6850K CPU Throttling Cores

[Krorghar]

Thanks wingman will do as soon as I can work in the comp, as I will be out from home for a few days.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Does anyone think this might be fixed with setting the "Long duration power limit?" The default value should be the stock TDP of the processor. So you'd want to anticipate the wattage under peak load to change that value. Otherwise it would cause throttling, which I'd seen with my Skylake-in-progress before raising it.

 

[Krorghar]

If I remember correctly, I set that value to max that was 4096 If I'm correct, anyway after flashing the Bios could have been deleted, gotta check it again, will do as soon as I get back home in a few days, thanks for your point Bonzai.

 

[wingman04]

Does anyone think this might be fixed with setting the "Long duration power limit?" The default value should be the stock TDP of the processor. So you'd want to anticipate the wattage under peak load to change that value. Otherwise it would cause throttling, which I'd seen with my Skylake-in-progress before raising it.

What motherboard did you have that throttled a skylake? I want people to avoid that one if you have to modify the power limit.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

What motherboard did you have that throttled a skylake? I want people to avoid that one if you have to modify the power limit.

If you overclock any board of the last few gens so that the processor's package power exceeds the default limit based on spec TDP, it will throttle with certain settings enabled. So if your LinX or Prime95 are showing a wattage that exceeds, say, 95W, if that's the default limit, you'd simply increase it.

There were also some other features connected to thermal monitoring and thermal control. If you were overclocking and you got the temperatures to the default limit for "enabled," it would also throttle - that was the idea of having that BIOS feature. You take your chances, but the board maker's BIOS footnote suggested "turning it off' for overclocking.

As far as I know, that was standard advice for my gen2/gen3 boards. Of those features -- I think the pertinent one was "long endurance power limit." But in stressing with an overclock, you're going to increase the thermal wattage beyond spec -- 10, 20, maybe 30 watts. Suppose I pushed my Sandy Bridge to 140W -- the same as the spec for an SB i7-3960X or whatever the hexa-core "E" processor was called. That's where you'd want to increase that value.

Anyway, my board is a Sabertooth Z170 S -- no different than the Mark 1 but for lacking the duct-plate. And those power management factors would only come into play with higher clocks, default settings. What defaults they throw could either be the spec TDP or a value based on the spec -- plus some margin. You'd never discover it if your stress-test of choice was either XTU or Aida.

But it's always had mention in the various web-site OC guides I'd seen, whatever their reliability.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Those were standard "CPU power management" features with my Sandy processors and Z68 boards, and they're apparently organized in the BIOS submenus the same way for Z170.

I can only say that this was a topic I'd seen in overclocking guides of whatever reliability going back to 2011. And if someone gave you list of "prescription" overclock settings for a particular chipset and manufacture, there would always be a recommendation for "long endurance power limit" to take it off "Auto" -- anticipating the actual package-power the processor might reach beyond its stock TDP setting.

To tell the truth, I'd have to check my notes -- but it is possible that -- running through the BIOS menus, I may have changed the setting initially from "Auto" with a value too low, and that's where I saw the actual throttling. I think I was underestimating the wattage some clock value and voltage would throw up for the Skylake. I must have been short by 10 or 20 W.


There were also two settings for thermal limits and monitoring, and I think for instance a temperature limit could be manually set, or you could simply turn it off.

Anyway, I only mentioned this as a possibility for the OP or poster with this problem.

And I'll have to update my page-footer signature. The motherboard is a Sabertooth Z170 S. Nothing at all wrong with that board, unless you don't like "urban" or "winter" camo.

 

[wingman04]

If you overclock any board of the last few gens so that the processor's package power exceeds the default limit based on spec TDP, it will throttle with certain settings enabled. So if your LinX or Prime95 are showing a wattage that exceeds, say, 95W, if that's the default limit, you'd simply increase it.

There were also some other features connected to thermal monitoring and thermal control. If you were overclocking and you got the temperatures to the default limit for "enabled," it would also throttle - that was the idea of having that BIOS feature. You take your chances, but the board maker's BIOS footnote suggested "turning it off' for overclocking.

As far as I know, that was standard advice for my gen2/gen3 boards. Of those features -- I think the pertinent one was "long endurance power limit." But in stressing with an overclock, you're going to increase the thermal wattage beyond spec -- 10, 20, maybe 30 watts. Suppose I pushed my Sandy Bridge to 140W -- the same as the spec for an SB i7-3960X or whatever the hexa-core "E" processor was called. That's where you'd want to increase that value.

Anyway, my board is a Sabertooth Z170 S -- no different than the Mark 1 but for lacking the duct-plate. And those power management factors would only come into play with higher clocks, default settings. What defaults they throw could either be the spec TDP or a value based on the spec -- plus some margin. You'd never discover it if your stress-test of choice was either XTU or Aida.

But it's always had mention in the various web-site OC guides I'd seen, whatever their reliability.

With the GA Z170 HD3 motherboard it will not throttle, when increaseing the Vcore as far as 1.45v, The board just limits the voltage output. I can see the limiting voltage with HWmonitor, also the output voltage is well above safe limitis. That is what motherboard manfacures do is limit the voltage output, since sandy Bridge.


The thermal design power (TDP), sometimes called thermal design point, is the maximum amount of heat generated by a computer chip or component (often the CPU or GPU) that the cooling system in a computer is designed to dissipate in typical operation. Rather than specifying CPU's real power dissipation, TDP serves as the nominal value for designing CPU cooling systems.[1]

The TDP is typically not the largest amount of heat the CPU could ever generate (peak power), such as by running a power virus, but rather the maximum amount of heat that it would generate when running "real applications." This ensures the computer will be able to handle essentially all applications without exceeding its thermal envelope, or requiring a cooling system for the maximum theoretical power (which would cost more but in favor of extra headroom for processing power).[2]

Some sources state that the peak power for a microprocessor is usually 1.5 times the TDP rating.[3] However, the TDP is a conventional figure while its measurement methodology has been the subject of controversy. In particular, until around 2006 AMD used to report the maximum power draw of its processors as TDP, but Intel changed this practice with the introduction of its Conroe family of processors.[4]

A similar but more recent controversy has involved the power TDP measurements of some Ivy Bridge Y-series processors, with which Intel has introduced a new metric called scenario design power (SDP).[5][6]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_design_power

 

[Abwx]

The TDP is typically not the largest amount of heat the CPU could ever generate (peak power), such as by running a power virus, but rather the maximum amount of heat that it would generate when running "real applications."

You re right overall about TDP definition but as being the power dissipated by the CPU in real apps that s not true, quite the contrary.

Since a same CPU at different clocks can be granted the same TDP it is obvious that only the higher clocked part thermals could have a relevance with the TDP value, and still, only with power viruses.

As a simple rule the max average TDP of CPUs can be checked with Prime 95 FI, any regular MT app will be about 20% less stressful power wise, indeed it seems that both AMD and Intel use P95, wich is more demanding than Linpack, to rate their CPUs thermals.

 

[wingman04]

You re right overall about TDP definition but as being the power dissipated by the CPU in real apps that s not true, quite the contrary.

Since a same CPU at different clocks can be granted the same TDP it is obvious that only the higher clocked part thermals could have a relevance with the TDP value, and still, only with power viruses.

As a simple rule the max average TDP of CPUs can be checked with Prime 95 FI, any regular MT app will be about 20% less stressful power wise, indeed it seems that both AMD and Intel use P95, wich is more demanding than Linpack, to rate their CPUs thermals.

Where do you get your information from? This is Intel's TDP testing. Thermal Design Power (TDP) represents the average power, in watts, the processor dissipates when operating at Base Frequency with all cores active under an Intel-defined, high-complexity workload. Refer to Datasheet for thermal solution requirements. http://ark.intel.com/products/88191/Intel-Core-i5-6600K-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_90-GHz