Is your processor Running slower than you think it should be ? Or at a different multiplier than it should be ?

[jennywatson655]

I just bought my new PC with the following specs and it's flying like airplane ;

3.0 core 2 Duo Processor
4 Gb RAM
260 GB Hard
Super Drive
and etc

 

[Wrench2]

There are two things that are common in many Intel processors, they are designed to save heat, and power by lowering the multiplier and the core voltage of the processor at times that the "power" or extra speed is not required. These CAN be disabled in your BIOS, and in some cases it is recommended (overclocking is one example), but if the processor needs the speed, it will "wake up" and utilize all the speed it has, so its not required that you disable it in the BIOS. If you want to know more, read the links below. You can also ask other specific questions here

Here is Intel's C1E and other sleep states documentation

Here is Intels EIST documentation.

This I did not know, but from a thread below, I give credit to Hans:


Other comments like this are welcome, but please be sure of your facts, and NO negative comments please.

Hi Mark, I have a question. I've just upgraded my 3-year old laptop with 2 internal SSD drives. I do a lot of video editing and am trying to speed it up as much as possible. This has helped a lot but I noticed that when I'm rendering, the cpu really cranks up to 100% and it still seems like it takes too long. I'm using the AMD quad core A8 processor (turbo core tech), not the Intel. Is there actually any way to get better performance out of this without getting a new computer? Thanks!

 

[Markfw]

Hi Mark, I have a question. I've just upgraded my 3-year old laptop with 2 internal SSD drives. I do a lot of video editing and am trying to speed it up as much as possible. This has helped a lot but I noticed that when I'm rendering, the cpu really cranks up to 100% and it still seems like it takes too long. I'm using the AMD quad core A8 processor (turbo core tech), not the Intel. Is there actually any way to get better performance out of this without getting a new computer? Thanks!

First you should have made a thread here or in laptops, its a different subject.
But to answer your question, you would need a new computer, and the more power the better.

 

[Kongolese]

This helped me a lot!

 

[FredWillson]

Hi Mark, I have a question. I've just upgraded my 3-year old laptop with 2 internal SSD drives. I do a lot of video editing and am trying to speed it up as much as possible. This has helped a lot but I noticed that when I'm rendering, the cpu really cranks up to 100% and it still seems like it takes too long. I'm using the AMD quad core A8 processor (turbo core tech), not the Intel. Is there actually any way to get better performance out of this without getting a new computer? Thanks!

Your laptop is good but not the best for video editing. It requires maximum resources not only of CPU but of GPU as well

 

[FredWillson]

I had an option like this. I have just caught a mining malware for that time

 

[Phil L]

I had an odd experience with CPU running slow but not due to speed step recently. I was able to fix it in the end, but I'll post the experience below in case someone encounters it in the future.

My coworker's computer that our IT had set up ran quite sluggishly. The computer was purchased through a 3rd party system builder who does the initial hardware set up, with the exact spec that our IT forced on us (that's how our IT does things, dictate spec and vendor -_-). Our IT guy did say he had some issues with the motherboard and had to reinstall Windows as well when he gave it to us after setting up the software. Anyway, despite the new system having a brand new i5 Skylake with plenty of RAM (16GB) and a nice SSD (Samsung Pro 256GB), it ran quite a bit slower than my Sandy Bridge i7 with only 8GB RAM and *gasp* 1TB 7200 RPM HDD. And by slow I mean even Windows feels sluggish to respond, let alone any productivity program. Note, neither system has overclock so that's not the problem.

Anyway, I had sometime to tinker with/diagnose said computer a few months back while she was away for a few days, and found the apparent cause of the sluggishness. By using CPU-Z, as well as cross-checking with Task Manager - Performance tab, I discovered to my surprise that her CPU was running at a flat 1.6 GHz at all times, even when Prime95 was running! How the 3rd party system builder as well as our IT passed the computer to us as functioning without noticing or addressing the issue is beyond me -_-

Anyhow, so I first went into power management to make sure maximum processor state was set to 100%. Then I tried disabling power steps in BIOS, as well as checking it did recognize the CPU model number. I then updated the BIOS (even though the existing one supports Skylake) but nothing seemed to work. At this point I was understandably wondering if the CPU or motherboard was bad. Nevertheless, what I did next was to remove the CPU, check the pins are fine on the socket, then re-seated it back into the socket and reapplied TIM and fastened Intel stock cooler. This prompted the motherboard to think the CPU has changed, as I saw on the screen when booting it up. Somehow this allowed the board to recognized the CPU correctly this time, as everything started to working properly, speed step/turbo and all.

I am not exactly sure what transpired, but my suspicion is that the motherboard (an Asus B150M-C) probably had an old BIOS that didn't support Skylake when the 3rd party system builder got the purchase order. Then they just dropped the Skylake CPU in without first updating the BIOS. Subsequently, even though the BIOS was updated to ones that did support Skylake, that was not enough to get the board to properly recognize the CPU even though it reported the CPU model correctly in BIOS (this part was weird too). It is odd that a re-seat was required, but evidently that's what it took in the end. Anyway, clearly both the 3rd party builder and our IT either failed to recognize the system was running slowly, or bother to fix it...

Anyway, although I am still mystified as to what really happened, I am glad I was able to fix the system in the end. I'll leave this story here in case it may help someone else someday.

 

[KRayner]

Hey guys,

Not sure if anyone out there has this CPU, I just recently procured one from a friend. Everything's working well however after fiddling around a bit, I've noticed a strange issue. After playing around with some Overclocking, I was keen to see how my 'new' CPU compared to others on the interwebz. Turns out, rather poorly.

Results of my CineBench R15 run:
http://imgur.com/a/hD3L3 - Bear mind, this is at 4.5Ghz
Original article: http://techreport.com/review/26683/overclocking-the-core-i7-4790k/3

Update:
I just ran another CineBench at stock speeds, using CPU-Z to verify the clock speed (stock) + voltages etc. - http://imgur.com/a/l19V1

The webpage on the right shows an article demonstrating their runs with a stock 4790K vs. their OC'd 4790K and a 4770K (which are important as I'm using them as the benchmark to compare my results against). The reason I used this article specifically, is because I'm only running DDR3 1600 Mem, which I thought could be the issue. However they have used similar ddr3 1600 mem in this article so that's shouldn't be the issue. They are however using the newer Z97 chipset, but this shouldn't matter, right?

My Specs:
i7 4790K CPU
16Gb DDR3 1600 (4x4Gb dimms) Mem
Asus Z87 Sabretooth Mobo (with the latest BIOS revision, 2103)
Corsair RM750X PSU (Gold Certified)
Corsair H75 AIO CPU Cooler
Zotac 1070 GPU
Samsung Evo 850 250Gb SSD

Now I know that that article is a few years old, and that the results of the CineBench R15 I tested could be a bit different so I asked another friend to test with the same updated version. He has a 4770K, with the same DDR3 1600Mhz memory and a MSI Z87 Mobo and gets a score of roughly 700cb (so roughly comparable with what the article showed). If I run the benchmark again (at stocks speeds) I get 680cb, lower than my friends 4770K! That makes very little sense, as at stock settings the 4790K should be appreciably faster than the 4770K.

Ok, so maybe there's an issue with the clock speed, or memory settings you say? Well, I've taken out both 2x4Gb pairs and tested them individually and both end up with similar results so it can't be some sort of memory issue (i.e. populating all 4 Dimm slots, which would lead me to believe there's an issue with the motherboard in that case). I even tested with the XMP profile disabled (runs around 50cb slower) to no avail. Whilst running the test again, with CPU-Z open I can indeed confirm the CPU hitting the targeted speeds (4.2Ghz for stock, and 4.5Ghz with the OC). Temps generally tend to stick around the 60-65c mark which is decent as well (when testing it was rather toasty in the room due to it being a very warm evening).

As for Motherboard settings, for the stock settings I've used the 'Optimised Defaults' setting, and for the OC I used an Asus tutorial on how to OC on their Z87 platform (official Asus video), starting from 'Optimised Defaults'.

I also did a clean install of Windows 10, then installed all of the drivers on the Asus website designed for this motherboard. I then connected the machine to the internet and let Windows Update do its thing. So it shouldn't be a OS/driver issue. The BIOS also had to be updated (as the 4790K doesn't work by default on earlier Z87 mobo's) via the 'USB BIOS Flashback' method.

 

[KRayner]

I have now also run a SiSoft Sandra Lite 2016.SP1 'Processor Arithmetic Benchmark' as well (at 4.5Ghz) and as you can see, the results are pretty terrible: http://imgur.com/a/4SqK8

Bear in mind, the Red bar is the run I completed, while the blue bar is a stock 4790K (check the info on the left for which CPU's are in the lineup)

 

[laranje]

It does sound like you may have a bios fix to solve this problem.

 

[Prime2515103]

I have my i7-7700k running at 5Ghz and I have C1E and EIST enabled. I see no reason to not save power and overclock at the same time. The speed switches so fast I can't tell when the change happens and benchmarks come out exactly the same.

 

[Bennolino]

There are two things that are common in many Intel processors, they are designed to save heat, and power by lowering the multiplier and the core voltage of the processor at times that the "power" or extra speed is not required.

I would like to know how I can lower the EIST settings for my Core 2 Quad (Q9400). By default, it seems to max out at 2.66 GHz (multiplier 8) and in idle it goes down to 2.0 GHz (multiplier 6). This is totally ridiculous, since it obviously doesn't have to run at 2.0 GHz while it is doing nothing, basically, except for some little background tasks running.

So I want to know how to lower the idle frequency down to 1.0 GHz, e.g., that is a multiplier of 3 for idle.

Thank you.

 

[Bennolino]

I am using Intel below. But it's slow, I only open the text editor where the CPU runs 60%. Gaming is a long way to play. How should I change?
CPU Intel Core i5-8400
- CPU Family: Coffee Lake-S
- CPU Process: 14nm
- Cores/Threads: 6/6
- Base Clock: 2.80 GHz
- Boost Clock: 4.0 GHz
- L2/L3 Cache: 1.5/9 MB
- Overclocking Support: Yes
- Socket: LGA1151
- TDP: 65W

You should exchange it for a Core i9, if your motherboard allows for that, since the Core i5 does not have enough cores. Hence it runs slow.

 

[UsandThem]

my processor is slower.

Care to expand on that information just a little bit? Maybe like what CPU and the exact problems you are having?

We can't be of much help with the info you provided.

 

[Selena Anderson]

Thanks for the information. I am having AMD FX 6 series processor and after disabling cool and quiet in bios I can feel processor running faster and I can see a performance difference in games and on windows too.

 

[tahoom]

Hi
I'm newbie to cpu issues like overclocking. I have a DELL INSPIRON 1520 and recently I have several problems with the CPU. For every little processes the CPU goes over 80-100%. For example even for a new tab in Firefox the CPU usage is 100% andin most of cases after 10-15 seconds after full page loading CPU usage goes back under 10%. sometimes Kaspersky uses over 50% of CPU and etc.

I installed a new HDD (ADATA 120GB SU655 SSD) for it and it's all clear and non of the old datas has been moved to the new HDD. The power management is high performance with maximum processor state at 100%. In advanced system settings the performance is set to adjust for best performance.

System configuration (DELL INSPIRON 1520):
Processor: Intel core2 Dou T7500 2.2GHz
Ram: 2GB DDR2
HDD: ADATA 120GB SU655 SSD
VGA: Mobile Intel 965 chipset family
BIOS version: A09

Windows 7 rating:
CPU: 2.2 RAM: 2.8 Graphic: 3.0 HDD: 7.6
before these problem occurs, minimum rating was for graphic but now minimum is for CPU and RAM!!!!

CPU-Z informations:
Timers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACPI timer 3.580 MHz
Perf timer 2.142 MHz
Sys timer 1.000 KHz
Processors Information
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Socket 1 ID = 0
Number of cores 2 (max 2)
Number of threads 2 (max 2)
Name Intel Mobile Core 2 Duo T7500
Core Speed 598.2 MHz
Multiplier x Bus Speed 3.0 x 199.4 MHz
Base frequency (cores) 199.4 MHz
Base frequency (ext.) 199.4 MHz
Rated Bus speed 797.7 MHz
Stock frequency 2200 MHz
Temperature 0 48 degC (118 degF) (Core #0)
Temperature 1 50 degC (121 degF) (Core #1)
Clock Speed 0 n.a. (Core #0)
Clock Speed 1 n.a. (Core #1)

I don't know what else shoud I say to describe and ask for help. Where is the problem?
(Sorry for the long thread)
Thanks

 

[allisolm]

Locking this as the last 2 years of posts have been almost exclusively deleted spam.