Question Multicore and Turbo Boost enabled?

[aleader]

Just wondering if a few of these things mentioned in this Tom's Thermal guide are relevant. I have read countless forum posts all over the place and can't get a straight answer. For example one post says adaptive voltage is a stupid idea and the next one says it has been fixed and you're crazy not to use it. I just manually adjust voltage and the Core ratio. Anyways I have an i5 4670K stable @ 4.4GHz, 1.185 Vcore, stock Intel fan, ASUS Z97 Pro Gamer, 16GB HyperX 1866, GTX 1070, Win 10.

I had it at 4.3GHz at 1.265 for the last 3 years, but recently did a BIOS update (2202 to the newest 2203 version from 2016) and was able to adjust to the current speed and voltage, which I thought was pretty significant. I did also move from Win 7 to Win 10, but I doubt that would have made any difference?

Obviously the first point is wrong as the stock cooler has served me well over the last 3 years (temps 65 - 80C in most games). I would like to get a HyperX or Gammax GT cooler but don't know that I need to waste the cash.

My questions are the points about disabling Multicore and Turbo Boost. I have both enabled. What are the benefits/drawbacks to disabling both? I may have to have Turbo enabled on my ASUS board to overclock now that I think of it. I don't think I have an option to disable Hyper-threading, but if so, should I?



Part 4: Tips and Insights


Section 14 - Improving Temperatures

Whether your computer is an overclocked gaming rig, a stock workstation or an all-purpose family PC, achieving the lowest possible temperatures always depends on components, configuration and airflow. Here's a few tips:

• ... Intel coolers are barely adequate at stock. If you want to overclock then upgrade your cooler.
• ........ BIOS updates sometimes include Vcore optimizations, which can drop Core temperatures.
• .......... Manually decreasing Vcore drops Power and heat. Most overclocking guides explain how.
• .... Disabling Hyper-Threading is an option which will significantly decrease Core temperatures.
• ............. Disabling Multi Core Enhancement (MCE) will also help to decrease Core temperatures.
• ............ Disabling Turbo Boost is another option which will further decrease Core temperatures.
• .......... Decreasing Uncore Multiplier (Ring Ratio) on Core i CPU's decreases Core temperatures.
• ......... Decreasing Maximum processor state in Power Options will decrease Core temperatures.
• ........... Memory overclock or XMP Profiles can cause Core i CPU's to run several degrees hotter.
• ...... Graphics cards with Axial fans exhaust heat into your case, increasing internal temperature.

 

[Micrornd]

Just wondering if a few of these things mentioned in this Tom's Thermal guide are relevant.

You should provide a link, so everyone can see the entire guide.

Obviously the first point is wrong as the stock cooler has served me well over the last 3 years

And that should tell you something.
The rest of the list is essentially correct, all those things will reduce the heat.
But, except for the graphics card comment, all the rest of them will also reduce your performance, each to a varying degree.

If what you have now works (temp and performance wise), just fine tune it a little more to see what you can squeeze out of it. (vcore, memory voltage, memory timings, etc.)

 

[Markfw]

Depending on the CPU, yes, the Intel cooler is barely adequate.

 

[aleader]

You should provide a link, so everyone can see the entire guide.

And that should tell you something.
The rest of the list is essentially correct, all those things will reduce the heat.
But, except for the graphics card comment, all the rest of them will also reduce your performance, each to a varying degree.

If what you have now works (temp and performance wise), just fine tune it a little more to see what you can squeeze out of it. (vcore, memory voltage, memory timings, etc.)

Here's that link:

https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/intel-temperature-guide.1488337/

The above part was clipped from near the end, Part 4. I just assumed everyone here had probably seen this article.

Do you think the gains I made are only due to the updated BIOS (i.e. is it 'generally' normal to see that with a BIOS update)?

 

[aleader]

Depending on the CPU, yes, the Intel cooler is barely adequate.

Well, I'm only concerned about my CPU (listed above). Would you say my CPU with that overclock and temps are 'barely adequate'? What is the upside to lowering my temps further, other than a possible bump up to maybe 4.5GHz, the increased in-game performance being negligible from my reading? I know longevity can be a thing, but I'm not real concerned about that with an almost 7 year old CPU that has been run O/C it's whole life already. I have the urge to add a nice looking cooler, but I'm a price-performance guy with everything I buy...it has to make sense.

 

[Markfw]

Well, I'm only concerned about my CPU (listed above). Would you say my CPU with that overclock and temps are 'barely adequate'? What is the upside to lowering my temps further, other than a possible bump up to maybe 4.5GHz, the increased in-game performance being negligible from my reading? I know longevity can be a thing, but I'm not real concerned about that with an almost 7 year old CPU that has been run O/C it's whole life already. I have the urge to add a nice looking cooler, but I'm a price-performance guy with everything I buy...it has to make sense.

In YOUR case, the temps are OK IMO, surprised you can get 4.4 ghz@1.185 vcore, which is why you are doing to well. My statement was that for some (actually many ) Intel CPU's they are hitting 90c at stock frequently, that is definitely "barely adequate".

I would leave well enough alone, thats a good OC, and good temps (below 80c all the time)

 

[UsandThem]

I know longevity can be a thing, but I'm not real concerned about that with an almost 7 year old CPU that has been run O/C it's whole life already. I have the urge to add a nice looking cooler, but I'm a price-performance guy with everything I buy...it has to make sense.

If you've gone 7 years without a new cooler, then obviously there is zero "price-performance" in regard to buying a new cooler.

At least to me, it would make sense to get one (if needed) whenever you finally upgrade to a new build. If you end up going with an Intel build, their all-aluminum coolers aren't very good compared to the old copper core variety. CPUs like the 9900 (non-k) actually lose some performance unless the person goes with an after-market cooler. It is possible that Intel might chance stock coolers whenever they release new CPUs, so you would just have to see how they perform at that time.

 

[Micrornd]

Depending on the CPU, yes, the Intel cooler is barely adequate.

Now that ^ is what they should have said in their guide, rather than that false blanket statement.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I would like to get a HyperX or Gammax GT cooler but don't know that I need to waste the cash.

For a 4670K? Nah. It's generally not worth it to buy new cooling solutions for old CPUs unless you have some very specific reason why you have to stay on that old hardware. If you are looking to spend money, start saving up for a new system. You can get twice as many cores at higher clocks in a 9700K, for example. And that's just one option. Comet Lake-S is also coming soon, and that may offer even more possibilities (and lower prices on CPUs a lot faster than yours).

 

[aleader]

In YOUR case, the temps are OK IMO, surprised you can get 4.4 ghz@1.185 vcore, which is why you are doing to well. My statement was that for some (actually many ) Intel CPU's they are hitting 90c at stock frequently, that is definitely "barely adequate".

I would leave well enough alone, thats a good OC, and good temps (below 80c all the time)

Well, before the BIOS update (and move to Win 10 I guess) I wasn't able to get 4.4GHz. I'm still surprised how much of a difference the update made. I have been playing Battlefield 1 and Battlefront 2 at Ultra settings at 1440p (75fps on 75Hz Freesync monitor) to test the overclock for a few days now. I don't play those games (because I suck at them...don't know why I bought them...because they were cheap) but they are one of the few games out there that use all 4 cores and give my CPU a good workout. I know right away if it's not stable if they freeze up, which they did at 1.18V. Bumping it to 1.185 did the trick.

Oddly, I don't think my temps are really any lower from where they were at 1.265V @4.3GHz. I average around 70C, but it does touch 79C occasionally, but there are no hiccups or stutters when that happens, so I'm good with it.

 

[aleader]

For a 4670K? Nah. It's generally not worth it to buy new cooling solutions for old CPUs unless you have some very specific reason why you have to stay on that old hardware. If you are looking to spend money, start saving up for a new system. You can get twice as many cores at higher clocks in a 9700K, for example. And that's just one option. Comet Lake-S is also coming soon, and that may offer even more possibilities (and lower prices on CPUs a lot faster than yours).

I could use a new cooler on new CPUs too could I not?

Until I find games that I play where the CPU affects my in-game experience and it makes sense to upgrade, my next move will be to a faster vid card from my 1070. My 'canary' is DCS World, but it looks and plays awesome now, and until they move to a different engine that takes advantage of more than two cores, it still makes sense to get a faster GPU so I can bump up the AA. Maybe when DDR5 comes out? Is that still a thing?

 

[Markfw]

I could use a new cooler on new CPUs too could I not?

Until I find games that I play where the CPU affects my in-game experience and it makes sense to upgrade, my next move will be to a faster vid card from my 1070. My 'canary' is DCS World, but it looks and plays awesome now, and until they move to a different engine that takes advantage of more than two cores, it still makes sense to get a faster GPU so I can bump up the AA. Maybe when DDR5 comes out? Is that still a thing?

Since at the moment, AMD and Intel are almost tied in performance(gaming only, AMD wins everything else), and this year AMD could pull ahead in gaming, if you get a new heatsink, make sure it supports your CPU and the AM4 platform also.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I could use a new cooler on new CPUs too could I not?

You could, but you'd be sizing an HSF for your existing CPU without necessarily knowing what you're moving to in the future. If you want 10c Comet Lake-S (for example), that's going to have a minimum power draw of 125W and up to 250W in PL2 scenarios. No way your 4670k pushes anywhere near that much heat/draws that much power. Unless you buy something that is complete overkill for your existing CPU, you'll have no assurance that the HSF will be suitable for what you decide to buy in the future. @Markfw also raised a good point in that you need to account for future socket compatibility. Intel is moving to LGA1200 soon (which allegedly will allow coolers compatible with LGA1151), while AMD is sticking with AM4 through 2020. So anything that is compatible with LGA1150 should work on LGA1151 or 1200, and anything that is AM4-compatible will be usable on AMD mainstream desktop sockets up through Zen3/Vermeer.

If you were to go out and buy something massive like an NH-D15, a LeGrand Macho, a Dark Rock Pro 4, or . . . whatever, you could probably do so with the confidence that you have a top-tier air cooler that will probably handle anything that can be cooled by air (which these days, isn't necessarily everything) and that you would have access to as much mounting hardware as possible for maximum socket compatibility. Anything short of that, like a Gammax GT, is going to leave you with the considerable possibility that it might not perform well enough to handle something like a 200W CPU. And there will be some very soon on a mainstream desktop socket near you.

 

[aleader]

Thanks, good advice. I actually looked at upgrading to either a 9600KF or R5 3600 before Xmas as ram prices are so low right now and the CPUs were also on sale for pretty cheap. In the end though I couldn't justify it as the benchmarks show very little performance gain from where I'm at now. I may kick myself however if RAM prices jump through the roof again. Is it a bonehead idea to just buy some ram now (16GB) in anticipation of an upgrade down the line, or should I just wait for the (alleged) DDR5?

 

[DrMrLordX]

Is it a bonehead idea to just buy some ram now (16GB) in anticipation of an upgrade down the line, or should I just wait for the (alleged) DDR5?

DDR5 won't show up until 2021 at the earliest. You may be waiting awhile if you want that.

Otherwise . . . depends on which RAM you're getting, I suppose? Samsung still hasn't hit the market with their A-die and M-die products in aftermarket DDR4 yet, so there's quite a bit of potential for upheaval ahead. If you can get a good deal on some of that Crucial RAM with e-die such as:

Are you a human?

www.newegg.com

you might as well jump on it, though I don't necessarily see it getting any more expensive in the future (and you couldn't use it with your current rig, obviously). I have pre-purchased RAM before with mixed results.

 

[aleader]

I read an article recently predicting a more than 40% jump likely in DRAM pricing in 2020. My biggest concern buying DDR4 is that I can't test it to see if it works. Maybe I'll just wait and buy it all together. The price of the Ryzen 5 2600 right now is tempting me to upgrade though. I can always give this system to my son...