• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Any harm in disabling all these settings?

J

jp0ll

Member
I finally found a stable overclock for my i5 3570k and I was wondering if I should turn some of the power saving features on in my BIOS such as C3/C6 state, speed step, etc. Should I keep any of these features on? Is there any harm in keeping them all turned off?
 
No harm in disabling them, but no harm in keeping them on. I leave them on, reduces my power when I'm idling.
 
There was a time when these features decreased performance significantly and/or made OCing a real pain. WAS.

Keep them on. Bonus is that your CPU should last longer since it doesn't stay at higher frequencies/voltage while your are browsing AT 😀
 
I will use the chance to ask a question I had that is to this topic:
Do frequency and voltage fluctations potentially wear-off the CPU? For example would it be more healthy for the PC to stay at defaults ALL the time, or to switch between C-states and different voltages every 5 minutes?
 
Kristijonas said:
I will use the chance to ask a question I had that is to this topic:
Do frequency and voltage fluctations potentially wear-off the CPU? For example would it be more healthy for the PC to stay at defaults ALL the time, or to switch between C-states and different voltages every 5 minutes?
Click to expand...

Much better to change downwards. High voltage is basicly what kills CPUs. The longer its exposed to it the higher chance of failure.

So a CPU that can idle would outlast the one that cant.

The wear from the voltage switch is minimal compared with the ongoing high voltage that strains it.

Specially overclocked CPUs benefit most from being able to idle.
 
You really think that voltage switch itself does minimal wear? I mean, it's probably a fact, that temperature fluctuations are bad for almost any electronics, and temperatures are very dependent on voltage.

So would it be good for the CPU if after installing it, its frequency would be untouched, but voltage would be lowered as much possible? (with 100% stability) Would it then be much safer to disable all power saving thingies?
 
I really only use my desktop for when I want to play games. I barely leave it idling or use it for web browsing. That's what I have my laptop for. I guess in my situation there is no harm in disabling all those settings based off of how I primarily use the machine. It might be beneficial for others who leave their system on for extended periods of time.
 
jp0ll said:
I really only use my desktop for when I want to play games. I barely leave it idling or use it for web browsing. That's what I have my laptop for. I guess in my situation there is no harm in disabling all those settings based off of how I primarily use the machine. It might be beneficial for others who leave their system on for extended periods of time.
Click to expand...

If you want to pay a higher electricity bill for the exact same performance, go right ahead then.

Power saving settings do their work exactly when they need to: when the system is at idle or at low load, and therefore you don't need the performance. When you don't need it, then it applies full voltage and clock speed. There is no performance gain from turning EIST off, but there is a power consumption benefit and a longevity benefit (lowering CPU voltage or having it fluctuate based on load doesn't degrade a CPU: it's running a CPU at constant high voltage that degrades it).
 
jp0ll said:
I really only use my desktop for when I want to play games. I barely leave it idling or use it for web browsing. That's what I have my laptop for. I guess in my situation there is no harm in disabling all those settings based off of how I primarily use the machine. It might be beneficial for others who leave their system on for extended periods of time.
Click to expand...

So what's the benefit to turning them off?
 
Kristijonas said:
You really think that voltage switch itself does minimal wear? I mean, it's probably a fact, that temperature fluctuations are bad for almost any electronics, and temperatures are very dependent on voltage.

So would it be good for the CPU if after installing it, its frequency would be untouched, but voltage would be lowered as much possible? (with 100% stability) Would it then be much safer to disable all power saving thingies?
Click to expand...

2 things kill CPUs, temperature and voltage, keeping either one lower will prolong the life of your chip. I have no idea where you are getting the "temperature fluctuations are bad for almost any electronics" idea from unless you are thinking of something along the lines of solder drying out and cracking from repeated heat cycling which really doesn't apply here. If you have any more information please provide a link to it.
 
Kristijonas said:
Proof, please?

What if volt&clock fluctuation degrades a CPU more than constant stock clock with a constant mild undervolt?
Click to expand...

What undervolt?

We're talking about a CPU that runs at load voltage constantly degrading higher than one running at a much lower voltage at idle and at load running at the same voltage as the other one is constantly. The one running at the load voltage constantly will degrade faster. Higher voltage=higher degradation. The act of fluctuating between idle and load voltage doesn't=higher degradation. Higher temperature will also lead to higher degradation, though to a smaller degree than higher voltage.

This is a simple fact. Not much use in debating it.
 
Last edited:
Kristijonas said:
Proof, please?

What if volt&clock fluctuation degrades a CPU more than constant stock clock with a constant mild undervolt?
Click to expand...


Your posts so far run on either "probably" or "what if".

Maybe you could link some proof before demanding it from others.

It is easy to prove high voltage and temps kill CPUs, following that premise to its natural conclusion that anything that lowers either voltage or temperatures will prolong the life of a chip seems like common sense to me.

While your ideas that voltage or clock fluctuation could wear out a chip prematurely are intriguing they seem to be based on nothing more than conjecture. Perhaps a good place to start would be the fact that intel enables all these funtions on their chips. Why would a manufacturer enable a feature that reduced the lifespan of their CPUs.

If we were trying to guage if these features prematurly wear out the power delivery components of the motherboard I would be a lot less sceptical however. Although you have about as much chance of finding actual proof of that occuring as you do of finding a data set of lifespan of cpus running the same max voltage with various power saving technologies turned on or off.
 
Kristijonas said:
You really think that voltage switch itself does minimal wear?
Click to expand...

How about the billions of computers that have been running at defaults (which includes such voltage switching) for years and years? CPU failure is very rare in stock setups. This wouldn't be the case if power saving (which defaults to on) caused excessive wear.
 
I'm using many "probablys" and "what ifs" only because I'm not stating anything, I'm merely asking.

I'm interested to know what's more healthy to a CPU. Let's hypothetically say clock freq and voltage are attached to each other 1:1. Now let's say that CPU can work at 1-100% of it's power (clock+volt). So what I'm asking is what do you think would be more DAMAGING to a CPU?

a) Running CPU at full range, 1-100%, switching between different clocks and voltages when necessary. At least with sandy bridge, in CPU-Z I saw changes almost every few seconds most of the times. (default settings basically)
b) Running CPU constantly at 90% (yes, undervolted and underclocked by 10%)
 
Chiropteran said:
How about the billions of computers that have been running at defaults (which includes such voltage switching) for years and years? CPU failure is very rare in stock setups. This wouldn't be the case if power saving (which defaults to on) caused excessive wear.
Click to expand...

I cant remember hearing about a single CPU that failed at stock for atleast the last 5 years.

Its always either OC or when seating it.
 
Kristijonas said:
I'm using many "probablys" and "what ifs" only because I'm not stating anything, I'm merely asking.

I'm interested to know what's more healthy to a CPU. Let's hypothetically say clock freq and voltage are attached to each other 1:1. Now let's say that CPU can work at 1-100% of it's power (clock+volt). So what I'm asking is what do you think would be more DAMAGING to a CPU?

a) Running CPU at full range, 1-100%, switching between different clocks and voltages when necessary. At least with sandy bridge, in CPU-Z I saw changes almost every few seconds most of the times. (default settings basically)
b) Running CPU constantly at 90% (yes, undervolted and underclocked by 10%)
Click to expand...

Well scenario A would use higher voltage than scenario B when above 91% utilization but without listing how much of the time it would be in this state (i.e what % of the time does this imaginary task require <91% clockspeed) it is impossible to even begin to answer that question.
 
Kristijonas said:
Proof, please?

What if volt&clock fluctuation degrades a CPU more than constant stock clock with a constant mild undervolt?
Click to expand...

Every single processor sold today and the last few years has this feature. Since you're the one making the claim that it could be harmful, the burden of proof is on you, not everyone else.
 
Kristijonas said:
You really think that voltage switch itself does minimal wear? I mean, it's probably a fact, that temperature fluctuations are bad for almost any electronics, and temperatures are very dependent on voltage.

So would it be good for the CPU if after installing it, its frequency would be untouched, but voltage would be lowered as much possible? (with 100% stability) Would it then be much safer to disable all power saving thingies?
Click to expand...
I wondered this too. I have this picture of someone turning a light on and off every second instead of just leaving the lights on (or tapping a lamp again and again to change the brightness). Does this burn the bulb out faster, or is this just a myth? (many sources I know have claimed it does, while others have claimed it doesn't). Since a lot of power saving features on laptops turn the display on/off up/down, wouldn't that be the same thing? Or does this only apply to certain types of lights/electrical components? I imagine almost any kind of change would cause some kind of wear (like bending a book open and closed over and over again, though I guess keeping it open might cause the pages to wear/stretch/break as well).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top