Coffeelake thread, benchmarks, reviews, input, everything.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TheF34RChannel

Senior member
May 18, 2017
786
309
136
I highly doubt that it will be a lot of games. Some games, sure. But a lot? No.

I know several people at Treyarch (one of three Call of Duty programming companies). They have no plans of going past 4 cores. (a) Many tasks get no benefit from more threads, see PeterScott's graph above and (b) as long as both AMD and Intel keep selling 4 core chips, they aren't going to limit their potential sales. I admit that this is just one company. But, other gaming companies are probably facing similar trade-off decisions.
Ubisoft is so one of those utilizing 4+ cores (in some of their games). Still, it's better to have and not need, than to need and not have - as I am experiencing.
 
Last edited:

eddman

Senior member
Dec 28, 2010
239
87
101
Interesting! Do you have proof? :)
He hasn't replied to me yet, but I think he means this: http://digiworthy.com/2017/09/19/intel-8-core-coffee-lake-cpus/

I did read this when it surfaced but then forgot. Is it a BIOS change-log?

EDIT: ... and there was also this: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:olCosxLUqZIJ:https://www.tweaktown.com/news/59260/intel-z370-support-future-8th-g…

It got deleted later. It either was wrong or because it was embargoed information.
 

mikk

Diamond Member
May 15, 2012
3,717
1,583
136
That leak that suggested an 8+2 CFL is coming next year; alongside the other leak that Z390 is now not coming until this time next year. It'll still be considered 9th gen, I bet.

But it's nonsense when you are saying that Icelake won't come for desktop based on this. The only thing you possibly could say is that the desktop version of Icelake won't come next year because Coffeelake 8C is coming. But saying there never will be Icelake for deskop is rubbish. It's not good for your reputation when you say this. And even the 8C Coffeelake rumour is very uncertain without Roadmaps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arachnotronic

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
9,880
2,320
136
Did they turn up a multiplier from 23 to 24, or is there something else going on there?
There s 24 EUs in the GPU, to increase yields they could have disabled one and compensate with an equivalent amount in frequency.
 

Dufus

Senior member
Sep 20, 2010
675
119
101
I see what they were trying to do, but I think a proper comparison would be to use the stock suggested memory speed for each CPU instead of gimping some CPUs with slower memory than they support. In my mind, a proper IPC comparison would have everything at stock suggested conditions except for the CPU frequency. Otherwise, they should put a clear notation on the graphs that some CPUs were using slower memory than they normally would.
Well technically if relying on RAM it becomes IPS not IPC but IPC has been so badly used I guess it doesn't matter anymore. It would be nice to have a standard, personally I like to see a chip pushed to it's maximum performance as a comparison but that's just me. :)

Interesting! Do you have proof? :)
Proof is in the BIOS itself. Of course support doesn't mean it's written in stone that there are going to be 8 core chips on that platform, just that it's been considered a possibility.

Did they turn up a multiplier from 23 to 24, or is there something else going on there?
Integrated graphics clock generally uses 50MHz as base clock so 23 multi = 1.15GHz and 24 = 1.2GHz. See post #50

He hasn't replied to me yet, but I think he means this: http://digiworthy.com/2017/09/19/intel-8-core-coffee-lake-cpus/
FWIW Current 370 BIOS has stepping A and B not C as shown by that link "CPU ID 906EC" so not considered in the current 370 BIOS.
 
Last edited:

jpiniero

Lifer
Oct 1, 2010
12,862
4,147
136
But it's nonsense when you are saying that Icelake won't come for desktop based on this. The only thing you possibly could say is that the desktop version of Icelake won't come next year because Coffeelake 8C is coming.
That's exactly my point. If they release this 8 core model this time next year alongside more Coffee Lake rebrands the next desktop models won't be until the end of 2019/early 2020. Tigerlake should be ready by then. Given the huge problems Intel is having with 10 nm it's not a large jump to think they don't want to/can't release anything of decent die size on 10 nm, and thus need EMIB.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
20,519
9,608
136
It appears now that Icelake is not coming to desktop (desktop sockets anyway). The 2018/2019 desktop is Coffee Lake rebranded, with an 8 core version thrown in the mix.
If that is actually true, then that is bad for Intel.
 
Mar 10, 2006
11,715
2,012
126
Well technically if relying on RAM it becomes IPS not IPC but IPC has been so badly used I guess it doesn't matter anymore. It would be nice to have a standard, personally I like to see a chip pushed to it's maximum performance as a comparison but that's just me. :)


Proof is in the BIOS itself. Of course support doesn't mean it's written in stone that there are going to be 8 core chips on that platform, just that it's been considered a possibility.


Integrated graphics clock generally uses 50MHz as base clock so 23 multi = 1.15GHz and 24 = 1.2GHz. See post #50


FWIW Current 370 BIOS has stepping A and B not C as shown by that link "CPU ID 906EC" so not considered in the current 370 BIOS.
I mean, can you help point us to how we can find this info in the BIOSes?
 

Dufus

Senior member
Sep 20, 2010
675
119
101
Some assembler and UEFI knowledge would help. Failing that perhaps some tools.

UEFITool can work on UEFI AMI BIOS to extract / add modules. Extract the setup utility usually called "setup" and from there one can see what options might be available.

Excerpt from BIOS Setup using "Universal IFR Extractor"
Code:
0x43826        Suppress If: {0A 82}
0x43828            True {46 02}
0x4382A            Grayout If: {19 82}
0x4382C                Variable 0xD74 equals 0x1 {12 06 74 0D 01 00}
0x43832                Setting: Per Core Mode, Variable: 0x6E9 {05 91 E4 1B E5 1B 27 04 01 00 E9 06 10 10 00 01 00}
0x43843                    Option: Disabled, Value: 0x0 {09 07 CB 1B 30 00 00}
0x4384A                    Option: Enabled, Value: 0x1 {09 07 C8 11 00 00 01}
0x43851                End of Options {29 02}
0x43853            End If {29 02}
0x43855        End If {29 02}
0x43857        Grayout If: {19 82}
0x43859            Variable 0xD74 equals 0x1 {12 06 74 0D 01 00}
0x4385F            Suppress If: {0A 82}
0x43861                Variable 0x427 equals 0x0 {12 06 27 04 00 00}
0x43867                Numeric: 1-Core Max Ratio (10-10) , Variable: 0x6EA {07 91 E6 1B E7 1B 28 04 01 00 EA 06 10 10 01 FF 01}
0x43878                    Default: 8 Bit, Value: 0xFF {5B 06 00 00 00 FF}
0x4387E                End {29 02}
0x43880            End If {29 02}
0x43882            Suppress If: {0A 82}
0x43884                Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x1 {12 86 E5 0D 01 00}
0x4388A                    Variable 0x427 equals 0x0 {12 06 27 04 00 00}
0x43890                    Or {16 02}
0x43892                End {29 02}
0x43894                Numeric: 2-Core Max Ratio (10-10) , Variable: 0x6EB {07 91 E8 1B E9 1B 29 04 01 00 EB 06 10 10 01 FF 01}
0x438A5                    Default: 8 Bit, Value: 0xFF {5B 06 00 00 00 FF}
0x438AB                End {29 02}
0x438AD            End If {29 02}
0x438AF            Suppress If: {0A 82}
0x438B1                Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x1 {12 86 E5 0D 01 00}
0x438B7                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x2 {12 06 E5 0D 02 00}
0x438BD                    Or {16 02}
0x438BF                    Variable 0x427 equals 0x0 {12 06 27 04 00 00}
0x438C5                    Or {16 02}
0x438C7                End {29 02}
0x438C9                Numeric: 3-Core Max Ratio (10-10) , Variable: 0x6EC {07 91 EA 1B EB 1B 2A 04 01 00 EC 06 10 10 01 FF 01}
0x438DA                    Default: 8 Bit, Value: 0xFF {5B 06 00 00 00 FF}
0x438E0                End {29 02}
0x438E2            End If {29 02}
0x438E4            Suppress If: {0A 82}
0x438E6                Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x1 {12 86 E5 0D 01 00}
0x438EC                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x2 {12 06 E5 0D 02 00}
0x438F2                    Or {16 02}
0x438F4                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x3 {12 06 E5 0D 03 00}
0x438FA                    Or {16 02}
0x438FC                    Variable 0x427 equals 0x0 {12 06 27 04 00 00}
0x43902                    Or {16 02}
0x43904                End {29 02}
0x43906                Numeric: 4-Core Max Ratio (10-10) , Variable: 0x6ED {07 91 EC 1B ED 1B 2B 04 01 00 ED 06 10 10 01 FF 01}
0x43917                    Default: 8 Bit, Value: 0xFF {5B 06 00 00 00 FF}
0x4391D                End {29 02}
0x4391F            End If {29 02}
0x43921            Suppress If: {0A 82}
0x43923                Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x1 {12 86 E5 0D 01 00}
0x43929                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x2 {12 06 E5 0D 02 00}
0x4392F                    Or {16 02}
0x43931                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x3 {12 06 E5 0D 03 00}
0x43937                    Or {16 02}
0x43939                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x4 {12 06 E5 0D 04 00}
0x4393F                    Or {16 02}
0x43941                    Variable 0x427 equals 0x0 {12 06 27 04 00 00}
0x43947                    Or {16 02}
0x43949                End {29 02}
0x4394B                Numeric: 5-Core Max Ratio (10-10) , Variable: 0x6EE {07 91 EE 1B EF 1B 2C 04 01 00 EE 06 10 10 01 FF 01}
0x4395C                    Default: 8 Bit, Value: 0xFF {5B 06 00 00 00 FF}
0x43962                End {29 02}
0x43964            End If {29 02}
0x43966            Suppress If: {0A 82}
0x43968                Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x1 {12 86 E5 0D 01 00}
0x4396E                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x2 {12 06 E5 0D 02 00}
0x43974                    Or {16 02}
0x43976                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x3 {12 06 E5 0D 03 00}
0x4397C                    Or {16 02}
0x4397E                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x4 {12 06 E5 0D 04 00}
0x43984                    Or {16 02}
0x43986                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x5 {12 06 E5 0D 05 00}
0x4398C                    Or {16 02}
0x4398E                    Variable 0x427 equals 0x0 {12 06 27 04 00 00}
0x43994                    Or {16 02}
0x43996                End {29 02}
0x43998                Numeric: 6-Core Max Ratio (10-10) , Variable: 0x6EF {07 91 F0 1B F1 1B 2D 04 01 00 EF 06 10 10 01 FF 01}
0x439A9                    Default: 8 Bit, Value: 0xFF {5B 06 00 00 00 FF}
0x439AF                End {29 02}
0x439B1            End If {29 02}
0x439B3            Suppress If: {0A 82}
0x439B5                Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x1 {12 86 E5 0D 01 00}
0x439BB                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x2 {12 06 E5 0D 02 00}
0x439C1                    Or {16 02}
0x439C3                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x3 {12 06 E5 0D 03 00}
0x439C9                    Or {16 02}
0x439CB                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x4 {12 06 E5 0D 04 00}
0x439D1                    Or {16 02}
0x439D3                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x5 {12 06 E5 0D 05 00}
0x439D9                    Or {16 02}
0x439DB                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x6 {12 06 E5 0D 06 00}
0x439E1                    Or {16 02}
0x439E3                    Variable 0x427 equals 0x0 {12 06 27 04 00 00}
0x439E9                    Or {16 02}
0x439EB                End {29 02}
0x439ED                Numeric: 7-Core Max Ratio (10-10) , Variable: 0x6F0 {07 91 F2 1B F3 1B 2E 04 01 00 F0 06 10 10 01 FF 01}
0x439FE                    Default: 8 Bit, Value: 0x8 {5B 06 00 00 00 08}
0x43A04                End {29 02}
0x43A06            End If {29 02}
0x43A08            Suppress If: {0A 82}
0x43A0A                Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x1 {12 86 E5 0D 01 00}
0x43A10                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x2 {12 06 E5 0D 02 00}
0x43A16                    Or {16 02}
0x43A18                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x3 {12 06 E5 0D 03 00}
0x43A1E                    Or {16 02}
0x43A20                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x4 {12 06 E5 0D 04 00}
0x43A26                    Or {16 02}
0x43A28                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x5 {12 06 E5 0D 05 00}
0x43A2E                    Or {16 02}
0x43A30                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x6 {12 06 E5 0D 06 00}
0x43A36                    Or {16 02}
0x43A38                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x7 {12 06 E5 0D 07 00}
0x43A3E                    Or {16 02}
0x43A40                    Variable 0x427 equals 0x0 {12 06 27 04 00 00}
0x43A46                    Or {16 02}
0x43A48                End {29 02}
0x43A4A                Numeric: 8-Core Max Ratio (10-10) , Variable: 0x6F1 {07 91 F4 1B F5 1B 2F 04 01 00 F1 06 10 10 01 FF 01}
0x43A5B                    Default: 8 Bit, Value: 0xFF {5B 06 00 00 00 FF}
0x43A61                End {29 02}
0x43A63            End If {29 02}
0x43A65        End If {29 02}
Actually I missed the hidden setting when looking at this earlier (Suppress_If_True), sorry about that. IOW some thought was given to 8 core support but removed by hiding it.
 

TempAcc99

Member
Aug 30, 2017
60
13
51
I guess only time will tell if games will be taking advantage of more cores or not.
Yeah but even if the game only uses 4 cores, a 6-core can be useful for all the background task (anti-virus, open browser, torrent client,...or streaming). If a game makes full use of 4 cores you will want to have 6 or more. Let's not forget that most benches are highly artificial because they need to be so one can repeat them and get similar result. But in reality your PC (CPU) will put out less frames because of background tasks and more context switching. Even networking will take some CPU time (the biggest penalty being the context switch).
 

TheF34RChannel

Senior member
May 18, 2017
786
309
136
But it's nonsense when you are saying that Icelake won't come for desktop based on this. The only thing you possibly could say is that the desktop version of Icelake won't come next year because Coffeelake 8C is coming. But saying there never will be Icelake for deskop is rubbish. It's not good for your reputation when you say this. And even the 8C Coffeelake rumour is very uncertain without Roadmaps.
I still believe that the 8C is Ice Lake and somehow that first website got it wrong and started throwing the name CFL around - it kinda appeared out of nowhere AFAIK.
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
106
Yeah but even if the game only uses 4 cores, a 6-core can be useful for all the background task (anti-virus, open browser, torrent client,...or streaming). If a game makes full use of 4 cores you will want to have 6 or more. Let's not forget that most benches are highly artificial because they need to be so one can repeat them and get similar result. But in reality your PC (CPU) will put out less frames because of background tasks and more context switching. Even networking will take some CPU time (the biggest penalty being the context switch).
That is out of date thinking. The overhead of context switching in recent decades is negligible. Modern computers are cycling hundreds of threads, even while they are apparently idle, and they don't amount to more than a few percent of CPU and they have no real impact on anything you actually want to run.

Get Process explorer and look at all the active processes. You can probably see close to a hundred processes. Now check the threads in each of those processes. I have MPC-BE sitting idle after watching a show earlier. It's stopped and idle, but it is still actively cycling ~10 threads. They are all getting a small slice of time and context switching away (note the 4 million+ context switches). It's irrelevant.



You need more more cores if you are actually loading the ones you have, not because of trivial background activity or context switches.

Load is the factor, not thread count, or amount of context switches.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikk

wahdangun

Golden Member
Feb 3, 2011
1,007
148
106
Programs aren't hard coded for a number of cores. Any parallel sections, should be n-way parallel.

But you will see diminishing returns because games are not 100% parallel and Amdahls law shows the relationship between cores, percentage parallel/serial and speedup.


Note the bottom Orange and Blue Lines. 50% and 60% parallel. Notice how little performance improves moving from 4 to 8 cores.

It isn't about being coded for specific numbers of cores, it's about the code having significant serial sections that won't be improved by adding more cores, so the gains from multiple cores quickly starts to flatten out.

for games that was old paradigm, because now days games have become more complex with AI and environment simulation. so if the dev was competent enough it can even scale to 16 thread without worry about dismissing return.
 

tamz_msc

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2017
3,366
3,299
136
So it seems that the higher CPU temperature in the recent Chinese leak, OC or not, can be explained by Intel's lowering of thermal specification for cooling the 8700K despite the increase in TDP. Intel's own formula suggests that the 8700K will be 10-12 degrees hotter than the 7700K dissipating the same amount of heat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

TheLycan

Member
Mar 8, 2017
34
11
36
It all depends on how much of the game code can be parallelized. I don't know the max percentage possible, but let's say it's 80%.

Based on the amdahl graph, the yellow line, 8 cores would be about 36% faster than 4 cores. Not bad but some developers might not find it worth pursuing compared to the amount of work needed to parallelize the code.

If the parallelized percentage limit is say 70%, then the 4 to 8 cores improvement would be about 24%.
It does not matter how much, but what is parallelized. For example bf4 multiplayer: 1 and 2 core almost always stay at 100% on a very good graphics card and 5-8 will get between 0 and 10% usage. But if the cores 5-8 are not there, that will force the 10% workload to go to 1-4 hence interrupting existing workload. Si its not how much goes to 5-8 but rather when? Impact will be seen in min fps and how fluid game feels, not in average. That is still very important.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lodix

TempAcc99

Member
Aug 30, 2017
60
13
51
That is out of date thinking. The overhead of context switching in recent decades is negligible. Modern computers are cycling hundreds of threads, even while they are apparently idle, and they don't amount to more than a few percent of CPU and they have no real impact on anything you actually want to run.
Your screenshot shows roughly 1% for MPC as a background task. Add 10 other background tasks and now you are at 10%. Or one of the task has a short burst and needs 10-20% for half a second. If you 4-cores are fully pegged that will then lead to loss of FPS and stutter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zucker2k

Dribble

Platinum Member
Aug 9, 2005
2,020
554
136
In theory you could, but only an incompetent programmer would.

Consider an example, using an RTS with huge numbers of units. Somewhere there is a loop move the units. They each need a slice of time, to do their pathfinding, and move a bit. Hundreds if not thousands of units can be in such a game.

....

You don't manually divvy up the work among some set amount of cores/threads. You use parallel looping constructs that automatically split the work among the available resources.
.
Except that those units are not moving in isolation, they are moving in conjunction with the other units - so they don't pass through each other, squads move together, units do smart stuff. So it's not actually a simple task at all as all the units pathfinding is effected by what the other units pathfinding is doing at exactly the same time. So you can't just parallelize it all. You can parallelize some aspects but ultimately you are not doing 10,000 independent moves, you are doing 1 very big complex move.
 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,706
532
126
Pretty much what you should expect from a 8700K to 7700K comparison: similar single thread performance, better multi-thread, and not much change in games since most games can't use more than 4 cores.

I see what they were trying to do, but I think a proper comparison would be to use the stock suggested memory speed for each CPU instead of gimping some CPUs with slower memory than they support. In my mind, a proper IPC comparison would have everything at stock suggested conditions except for the CPU frequency. Otherwise, they should put a clear notation on the graphs that some CPUs were using slower memory than they normally would.
I understand where you're coming from but I kind of disagree. The cpu doesn't come with faster memory for its price, it just can use it. And given how many systems still seem to be running single channel ram and old dimms lying around they're looking to unload and I appreciate an apples to apples comparison.
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
106
Your screenshot shows roughly 1% for MPC as a background task. Add 10 other background tasks and now you are at 10%. Or one of the task has a short burst and needs 10-20% for half a second. If you 4-cores are fully pegged that will then lead to loss of FPS and stutter.
If you are pegging all 4 cores that is exactly the case where I said you need more cores. Remember this:

"You need more more cores if you are actually loading the ones you have, not because of trivial background activity or context switches."

Also, look at your system while it's idle, is it using 10%? Of course not.

BTW my CPU is from 2008 (Q9400), it's just a tiny bit behind modern standards, and That 1% was actually the short burst it was typically much lower.

If my ancient CPU comes up short in a game, it still isn't because of trivial background operations or context switches, it's because it can't keep up with the overall load.

People make mountains out of molehills on this stuff. You need to concentrate on the obvious. Can you actually power the main load? If you can't you need more power. If you can, more CPU power isn't going to help. Don't make up stuff like context switches being expensive, when they are trivial today, to sell the idea that you need more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheLycan and Campy
Mar 10, 2006
11,715
2,012
126
Some assembler and UEFI knowledge would help. Failing that perhaps some tools.

UEFITool can work on UEFI AMI BIOS to extract / add modules. Extract the setup utility usually called "setup" and from there one can see what options might be available.

Excerpt from BIOS Setup using "Universal IFR Extractor"
Code:
0x43826        Suppress If: {0A 82}
0x43828            True {46 02}
0x4382A            Grayout If: {19 82}
0x4382C                Variable 0xD74 equals 0x1 {12 06 74 0D 01 00}
0x43832                Setting: Per Core Mode, Variable: 0x6E9 {05 91 E4 1B E5 1B 27 04 01 00 E9 06 10 10 00 01 00}
0x43843                    Option: Disabled, Value: 0x0 {09 07 CB 1B 30 00 00}
0x4384A                    Option: Enabled, Value: 0x1 {09 07 C8 11 00 00 01}
0x43851                End of Options {29 02}
0x43853            End If {29 02}
0x43855        End If {29 02}
0x43857        Grayout If: {19 82}
0x43859            Variable 0xD74 equals 0x1 {12 06 74 0D 01 00}
0x4385F            Suppress If: {0A 82}
0x43861                Variable 0x427 equals 0x0 {12 06 27 04 00 00}
0x43867                Numeric: 1-Core Max Ratio (10-10) , Variable: 0x6EA {07 91 E6 1B E7 1B 28 04 01 00 EA 06 10 10 01 FF 01}
0x43878                    Default: 8 Bit, Value: 0xFF {5B 06 00 00 00 FF}
0x4387E                End {29 02}
0x43880            End If {29 02}
0x43882            Suppress If: {0A 82}
0x43884                Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x1 {12 86 E5 0D 01 00}
0x4388A                    Variable 0x427 equals 0x0 {12 06 27 04 00 00}
0x43890                    Or {16 02}
0x43892                End {29 02}
0x43894                Numeric: 2-Core Max Ratio (10-10) , Variable: 0x6EB {07 91 E8 1B E9 1B 29 04 01 00 EB 06 10 10 01 FF 01}
0x438A5                    Default: 8 Bit, Value: 0xFF {5B 06 00 00 00 FF}
0x438AB                End {29 02}
0x438AD            End If {29 02}
0x438AF            Suppress If: {0A 82}
0x438B1                Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x1 {12 86 E5 0D 01 00}
0x438B7                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x2 {12 06 E5 0D 02 00}
0x438BD                    Or {16 02}
0x438BF                    Variable 0x427 equals 0x0 {12 06 27 04 00 00}
0x438C5                    Or {16 02}
0x438C7                End {29 02}
0x438C9                Numeric: 3-Core Max Ratio (10-10) , Variable: 0x6EC {07 91 EA 1B EB 1B 2A 04 01 00 EC 06 10 10 01 FF 01}
0x438DA                    Default: 8 Bit, Value: 0xFF {5B 06 00 00 00 FF}
0x438E0                End {29 02}
0x438E2            End If {29 02}
0x438E4            Suppress If: {0A 82}
0x438E6                Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x1 {12 86 E5 0D 01 00}
0x438EC                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x2 {12 06 E5 0D 02 00}
0x438F2                    Or {16 02}
0x438F4                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x3 {12 06 E5 0D 03 00}
0x438FA                    Or {16 02}
0x438FC                    Variable 0x427 equals 0x0 {12 06 27 04 00 00}
0x43902                    Or {16 02}
0x43904                End {29 02}
0x43906                Numeric: 4-Core Max Ratio (10-10) , Variable: 0x6ED {07 91 EC 1B ED 1B 2B 04 01 00 ED 06 10 10 01 FF 01}
0x43917                    Default: 8 Bit, Value: 0xFF {5B 06 00 00 00 FF}
0x4391D                End {29 02}
0x4391F            End If {29 02}
0x43921            Suppress If: {0A 82}
0x43923                Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x1 {12 86 E5 0D 01 00}
0x43929                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x2 {12 06 E5 0D 02 00}
0x4392F                    Or {16 02}
0x43931                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x3 {12 06 E5 0D 03 00}
0x43937                    Or {16 02}
0x43939                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x4 {12 06 E5 0D 04 00}
0x4393F                    Or {16 02}
0x43941                    Variable 0x427 equals 0x0 {12 06 27 04 00 00}
0x43947                    Or {16 02}
0x43949                End {29 02}
0x4394B                Numeric: 5-Core Max Ratio (10-10) , Variable: 0x6EE {07 91 EE 1B EF 1B 2C 04 01 00 EE 06 10 10 01 FF 01}
0x4395C                    Default: 8 Bit, Value: 0xFF {5B 06 00 00 00 FF}
0x43962                End {29 02}
0x43964            End If {29 02}
0x43966            Suppress If: {0A 82}
0x43968                Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x1 {12 86 E5 0D 01 00}
0x4396E                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x2 {12 06 E5 0D 02 00}
0x43974                    Or {16 02}
0x43976                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x3 {12 06 E5 0D 03 00}
0x4397C                    Or {16 02}
0x4397E                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x4 {12 06 E5 0D 04 00}
0x43984                    Or {16 02}
0x43986                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x5 {12 06 E5 0D 05 00}
0x4398C                    Or {16 02}
0x4398E                    Variable 0x427 equals 0x0 {12 06 27 04 00 00}
0x43994                    Or {16 02}
0x43996                End {29 02}
0x43998                Numeric: 6-Core Max Ratio (10-10) , Variable: 0x6EF {07 91 F0 1B F1 1B 2D 04 01 00 EF 06 10 10 01 FF 01}
0x439A9                    Default: 8 Bit, Value: 0xFF {5B 06 00 00 00 FF}
0x439AF                End {29 02}
0x439B1            End If {29 02}
0x439B3            Suppress If: {0A 82}
0x439B5                Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x1 {12 86 E5 0D 01 00}
0x439BB                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x2 {12 06 E5 0D 02 00}
0x439C1                    Or {16 02}
0x439C3                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x3 {12 06 E5 0D 03 00}
0x439C9                    Or {16 02}
0x439CB                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x4 {12 06 E5 0D 04 00}
0x439D1                    Or {16 02}
0x439D3                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x5 {12 06 E5 0D 05 00}
0x439D9                    Or {16 02}
0x439DB                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x6 {12 06 E5 0D 06 00}
0x439E1                    Or {16 02}
0x439E3                    Variable 0x427 equals 0x0 {12 06 27 04 00 00}
0x439E9                    Or {16 02}
0x439EB                End {29 02}
0x439ED                Numeric: 7-Core Max Ratio (10-10) , Variable: 0x6F0 {07 91 F2 1B F3 1B 2E 04 01 00 F0 06 10 10 01 FF 01}
0x439FE                    Default: 8 Bit, Value: 0x8 {5B 06 00 00 00 08}
0x43A04                End {29 02}
0x43A06            End If {29 02}
0x43A08            Suppress If: {0A 82}
0x43A0A                Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x1 {12 86 E5 0D 01 00}
0x43A10                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x2 {12 06 E5 0D 02 00}
0x43A16                    Or {16 02}
0x43A18                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x3 {12 06 E5 0D 03 00}
0x43A1E                    Or {16 02}
0x43A20                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x4 {12 06 E5 0D 04 00}
0x43A26                    Or {16 02}
0x43A28                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x5 {12 06 E5 0D 05 00}
0x43A2E                    Or {16 02}
0x43A30                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x6 {12 06 E5 0D 06 00}
0x43A36                    Or {16 02}
0x43A38                    Variable 0xDE5 equals 0x7 {12 06 E5 0D 07 00}
0x43A3E                    Or {16 02}
0x43A40                    Variable 0x427 equals 0x0 {12 06 27 04 00 00}
0x43A46                    Or {16 02}
0x43A48                End {29 02}
0x43A4A                Numeric: 8-Core Max Ratio (10-10) , Variable: 0x6F1 {07 91 F4 1B F5 1B 2F 04 01 00 F1 06 10 10 01 FF 01}
0x43A5B                    Default: 8 Bit, Value: 0xFF {5B 06 00 00 00 FF}
0x43A61                End {29 02}
0x43A63            End If {29 02}
0x43A65        End If {29 02}
Actually I missed the hidden setting when looking at this earlier (Suppress_If_True), sorry about that. IOW some thought was given to 8 core support but removed by hiding it.
Nice find.
 

eddman

Senior member
Dec 28, 2010
239
87
101
FWIW Current 370 BIOS has stepping A and B not C as shown by that link "CPU ID 906EC" so not considered in the current 370 BIOS.
Some assembler and UEFI knowledge would help. Failing that perhaps some tools.

UEFITool can work on UEFI AMI BIOS to extract / add modules. Extract the setup utility usually called "setup" and from there one can see what options might be available.

Actually I missed the hidden setting when looking at this earlier (Suppress_If_True), sorry about that. IOW some thought was given to 8 core support but removed by hiding it.
You have a Z370 board?!
 

eddman

Senior member
Dec 28, 2010
239
87
101
It does not matter how much, but what is parallelized. For example bf4 multiplayer: 1 and 2 core almost always stay at 100% on a very good graphics card and 5-8 will get between 0 and 10% usage. But if the cores 5-8 are not there, that will force the 10% workload to go to 1-4 hence interrupting existing workload. Si its not how much goes to 5-8 but rather when? Impact will be seen in min fps and how fluid game feels, not in average. That is still very important.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk
This is a different discussion.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY