Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

C2D, SpeedStep (EIST), xp64 ...

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
October 8, 2006 10:48:44 AM

Hi all!


I just built a new system with E6600 and Gigabyte DQ6.
I installed xp64 and new bios, all drivers from the Gigabyte website.
In bios I enable EIST (and all other features), in power management I set "minimal power management".

Why does the CPU still run at 2.4 GHz? I can't get it to speed down.
Setting "Portable/Laptop" doesn't work either.

For my old Athlon64 4000+ I had a cpu driver to be able to use this function. The intel cpu driver is from 2002 -__-

What could cause this problem?
I want to save some energy here :) 
My old 89W AMD used less power than this 65W intel ...


Thanks for any help!
Regards, Nik
a c 79 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
October 8, 2006 12:23:40 PM

it should work with port/laptop, minimal power management means just that, no power management...

have you got folding / seti, any other processes in background?

Can you bring up task manager and see if there are any processes runing? if there it would force the higher state.

other than that it could be an xp64 issue, but I have no experience with that...
October 8, 2006 1:23:40 PM

or perhaps you forgot to enable the C1E and or EIST option in the BIOS setting, usually placed in the CPU Configuration menu.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
October 8, 2006 2:20:08 PM

no no, I wrote I enabled it in bios.

Okay here's a little update:
I dl'ed cpuz and checked the cpu information.
speedstep seems to work, but doesn't lower the wattage for some reason.
it works for both, minimal and laptop.

core freq. goes down to 1600 MHz x6, cpu voltage is fix at 1.136V
with always on I get 2400 MHz x9, cpu voltage goes up and down, between 1.136V and 1.280V.

Someone meant it should be lower than 1V if everything works ...
a c 79 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
October 8, 2006 2:32:59 PM

Quote:
no no, I wrote I enabled it in bios.

Okay here's a little update:
I dl'ed cpuz and checked the cpu information.
speedstep seems to work, but doesn't lower the wattage for some reason.
it works for both, minimal and laptop.

core freq. goes down to 1600 MHz x6, cpu voltage is fix at 1.136V
with always on I get 2400 MHz x9, cpu voltage goes up and down, between 1.136V and 1.280V.

Someone meant it should be lower than 1V if everything works ...


I think <1V is an extreme example of the core, and that working and binned examples don't offer that, interestingly the binning means that the more efficient cores get the higher Clock binning, so you might find you are closer to 1V on a E6700 than on an E6600. 1.3 to 1.15 is 'normal' range from what I have been able to tell.

If you are getting aroudn 1.15 and the x6 multi then all is well.
October 8, 2006 3:09:22 PM

hmhm I see :o 

that means either no power saving or always power saving lol

intel power usage 65W at stock speed ... 265 W (measured with APC UPS)
amd A64 4000+ 89W at stock speed ... 210 W
intel power usage ?W at 2.52 GHz (oc'd a bit) ... >300 W

That much about less power usage ;P
oh well ...


Thanks :) 
a c 79 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
October 8, 2006 4:53:11 PM

Quote:
hmhm I see :o 

that means either no power saving or always power saving lol

intel power usage 65W at stock speed ... 265 W (measured with APC UPS)
amd A64 4000+ 89W at stock speed ... 210 W
intel power usage ?W at 2.52 GHz (oc'd a bit) ... >300 W

That much about less power usage ;P
oh well ...


Thanks :) 


not quite it will pop up out of 1.6Ghz into 2.5Ghz in a very short period of time, hence 265 vs 300 probably.

However it is not a fair comparison against a 4000+, because there are two cores not one, and it is similar in capability to an FX60-62? (not sure), but they would be using significantly more power than a single core 4000+...

Try running testing the power draw with and without throttling down to 1.6 at no load, i.e. in desktop and laptop modes? that will show you the power saving from 9x down to 6x... Also if this is a 65W processor (max), and atfull load your system is drawing 300W (assuming this is mostly processor, i.e. prime or something) then at idle it is using 30W, which is not bad...
October 8, 2006 5:08:18 PM

yes, maybe what I wrote was a bit confusing :) 

no oc'ing:
laptop/minimal power management: clocks down to 1600 x6
no load, 265 W

desktop: clock at 2400 x9
no load, 265 W

with oc'ing and "desktop"
clock at 2520 x9
no load, 306 W

I understand it like this: if I oc, the power usage rises (a lot), but if it clocks down, there's no difference ...

just curious :) 
a c 79 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
October 8, 2006 5:10:57 PM

Quote:
yes, maybe what I wrote was a bit confusing :) 

no oc'ing:
laptop/minimal power management: clocks down to 1600 x6
no load, 265 W

desktop: clock at 2400 x9
no load, 265 W

with oc'ing and "desktop"
clock at 2520 x9
no load, 306 W

I understand it like this: if I oc, the power usage rises (a lot), but if it clocks down, there's no difference ...

just curious :) 


Very weird, it should reduce just like you though, I know that when I force 9x at idle, my temp rises to 39-40, but when I let it drop to 6x at idle temp drops to 32-33
!