9550 Running at 2.0?

[spyblog]

New build, 9550 and Asus P5Q Pro. Download CPU-Z and CPU is apparently running at 2003mhz, 6 multiplier, etc. Any idea why?

 

[error8]

There is a sticky at the top of this forum, made specially for these "problems".

 

[polarbear6]

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2164014&enterthread=y
read it and enjoy

there is this useless piece of sh*t technology that comes with intel
its called e1st and c1e disable it (i have never used it so it is useless to me )

what it does is that it disables the few multipliers when the system is idle(what i have observed is that it always keeps them disabled no matter what happens)

 

[spyblog]

I went in and manually put it to stock settings, but CPU-Z shows it went down even. It will sort of flash between 2ghz with 6 multiplier and 2.8 with 8.5

Reading stickies.

 

[polarbear6]

Originally posted by: spyblog
I went in and manually put it to stock settings, but CPU-Z shows it went down even. It will sort of flash between 2ghz with 6 multiplier and 2.8 with 8.5

Reading stickies.

yeah it obiously will flash to 2.8 with 8.5 multipliers when ur system is on load like when u open a program at system startup and when u watch po*n (sorry for being rude but couldn't resist the joke)

and comes back to 2 ghz when idle

thats the whole entire sh*tty concept of the energy saving state(e1st or c1e)
disable it via ur bios
and enjoy the full power of a quad

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: ganesh1


there is this useless piece of sh*t technology that comes with intel
its called e1st and c1e disable it (i have never used it so it is useless to me )

Why do you think it's that useless? It's meant to save energy when you aren't doing much at your computer. It seems very logical and useful. Why would I want my cpu at 3.9 ghz, for example, when my computer is just sitting in the desktop, doing nothing, or playing winamp? There is no need for the whole "power" of the cpu when you're doing nothing.
When you start doing intensive tasks, the multiplier goes to it's normal value and the frequency increases instantaneous, so there is no performance hit.

 

[polarbear6]

Originally posted by: ganesh1


there is this useless piece of sh*t technology that comes with intel
its called e1st and c1e disable it (i have never used it so it is useless to me )

as i said i never used it so its useless to me and i have my own doubts about how much energy is wasted in reviving the switched off multipliers

and how much energy is saved overall
but i really saw some performance difference when i have the c1e switched on and off(because of the switching on and off of the multipliers)

 

[Denithor]

I personally appreciate the power-saving mode Intel wired into their chips.

I think the i7 version is even better though - it completely turns off cores that aren't being used which can save a lot of energy. Or at least it would if Vista was smart enough to not spread work across all the cores constantly.

 

[PCTC2]

With all of my computers, I save a lot of power using EIST and C1E when they idle. Very useful indeed.

 

[roid450]

I love the power saving mode...... only when I leave my computer on overnight and for the rest of the day while I'm at school when downloading recorded TV shows off my friend) I only use this power saving mode once or twice a week. when I get home form school I restart and turn it off to Game and do other stuff.

 

[Phunk0ne]

ganesh1:

apparently, this **** technology you refer to has helped others. If it really is as bad as you want to make others believe, show some hard evidence from tests.

blatantly ignoring the fact it helps in consuming less power + producing less heat is a more than welcome feat.

just my two cents.

 

[Jessica69]

Originally posted by: ganesh1


but i really saw some performance difference when i have the c1e switched on and off(because of the switching on and off of the multipliers)

And to that I call shens......the switch is so fast, by the time you possibly could "notice" anything different, the cpu is at its "normal" speed.

The only time it's downclocked is in total idle.....open a program and it's back to full speed almost instantaneously. I seriously doubt anyone using any type of benchmarking program could ever see any performance differences.....because the moment you open the program, it's up at full speed.....the moment you click your mouse to start the benchmark, it's up at full speed. Running a game, it's at full speed.

Pray tell, how did you notice the performance differences, outside it possibly hampering a severe overclock....which has happened in rare circumstances to very few individuals striving for the very last MHz out of their cpus...........

 

[TidusZ]

It's a good feature because the people who don't know how to turn it off are the people who will benefit, while enthusiasts turn it off like a reflex now. For overclocking you pretty much have to disable it.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: TidusZ
For overclocking you pretty much have to disable it.

Not really. I keep it enabled and it doesn't mess with my oc at all.

 

[polarbear6]

yeah i have done maths and i found that if i keep this *technology*
it disables 3 clocks
9 clocks = 65 w
so 3 clocks gives me 20w
and in a hour i get 0.02kwh
multiplied by 6 hours a day * 30 days = 3.6kwh
and a unit costs 3rupees here 3.6 * 3 = 10 ruppess
wha i wonder why iam still not rich

and by the way nobody in my colony has a core 2 duo or anything wid power saying techno
so at most for amonth throughout india people at most can save 50,000 ruppes
i wonder why we still are poor
i still stick wid my plan as the saving is not significant
and i most of the time game in the 6 hours and wid this technology on there are ups and downs in the fps which is not desirable

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: TidusZ
For overclocking you pretty much have to disable it.

Not really. I keep it enabled and it doesn't mess with my oc at all.

It's common practice to OC with these off and then turn them back on when you find the sweet spot.

 

[PCTC2]

Originally posted by: ganesh1
yeah i have done maths and i found that if i keep this *technology*
it disables 3 clocks
9 clocks = 65 w
so 3 clocks gives me 20w
and in a hour i get 0.02kwh
multiplied by 6 hours a day * 30 days = 3.6kwh
and a unit costs 3rupees here 3.6 * 3 = 10 ruppess
wha i wonder why iam still not rich

and by the way nobody in my colony has a core 2 duo or anything wid power saying techno
so at most for amonth throughout india people at most can save 50,000 ruppes
i wonder why we still are poor
i still stick wid my plan as the saving is not significant
and i most of the time game in the 6 hours and wid this technology on there are ups and downs in the fps which is not desirable

Not really how it works. Not the correct math. It's a lot more complicated than that. But the power savings do work out to about 15-20W probably. But if you are using your computer, you are not saving that power. If any process is using your computer beyond idle, you are not saving power. I have 6 computers in this room right now running. I save a decent amount of money when I let them idle with C1E and EIST vs idling without them. It's not going to make me rich, but it is still money that stays in my pocket. I'll bust out my kill-a-watt later to prove it if I have time. And if I sit with CPU-Z open, the minute I open a program, instantly up to full clock speed.

Plus, don't use generalizations like this. Generally, if people have more money, they can afford a tiny bit more, negating most savings. Remember, 10 rupees/month. A month is a rather long time. Sure, that's 120 rupees/year, but is that going to make you rich? The India Per-Capita GDP is 38000 Rupees. How long have you had a computer with C1E or EIST? I save about $100/year. That's $100 I could use to buy food, or a desk, or save for an emergency. But that is only 0.25% of my total income. Not much, but there are times when I could really need $100.

EDIT: I've been in school too long. I typed GPA instead of GDP.