Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › AMD TurboCore Bug? (Vishera : AMD FX-8370)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AMD TurboCore Bug? (Vishera : AMD FX-8370) - Page 2

post #11 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuji View Post


Maybe, but I don't think this is the case, as I had an FX 8120 that did TurboCore differently, It would overclock (to turbocore speed) only the cores that were in use without overclocking the other cores not in use, which is what I would want to happen. This FX 8370 is not doing that, it is overclocking (to turbocore speed) them all together, even the others that are not in use.
Thanks for the suggestion about open hardware monitor, just tried it, but unfortunately got the same results.

This is why i suggested you 'd read various articles that exist, that explain better the mechanics...

Visheras have 2 turbo modes. One higher and one lower. It is well known that the higher one, is very rare to see, because it requires that all other cores need to be idle, which in modern multithreaded enviroments, is almost impossible.

The lower turbo is the one most easily to find, as it requires at that 4 or more cores are idle. Turbo itself, is limited by APM. APM ensures that while in Turbo, the CPU will not exceed nominal TDP.

Unless your motherboard needs an update to support the 8370 (most motherboards released before its launch, need BIOS update), the turbo should work just fine.

The problem that you have with "monitoring" applications, is that monitoring applications, can't follow the speed of the task scheduler or the clock variance. They are pollers. They poll in intervals. Usually 1 second or more. 1 second for a CPU is a LOT of time and things change a lot in 1 second.

Without set affinity, if you run 1 thread in Prime95, you will see spikes in ALL cores in Task manager. This is the task scheduler bouncing the thread around in different cores. That's by Microsoft design. In the software monitors, you will likely see many cores at high speed. They just can't keep up with the Win scheduler, so they think that all cores are running at turbo. However, the CPU use will be 12-13%, which is what you expect when you run only 1 core at full load.

If you set affinity to 1 core, the task manager will correctly show all the load on 1 core, but the software monitors, can still glitch or you can have the CPU for a fraction of second raise more cores, to accomodate background running threads.

Anyway, here you go, just to see that the turbo, even the high one (4Ghz), does run as expected.



Prime 95 Blend, on 1 core only. Now the interesting parts:

1) Prime 95 alone is running 4 threads. 1 is the worker that does the test apparently, the other 3 are GUI and i don't know what else. Where are these going to run? Oh yes, in some other core. And where is your antivirus/windows service is going to run if it trickes a bit? In some other core. And where are your Overdrive/HWinfo/monitor going to run? Oh yes, in another core. Which means, that more likely, your high turbo won't stay there for long, because your other cores are NOT idle. They run your "other" processes or other threads of your Cinebench or your monitoring software.

In fact, most of the time, mine was showing the lower turbo at 3.7, but i did manage to grab a screenshot with the core at 4Ghz (which is the high clock turbo). So the turbo works as per documentation.

It is also noteworthy that CPU-Z doesn't manage to "capture" the 4Ghz clock, it's "stuck" to 3.7Ghz, while Open Hardware Monitor set to 1 sec poll, manages to register the 4Ghz.

If ALL your cores were really running at the turbo speeds, like your software monitors claim, in task manager you 'd see usage of around 100%. Which i don't think you do.

2) Open hardware Monitor, while it does manage to show the 4Ghz, still glitches out, because it can't follow fast enough what's happening (since it's a poller too). So it says that core 2 is at 3.7Ghz, while it also says that's at 0% load. Which is impossible.

Bottom line. If you want to maximize chances that you will ever see your max turbo, you need to trim down the programs that you run in the background and hoping that Cinebench doesn't use many threads on its own.

Better yet, if you want bettter single threaded performance, forget turbo and do a normal overclocking, so that at least you won't be limited by APM. Because APM even does minithrottle to the CPU when you run 8 threads Blend for example.
Edited by Undervolter - 7/14/16 at 7:26am
Main
(16 items)
 
Dedicated Encoder
(15 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8320@4Ghz Gigabyte 970 UD3P rev2.1 Gainward GTX 750Ti Corsair XMS3 1600Mhz 16GB (4x4GB) 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOptical Drive
Crucial BX100 250GB Western Digital Green 2TB LiteOn Blu-Ray Burner IHBS 112-2 LG BH16NS55 Blu-Ray Burner 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Scythe Katana 3 Windows 7 Pro 64bit ASUS 22" VS228HR Microsoft Wired Keyboard 600 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
EVGA 430W Sharkoon VG4-V Logitech M90 Onboard 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8300 Asrock 970 Extreme3 HIS 6570 Silence Corsair XMS3 1600Mhz 8GB (2x4GB) CAS9 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Plextor M6S 128GB Toshiba 2TB SATAIII LiteOn Blu Ray burner IHBS 112-2 Xigmatek Balder 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Pro 64bit Samsung S22B350H Microsoft Wired 600 Corsair VS350 
CaseMouseAudio
Lepa LPC 306 Logitech M90 Onboard 
  hide details  
Reply
Main
(16 items)
 
Dedicated Encoder
(15 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8320@4Ghz Gigabyte 970 UD3P rev2.1 Gainward GTX 750Ti Corsair XMS3 1600Mhz 16GB (4x4GB) 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOptical Drive
Crucial BX100 250GB Western Digital Green 2TB LiteOn Blu-Ray Burner IHBS 112-2 LG BH16NS55 Blu-Ray Burner 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Scythe Katana 3 Windows 7 Pro 64bit ASUS 22" VS228HR Microsoft Wired Keyboard 600 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
EVGA 430W Sharkoon VG4-V Logitech M90 Onboard 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8300 Asrock 970 Extreme3 HIS 6570 Silence Corsair XMS3 1600Mhz 8GB (2x4GB) CAS9 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Plextor M6S 128GB Toshiba 2TB SATAIII LiteOn Blu Ray burner IHBS 112-2 Xigmatek Balder 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Pro 64bit Samsung S22B350H Microsoft Wired 600 Corsair VS350 
CaseMouseAudio
Lepa LPC 306 Logitech M90 Onboard 
  hide details  
Reply
post #12 of 23
The more i understand the inner workings of FX cores the more im astonished and perplexed. Why would anyone leave these things at stock when it seems so much better to just lock them into true 4-6-8 core turbo speeds with an undervolt? They clearly perform more reliable and at better temps when doing so.

I think this community as a whole has convinced me that undervolting up to turbo speeds is the way to go...perhaps with a slight OC at voltages just below what the system uses for its wonky turbo state at stock which seems to always be just a hair over 1.4v

For example my FX-8320E runs at 3.2 stock with something like 1.275v and turbos some of the cores up to 4.0 with 1.4175v and those are bios reading...voltages are much higher in system at stock due to a default overvolt setting on my mobo.

That's absolute horse ****. I can get all 8 cores stable at 4.0GHz when delivering ~1.250v reading on the system while idle and 1.200v under full load.

I am looking to do a full suite of undervolting on multiple P-states with the final state pushing maybe 4.4GHz at a maximum of 1.35-1.40v when i finally get this thing tuned up.
post #13 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by gapottberg View Post

The more i understand the inner workings of FX cores the more im astonished and perplexed. Why would anyone leave these things at stock when it seems so much better to just lock them into true 4-6-8 core turbo speeds with an undervolt? They clearly perform more reliable and at better temps when doing so.

I think this community as a whole has convinced me that undervolting up to turbo speeds is the way to go...perhaps with a slight OC at voltages just below what the system uses for its wonky turbo state at stock which seems to always be just a hair over 1.4v

For example my FX-8320E runs at 3.2 stock with something like 1.275v and turbos some of the cores up to 4.0 with 1.4175v and those are bios reading...voltages are much higher in system at stock due to a default overvolt setting on my mobo.

That's absolute horse ****. I can get all 8 cores stable at 4.0GHz when delivering ~1.250v reading on the system while idle and 1.200v under full load.

I am looking to do a full suite of undervolting on multiple P-states with the final state pushing maybe 4.4GHz at a maximum of 1.35-1.40v when i finally get this thing tuned up.

In deed, the turbo with an unlocked FX, makes little sense. It's a "bonus" for people who have no idea of where the BIOS is. I 've never ran overclocked CPU, but i run all FX at 4Ghz undervolted (my 8320 needs 1.28, my 6300 needs 1.32v, my 8300 needs 1.26v for Prime stable). Because, i was encoding video and i was seeing the cores going up and down to turbo speed all the time. And i saw there was very little point in doing that, instead of having a more continuous performance at 4Ghz...

I also do have a profile for turbo enabled, but i have it undervolted too, using AMD Msr Tweaker. I use the turbo profile in extra hot summer periods, where i 'd rather run at 1.18v@3.5, than at 1.28v. But, overall, it makes little sense to keep the turbo, as it's completely inconsistent and a guessing game, plus, you have APM that is waiting in ambush around the corner, to throttle you down if you exceed TDP.

One of the reasons that i will stick with Win7, is the ability to keep Cool N Quiet, while undervolting all P-States with AMD MsrTweaker, which i doubt works in Win10.

At idle, my 8320 machine falls down to 64W from the wall.
Main
(16 items)
 
Dedicated Encoder
(15 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8320@4Ghz Gigabyte 970 UD3P rev2.1 Gainward GTX 750Ti Corsair XMS3 1600Mhz 16GB (4x4GB) 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOptical Drive
Crucial BX100 250GB Western Digital Green 2TB LiteOn Blu-Ray Burner IHBS 112-2 LG BH16NS55 Blu-Ray Burner 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Scythe Katana 3 Windows 7 Pro 64bit ASUS 22" VS228HR Microsoft Wired Keyboard 600 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
EVGA 430W Sharkoon VG4-V Logitech M90 Onboard 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8300 Asrock 970 Extreme3 HIS 6570 Silence Corsair XMS3 1600Mhz 8GB (2x4GB) CAS9 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Plextor M6S 128GB Toshiba 2TB SATAIII LiteOn Blu Ray burner IHBS 112-2 Xigmatek Balder 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Pro 64bit Samsung S22B350H Microsoft Wired 600 Corsair VS350 
CaseMouseAudio
Lepa LPC 306 Logitech M90 Onboard 
  hide details  
Reply
Main
(16 items)
 
Dedicated Encoder
(15 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8320@4Ghz Gigabyte 970 UD3P rev2.1 Gainward GTX 750Ti Corsair XMS3 1600Mhz 16GB (4x4GB) 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOptical Drive
Crucial BX100 250GB Western Digital Green 2TB LiteOn Blu-Ray Burner IHBS 112-2 LG BH16NS55 Blu-Ray Burner 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Scythe Katana 3 Windows 7 Pro 64bit ASUS 22" VS228HR Microsoft Wired Keyboard 600 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
EVGA 430W Sharkoon VG4-V Logitech M90 Onboard 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8300 Asrock 970 Extreme3 HIS 6570 Silence Corsair XMS3 1600Mhz 8GB (2x4GB) CAS9 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Plextor M6S 128GB Toshiba 2TB SATAIII LiteOn Blu Ray burner IHBS 112-2 Xigmatek Balder 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Pro 64bit Samsung S22B350H Microsoft Wired 600 Corsair VS350 
CaseMouseAudio
Lepa LPC 306 Logitech M90 Onboard 
  hide details  
Reply
post #14 of 23
Yeah your posts are a big part of why i have looked more seriously into undervolting.

My first clue that turbo was garbage came while doing some gaming bench tests at stock and seeing my cores alomost never going into turbo mode. It almost feels dirty that they advertise turbo speeds because they feel pointless. Whats worse is the fact the chips clearly can handle turbo speeds at lower voltage almost universally. This begs the question why they are not just marketed that way? I already know the answer but it still bugs me.

Im just glad i am tech savy enough to get my rigs and the ones i build for folks tuned up properly.
post #15 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by gapottberg View Post

Yeah your posts are a big part of why i have looked more seriously into undervolting.

My first clue that turbo was garbage came while doing some gaming bench tests at stock and seeing my cores alomost never going into turbo mode. It almost feels dirty that they advertise turbo speeds because they feel pointless. Whats worse is the fact the chips clearly can handle turbo speeds at lower voltage almost universally. This begs the question why they are not just marketed that way? I already know the answer but it still bugs me.

Im just glad i am tech savy enough to get my rigs and the ones i build for folks tuned up properly.

Historically, all CPUs, come with higher voltage than what's really needed. That's why i 've been "undervolter" all my life. I 've been doing this since Athlon Thunderbird. This excessive voltage, is i suppose, given both to compensate for diffferent motherboards and for eventual CPU degradation in time.

But, in FX, the voltage margin, for most average chips is considerable. More than it was for comparable Thubans for example. At the end, even AMD realized that and that's how you got the 95W versions. My 8300 is marginally better than my undervolted 8320. I can run 8320 3.5@1.18v , the 8300 runs 3.3@1.16v out of factory. So if i took my 8320, i could also run it 3.3@1.16 and voilà, you have my 8300.

The turbo is just a way of AMD to maximize the gain of the TDP envelope for stock users. Or to put it otherwise, to do something with the TDP, while all those cores are idle. Unfortunately, the vcore for turbo at stock is even more excessive. Mine is like 1.42v

For someone who doesn't overclock, the low turbo, kicks in very often. Even if i encode x264, i see 3.7 all the time. But the 4Ghz, to achieve it, you need a very light config. I could make, but i don't run junk programs at startup and i don't run antivirus, plus i have some useless windows services disabled. So overall, i don't have many active programs that would impede the 4Ghz clock. And in fact, i do see in Open hardware monitor "max clock 4ghz" if i put my turbo profile. But it's not what you see often, because usually, you run many threads in the PC.
Main
(16 items)
 
Dedicated Encoder
(15 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8320@4Ghz Gigabyte 970 UD3P rev2.1 Gainward GTX 750Ti Corsair XMS3 1600Mhz 16GB (4x4GB) 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOptical Drive
Crucial BX100 250GB Western Digital Green 2TB LiteOn Blu-Ray Burner IHBS 112-2 LG BH16NS55 Blu-Ray Burner 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Scythe Katana 3 Windows 7 Pro 64bit ASUS 22" VS228HR Microsoft Wired Keyboard 600 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
EVGA 430W Sharkoon VG4-V Logitech M90 Onboard 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8300 Asrock 970 Extreme3 HIS 6570 Silence Corsair XMS3 1600Mhz 8GB (2x4GB) CAS9 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Plextor M6S 128GB Toshiba 2TB SATAIII LiteOn Blu Ray burner IHBS 112-2 Xigmatek Balder 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Pro 64bit Samsung S22B350H Microsoft Wired 600 Corsair VS350 
CaseMouseAudio
Lepa LPC 306 Logitech M90 Onboard 
  hide details  
Reply
Main
(16 items)
 
Dedicated Encoder
(15 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8320@4Ghz Gigabyte 970 UD3P rev2.1 Gainward GTX 750Ti Corsair XMS3 1600Mhz 16GB (4x4GB) 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOptical Drive
Crucial BX100 250GB Western Digital Green 2TB LiteOn Blu-Ray Burner IHBS 112-2 LG BH16NS55 Blu-Ray Burner 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Scythe Katana 3 Windows 7 Pro 64bit ASUS 22" VS228HR Microsoft Wired Keyboard 600 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
EVGA 430W Sharkoon VG4-V Logitech M90 Onboard 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8300 Asrock 970 Extreme3 HIS 6570 Silence Corsair XMS3 1600Mhz 8GB (2x4GB) CAS9 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Plextor M6S 128GB Toshiba 2TB SATAIII LiteOn Blu Ray burner IHBS 112-2 Xigmatek Balder 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Pro 64bit Samsung S22B350H Microsoft Wired 600 Corsair VS350 
CaseMouseAudio
Lepa LPC 306 Logitech M90 Onboard 
  hide details  
Reply
post #16 of 23
Yeah, like i said, im well aware of why they do it...but it still bugs me. Enough to spend a good portion of my free time in the last decade learning how to min/max my systems.
post #17 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by gapottberg View Post

Yeah, like i said, im well aware of why they do it...but it still bugs me. Enough to spend a good portion of my free time in the last decade learning how to min/max my systems.

I know...Me too... But, at least with the unlocked ones, they do give you the opportunity to simply overclock, so doesn't matter much. For those who don't overclock, they probably think "if you don't overclock an unlocked CPU, then you 're still at 125W TDP and you don't need the high turbo much either, so be happy and forget about the rest".
Main
(16 items)
 
Dedicated Encoder
(15 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8320@4Ghz Gigabyte 970 UD3P rev2.1 Gainward GTX 750Ti Corsair XMS3 1600Mhz 16GB (4x4GB) 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOptical Drive
Crucial BX100 250GB Western Digital Green 2TB LiteOn Blu-Ray Burner IHBS 112-2 LG BH16NS55 Blu-Ray Burner 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Scythe Katana 3 Windows 7 Pro 64bit ASUS 22" VS228HR Microsoft Wired Keyboard 600 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
EVGA 430W Sharkoon VG4-V Logitech M90 Onboard 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8300 Asrock 970 Extreme3 HIS 6570 Silence Corsair XMS3 1600Mhz 8GB (2x4GB) CAS9 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Plextor M6S 128GB Toshiba 2TB SATAIII LiteOn Blu Ray burner IHBS 112-2 Xigmatek Balder 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Pro 64bit Samsung S22B350H Microsoft Wired 600 Corsair VS350 
CaseMouseAudio
Lepa LPC 306 Logitech M90 Onboard 
  hide details  
Reply
Main
(16 items)
 
Dedicated Encoder
(15 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8320@4Ghz Gigabyte 970 UD3P rev2.1 Gainward GTX 750Ti Corsair XMS3 1600Mhz 16GB (4x4GB) 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOptical Drive
Crucial BX100 250GB Western Digital Green 2TB LiteOn Blu-Ray Burner IHBS 112-2 LG BH16NS55 Blu-Ray Burner 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Scythe Katana 3 Windows 7 Pro 64bit ASUS 22" VS228HR Microsoft Wired Keyboard 600 
PowerCaseMouseAudio
EVGA 430W Sharkoon VG4-V Logitech M90 Onboard 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
FX-8300 Asrock 970 Extreme3 HIS 6570 Silence Corsair XMS3 1600Mhz 8GB (2x4GB) CAS9 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Plextor M6S 128GB Toshiba 2TB SATAIII LiteOn Blu Ray burner IHBS 112-2 Xigmatek Balder 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Pro 64bit Samsung S22B350H Microsoft Wired 600 Corsair VS350 
CaseMouseAudio
Lepa LPC 306 Logitech M90 Onboard 
  hide details  
Reply
post #18 of 23
Thread Starter 
It seems I was able to get TurboCore to act "normal" by disabling CnQ in the bios!!

And it seems I'm still able to get the downclock I wanted when cores are idle without CnQ just as it was with CnQ, not sure if the downclocking is from my BIOS EPU setting or having APM enabled, going to try disabling one test, then the other and test.

But yea turns out I did expect more than what Turbo Core really does, but I definitely was not getting what Turbo Core is supposed to do. I know I should not say this in an AMD Forum, but I think I was expecting Turbo Boost Technology.

About the monitoring software not being able to keep up there is usually a setting in them to adjust the polling rate, so that's not an issue, as I set them manually in HWiNFO and Core Temp.

But atm with CnQ off, in the BIOS I am able to get the Turbo Core low mode, to be module dependent, and the Turbo Core high mode, to require half of the cpu to be idle by setting affinity to the half I use. But I think my next step will be to use AMD Msr Tweaker to set the low mode to be the same as the high mode, or see if I can adjust the high mode to be high enough in the bios that the low mode will in turn be the same as the old high mode.

I also had to NOT set affinity to a single core for cinebench to achieve this, seems when a single core goes to full load like that, all cores turbo boost together.

So currently Turbo Core low mode will overclock a module of the core with some load on it (still trying to figure out how much load exactly), but when a core goes to full load all cores will overclock together (similar to the original issue I had, but at least with CnQ off I was able to get some module independent overclocks). Turbo Core high mode will overclock 4 cores, as long as 4 cores are not in use. I am pretty sure this is how Turbo Core is designed to work. Looks like CnQ is what was causing the problem, but I still dream that Turbo Core is more like Turbo Boost lol.

Thanks everyone for all of the input, I will do a little more testing and let you guys know if I get any different results.
Workspace
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8120 ASRock 880G Pro3 AMD Radeon HD 6700 Series (5770 bios flashed to... SpecTek Incorporated  
RAMRAMRAMCooling
A- Team Group Inc. Team Group Inc. Spire TherMax Eclipse II CPU Cooler 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Windows 7 Home Premium Westinghouse 1280 x 1024 PC Power & Cooling Silencer 760w 80 Plus Silver PowerUp! G54-40840 XL Mid-Tower ATX Case 
  hide details  
Reply
Workspace
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8120 ASRock 880G Pro3 AMD Radeon HD 6700 Series (5770 bios flashed to... SpecTek Incorporated  
RAMRAMRAMCooling
A- Team Group Inc. Team Group Inc. Spire TherMax Eclipse II CPU Cooler 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Windows 7 Home Premium Westinghouse 1280 x 1024 PC Power & Cooling Silencer 760w 80 Plus Silver PowerUp! G54-40840 XL Mid-Tower ATX Case 
  hide details  
Reply
post #19 of 23

CPU clk 17x, Cpu turbo clk 23x
CPU 1.1375v Bus 217
Kingston Fury DDR3 1866mHz clk at 1600mhz 1.5V DRAM fq 868 mhz CL10-11-10-29-40
CnQ enable
http://valid.x86.fr/ulu9nt

Power plan: high performance running default windows services

Sometimes if APM is set to auto it doesn't provide the right boost, better set to enabled/on
post #20 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jigzaw View Post


CPU clk 17x, Cpu turbo clk 23x
CPU 1.1375v Bus 217
Kingston Fury DDR3 1866mHz clk at 1600mhz 1.5V DRAM fq 868 mhz CL10-11-10-29-40
CnQ enable
http://valid.x86.fr/ulu9nt

Power plan: high performance running default windows services

Sometimes if APM is set to auto it doesn't provide the right boost, better set to enabled/on

The goal is to get Turbo Core working properly, have it boost only the cores / modules it needs, do you have a short video clip or screenshot of your core frequencies as you are doing the single core benchmark in Cinebench? For me the only way to get the Turbo Core to boost ONLY the cores it needs to (without boosting all the cores together), is to disable CnQ. Use HWiNFO Sensors and set the polling rate low, I put mine down to 100ms to monitor the frequencies.

I also found out how I was able to get the downclocks on idle without CnQ it was by leaving the core multiplier set to Auto in the BIOS, can use software to adjust the multipliers and still get the downclocks in windows so thats good.
Workspace
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8120 ASRock 880G Pro3 AMD Radeon HD 6700 Series (5770 bios flashed to... SpecTek Incorporated  
RAMRAMRAMCooling
A- Team Group Inc. Team Group Inc. Spire TherMax Eclipse II CPU Cooler 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Windows 7 Home Premium Westinghouse 1280 x 1024 PC Power & Cooling Silencer 760w 80 Plus Silver PowerUp! G54-40840 XL Mid-Tower ATX Case 
  hide details  
Reply
Workspace
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8120 ASRock 880G Pro3 AMD Radeon HD 6700 Series (5770 bios flashed to... SpecTek Incorporated  
RAMRAMRAMCooling
A- Team Group Inc. Team Group Inc. Spire TherMax Eclipse II CPU Cooler 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Windows 7 Home Premium Westinghouse 1280 x 1024 PC Power & Cooling Silencer 760w 80 Plus Silver PowerUp! G54-40840 XL Mid-Tower ATX Case 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AMD CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › AMD › AMD CPUs › AMD TurboCore Bug? (Vishera : AMD FX-8370)