reading - does cpu-z show the low speed for you?
     
    FordGT90Concept says thanks.
  5. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    15,088 (6.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,711
    Location:
    IA, USA
    The values I'm reading are the same values Windows uses (attached). If Windows is wrong then you'd think there would be pretty severe consequences relating to thread prioritization and the like. I also tried the timestamp approach to calculate the clockspeed which returned the same figure (1597 MHz). I tried this application and it also returns 1597 MHz. The only thing not reporting 1597 MHz is CPU-Z 1.50 (2.776 GHz, 21 * 133 MHz). I'm convinced CPU-Z is wrong and the other three sources are right.


    The difference between 3.5 GHz and 3.7 GHz could be Turbo (20x vs 21x). The value the app shows is the value Windows has. But since it is reporting the speed you expect it to be, that again points the arrow at my processor/motherboard, something not right. :(


    The 1.6 GHz could be coming from the FSB speed * 3 (533 * 3 = 1599). Why it would be reporting that as the CPU speed doesn't make any sense though.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Apr 23, 2009
    Crunching for Team TPU
  6. thraxed Guest

    Yeah thats not right, every version of windows has detected my cpu speed right. Maybe ya have something set wrong in your bios?
     
  7. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    15,088 (6.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,711
    Location:
    IA, USA
    Almost all the BIOS settings are default except SATA/RAID and max CPU temp. Which setting would it be?

    Edit: I updated the BIOS to the most recent and everything is still saying 1.6 GHz.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2009
    Crunching for Team TPU
  8. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    15,088 (6.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,711
    Location:
    IA, USA
    Has the app showed the clockspeeds change when SpeedSteps kick on and off? That's really the main reason why I came across the 1.6 GHz issue.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  9. blastboy

    blastboy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    45 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Speedstep off everything stock...reads all 8 @2672 fsb1336
     
    FordGT90Concept says thanks.
  10. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    15,088 (6.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,711
    Location:
    IA, USA
    So clearly, the app is good but something in my system is not. Hmm, what would be a good benchmark to test if the CPU is processing data as it should? It's not right that it is reporting 1.6 GHz everywhere but as long as it is churring out the work of it clocked at 2.666-2.793 GHz, I guess it really doesn't matter. It just means I can't test that application.
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  11. human_error

    human_error

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    1,806 (0.75/day)
    Thanks Received:
    551
    No it doesn't account for speedstep changes, the displayed speed remains the same, also the speed it shows for my proc isn't even what it would be with speedstep off, it's close but about 1.8x multi off the actual speed, but still it's a lot closer to the actual speed than it is in your system.

    wprime - if the time on a 32m run is higher than 10 seconds (it should be less, i get 7.1 seconds at 3.7ghz with loads of background stuff running) then you have a problem.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2009
  12. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    43,149 (11.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    10,419
    not always. if i changed my multiplier below its maximum (lets say 400*8 for 3.2GHz), windows (and some software) would always read it as 400x9 (3.6Ghz)
     
  13. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    15,088 (6.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,711
    Location:
    IA, USA
    OMGWTFBBQ! :|

    I saw 50% numbers flash (they were 5-6 sec) and then bang, powered off. WTF!?! I disabled system restart on failure and going to try running it again.


    Edit: I changed the power off temp from 65C to 75C and this is what it says:

    32M - 10.406 sec (1596.4 MHz Bloomfield)

    Another run:

    32M - 10.578 sec (1596.4 MHz Bloomfield)

    So it is performing on par but everything detects the speed (except CPU-Z) at a much lower clock. How odd.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2009
    Crunching for Team TPU
  14. FordGT90Concept

    FordGT90Concept "I go fast!1!11!1!"

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    15,088 (6.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,711
    Location:
    IA, USA
    Ah, I finally figured it out. In my "Genie BIOS" it had Turbo mode enabled and the last of the Turbo options was a "non-turbo multiplier." It was set to 12 and 12 * 133 = 1596 MHz which Windows was reporting. I changed it to 20, disabled Turbo mode, and now Windows is reporting the correct speed of 2.66 GHz.


    Still, I don't think I can fix that application of mine unless I wanted to spend $1200 to buy CPU-Z source code. :(
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  15. FNoob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    5 (0.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Location:
    3rd stone from the bright thing
    920 speed at 1600...

    I was alarmed to see the same thing in CPUZ at first. But, later I noted some sort of cycling is going on, and if I sat there and watched it, it would go from 1600 up to 2600 randomly, showing multiplier changes as well. It's normal, methinks. My understanding of Turbo mode was that it would increase the speed above 2600 - not below it. Isn't that anti-Turbo?
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page