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

i7 2600k reading correct in BIOS and CPUz, but not in certain programs?

Discussion in 'Overclocking & Cooling' started by newconroer, Feb 1, 2011.

  1. newconroer

    newconroer

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    3,222 (1.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    350
    Whether I do the direct ratio adjustment, or use the turbo mulitpliers, the frequency is 4800 as shown by CPU-Z.

    However programs such as :

    FFXIV Benchmark
    DX Diag
    CCleaner
    Everest

    Show it as 3.4ghz

    With other chips in the past, it always stated the standard speed of the processor than the ~ X.XXghz actual speed.

    Anyone know why this might be?
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2011
  2. Lethalrise750

    Lethalrise750 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2009
    Messages:
    123 (0.06/day)
    Thanks Received:
    19
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    It's just how the DMI reports it.
     
  3. newconroer

    newconroer

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    3,222 (1.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    350
    Well I'd like to believe that but then why does this i7 owner get a different result?

    [​IMG]

    Notice how his says ~4.9ghz
     
  4. puma99dk|

    puma99dk|

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    3,466 (1.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    783
    check ur Windows it will say the same thing bcs it takes the max multiplier x fsb that's why it says 4,9ghz and not 4,8ghz or it's like that on a normal processors (not unlocked like the K series)
     
  5. newconroer

    newconroer

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    3,222 (1.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    350
    I support what you're saying; but he has the same model.

    Why would it display differently?
     
  6. niko084

    niko084

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    7,636 (2.62/day)
    Thanks Received:
    729
    I have a dozen programs that read it wrong and a dozen that read it right. Don't worry about it :)
     
  7. Mussels

    Mussels Moderprator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    42,488 (11.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    9,768
    they're reading your multiplier wrong, so they dont know what to display.

    if you overclocked via bclock along with a static multi (no EIST, no turbo etc) then it should display correctly.

    its just programs coded to only deal with stock CPU's, nothing to worry about.
     
  8. cdawall where the hell are my stars

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    20,683 (6.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,984
    Location:
    some AF base
    windows thinks my chip is 5ghz whens its only 4.6 (i3 560) happens all the time if its working at the clocks it should than its working who cares what a badly coded program says if the performance is correct then its clocked.
     
  9. OneMoar

    OneMoar

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    3,904 (2.30/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,254
    Location:
    Rochester area
    there calculating the "effective" processing power and displaying it as "Ghz" idk why they do this but a lot of developers do its retarded
     
  10. unclewebb

    unclewebb RealTemp Author

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2008
    Messages:
    952 (0.40/day)
    Thanks Received:
    423
    These two programs have been updated for Sandy Bridge.

    RealTemp 3.67
    http://www.mediafire.com/?n99nq4kn95u6i6a

    ThrottleStop 2.99.5
    http://www.mediafire.com/?k32ercv23r9ysrh

    Both programs follow the Intel recommended method as outlined in their November 2008 Turbo White Paper. Using high performance timers within the Intel CPUs, they correctly determine the average multiplier in real time on each thread so you will know exactly what your Core i CPU is doing.

    Here's a quote from the competition so you will know what they are up to.

     
    newconroer says thanks.
  11. newconroer

    newconroer

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    3,222 (1.19/day)
    Thanks Received:
    350

    Yes, I tried to go with a static overclock and it produced the same result? Turbo was disabled but EIST was on, that could have made the difference.


    I will take everyone's word that it's a matter of coding rather than hardware. That idea is further supported for example in the FFXIV benchmark, which reports that I only have one AMD Radeon 6900, when clearly two are running.
     
  12. unclewebb

    unclewebb RealTemp Author

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2008
    Messages:
    952 (0.40/day)
    Thanks Received:
    423
    One thing that seems to confuse many users are bios options that can be misleading. I always hear things like I Disabled Turbo in the bios. The Core i7-2600K has a default multiplier of 34. If you are using a multiplier higher than 34 then you are using the turbo boost feature of the processor.

    With Core 2 Extreme processors you could select whatever multiplier you liked so the bios guys decided to make life simple and give you the allusion that you can do the same thing with a Core i K series CPU but that's not how they work. All of the Core i CPUs have a default multiplier and any multiplier beyond the default is only available by using turbo boost.

    The Disable Turbo bios option is misleading because when you Disable it, the bios checks to see if you are using a turbo multiplier and then behind the scenes turns the turbo feature back on for you. It sorts through your bios selections and turns on what needs to be turned on.
     
    Mussels says thanks.
  13. Lethalrise750

    Lethalrise750 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2009
    Messages:
    123 (0.06/day)
    Thanks Received:
    19
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    My Windows reads 6.15GHz lmao... But CPU-Z, AIDA64, RealTemp 3.67 all read the correct clock. I'm not quite sure why it even matters.
     

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

Share This Page