i don't know how i feel about intel c-state, im just trying to get a consensus of how many people actually have this feature enabled
do you have intel c state disabled or enabled?
2 reading
xzamples
1 - 20 of 175 Posts
Joined
·
1,610 Posts
yep
Joined
·
9,681 Posts
I have been messing around with the cstates that you speak of. I have finally been able to get my computer to "sip" juice as the overclocking guide I was following stated.
Quote:
![thumb.gif]( "thumb.gif")
My core mulitplier is set to 44 with a max of 1.213v: I had to go into the BIOS (1504) for the FORMULA VI and enable c state 7 (C7s)
I am actually pretty excited. I've been wanting to do this for a while.
Quote:
He said it best right here. I am using .144v to .444v running windows task manager, cpu-z, firefox, i tunes never breaking the .5v markOriginally Posted by QxY
C7s enabled here, along with the Windows power saving feature that downclocks the CPU...I get some really cool 4770k idle temps at 800MHz/0.15v. Not sure why someone would want to run at full speed/voltage all the time.
I am actually pretty excited. I've been wanting to do this for a while.
Joined
·
615 Posts
I have all power-saving features enabled in BIOS that I possibly can, including all the C-states. I pay the electric bill and I'd rather not be giving away money for no reason. I also put my computer to sleep when I'm not at home. I don't like the idea of wasting power and reducing component lifespan by running my system at full blast all the time, especially when I'm not using it.
I know a lot of computer enthusiasts, especially overclockers, don't mind turning off the power-savings to chase every last drop of performance. But I think it's more elegant and impressive to have a stable overclock while also being power efficient. My opinion of course.
![smile.gif]( "smile.gif")
I know a lot of computer enthusiasts, especially overclockers, don't mind turning off the power-savings to chase every last drop of performance. But I think it's more elegant and impressive to have a stable overclock while also being power efficient. My opinion of course.
Joined
·
3,727 Posts
Power is cheap. At idle my rig runs at a constant 4.6 Ghz. With 3 780's it pulls about 200 watts at idle. Only dropped to 150 watts with c states on. Rathe have it slightly more snappy than use I tiny bit less power. But that's me.
Quote:
It's also simple more wear & tear on your parts.
This^Originally Posted by jhaze84
I have all power-saving features enabled in BIOS that I possibly can, including all the C-states. I pay the electric bill and I'd rather not be giving away money for no reason. I also put my computer to sleep when I'm not at home. I don't like the idea of wasting power and reducing component lifespan by running my system at full blast all the time, especially when I'm not using it.
I know a lot of computer enthusiasts, especially overclockers, don't mind turning off the power-savings to chase every last drop of performance. But I think it's more elegant and impressive to have a stable overclock while also being power efficient. My opinion of course.![smile.gif]( "smile.gif")
It's also simple more wear & tear on your parts.
Joined
·
8,814 Posts
It does nothing to the stability of what I'm doing so I use it. Also it helps enormously on longevity. It may not seem immediately, but it does across years.
I have killed a computer by turning off all power saving features for a year or two.
Plus lower temps/noise is not just about "power is cheap".
I have killed a computer by turning off all power saving features for a year or two.
Plus lower temps/noise is not just about "power is cheap".
I have all C states disabled I dont even understand the point of them. I can set my MHz in windows power options, I can set wether I want the CPU frequency and voltage to dynamically change or not based on load, I can set if I want cores to be automatically parked or not based on load and how many cores as well.
I can do all that without C-States so I don't even understand what I'm missing out on by disabling them.
I can do all that without C-States so I don't even understand what I'm missing out on by disabling them.
Joined
·
615 Posts
C states are processor idle states. The more C states you have enabled, the more aggressively your CPU can throttle down its power usage when it is idle. When it detects computer activity (a hardware interrupt), it will throttle back up to C0 (full power state). If you disable C states, your CPU will be in C0 state all the time. A Google search for C states will have more technical explanations.
Joined
·
3,727 Posts
Quote:
temps barely go up since its no under load. Still idles at around 30-35C. So noise is not an issue. These chips are so efficient these days they don't put out much heat when not actually doing anything. All my fans run just above stall speed unless I am gaming or doing some other heavy activity. Even then I only run the fans on my H220 at about 50-60% most of the time. And since I buy overkill motherboards, like my Rampage, I'm not overly worried about killing it. Cheap motherboards are a bit more of a problem. Buy good stuff, crank things to 11 and enjoy.Originally Posted by fateswarm
It does nothing to the stability of what I'm doing so I use it. Also it helps enormously on longevity. It may not seem immediately, but it does across years.
I have killed a computer by turning off all power saving features for a year or two.
Plus lower temps/noise is not just about "power is cheap".
Joined
·
8,814 Posts
Temps don't kill, voltage does, according to Intel engineers. This is theoretically not true, since temp can kill, but they mean the way those chips usually operate, most of the time voltage is the one that kills in overclocking, not temps. This is because they auto-throttle anyway after a point, and that point is not extremely dangerous, plus we have obvious proof from LN2 overclocking that even subzero will kill on high voltage.
Joined
·
3,727 Posts
Quote:
True, and more voltage makes more heat and that stresses things like the VRM on the board. But high quality boards have VRMs capable of safely delivering way more power the the chips ever will, even for sub zero. At least most do. So, low odds having issues there. And on the CPU side, you need to be cranking voltage pretty hard to have an issue. Stay in the "safe zone". Or, maybe if the machine is on 24/7. But, my rig is off when I'm not around. In close to 20 years with PC, I have never killed a CPU outside running massive voltage.Originally Posted by fateswarm
Temps don't kill, voltage does, according to Intel engineers. This is theoretically not true, since temp can kill, but they mean the way those chips usually operate, most of the time voltage is the one that kills in overclocking, not temps. This is because they auto-throttle anyway after a point, and that point is not extremely dangerous, plus we have obvious proof from LN2 overclocking that even subzero will kill on high voltage.
Joined
·
9,681 Posts
Quote:
![thumb.gif]( "thumb.gif")
![biggrin.gif]( "biggrin.gif")
I understand. Fateswarm.. Cstates yay or nay? Lol
Originally Posted by fateswarm
I won't bother analyzing the several logical fallacies there.
All power savings disabled. When Im using my computer it will be at full overclock speed. When Im not using my computer, it goes into auto sleep and powers down. Power states would only save few dollars per year, it is collectively green, but not helpful to an individual. Using sleep mode is a significant power savings to individual.
Also if overclocking using adaptive voltage with C states, you cant just test your overclock with a static load program like prime. Because you now have 2 things to test instead of 1. You have to test your overclock at full load (ie prime) to ensure enough volts at full load, but now also 2) you then have to test that for each increment in load, the scaled supplied voltage is appropriate for that given Mhz. Another more recent reason people run prime stable, then crash during intermittent load, because they failed to test at various different loads using their adaptive settings (which will give various vcores to various mhz settings, none of which were tested while at full load using prime).
However, power savings feature are great for portables where small power savings are helpful to battery life. But then running at stock, hence doesnt matter for anything other than improves battery life.
Also if overclocking using adaptive voltage with C states, you cant just test your overclock with a static load program like prime. Because you now have 2 things to test instead of 1. You have to test your overclock at full load (ie prime) to ensure enough volts at full load, but now also 2) you then have to test that for each increment in load, the scaled supplied voltage is appropriate for that given Mhz. Another more recent reason people run prime stable, then crash during intermittent load, because they failed to test at various different loads using their adaptive settings (which will give various vcores to various mhz settings, none of which were tested while at full load using prime).
However, power savings feature are great for portables where small power savings are helpful to battery life. But then running at stock, hence doesnt matter for anything other than improves battery life.
1 - 20 of 175 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
