Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I7 870 won't go to full 3.60 Turbo Boost in prime 95?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 13, 2011 1:18:55 AM

I'm running an i7 870 (straight up - no overclocking) on an Intel DP55KG motherboard. Aren't these supposed to bump up from 2.93 to 3.6ghz when fully maxed out via Turbo Boost? I've read in different places where this is true when running prime95. My i7 870 goes to the rated 2.93ghz and stays there.
July 13, 2011 1:30:13 AM

Yes, Hyperthreading and Turbo Boost are activated in the BIOS...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
July 13, 2011 1:40:07 AM

Quote:
Intel has optimized Intel® Turbo Boost Technology¹ to provide even more performance when needed on the latest-generation Intel® microarchitecture code name Sandy Bridge. Intel® Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 automatically allows processor cores to run faster than the base operating frequency if it's operating below power, current, and temperature specification limits.
http://www.intel.com/technology/turboboost/index.htm


Turbo boost isnt activated when all 4 cores are on 100% load.It is to maximise your single thread performance level.
m
0
l
Related resources
July 13, 2011 2:07:17 AM

Thanks for the info, but from what I read, it sure seemed like they'd all go to 3.6ghz. Is there an easy way to "stress" a single core and see if it goes to 3.6?
m
0
l
July 13, 2011 2:25:31 AM

You can see in this link where the processor kicked up to 3.2ghz across all four physical cores (and 8 logical) while running prime95. Check out the picture just past half way down. So, it CAN go beyond the rated 2.93ghz across all the cores.

From the link:

"Core i7 870 -- And once again as you can see, Prime 95 was running, Turbo mode then kicks in at 3200 MHz distributed over all logical CPU cores. We spot that Hyper Threading is enabled... 8 threads are available to us. nice."

http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-750-core-i7-860-8...
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
July 13, 2011 2:40:06 AM

How high the processor clocks, depends on utilization. The more utilization, the lower the "boost"....i.e. You won't see 3.6ghz with all 4 cores at 100%. This is the important part....and where Ghnader is actually wrong...
Quote:
Intel® Turbo Boost Technology automatically allows processor cores to run faster than the base operating frequency if it's operating below power, current, and temperature specification limits.

The fewer utilized cores, the higher the "boost"....3.2ghz is the maximum for 4, full utilized physical cores.


Note: I need to add this. I tested Prime95 with multiple thread counts, including attempting to set process affinity. Neither makes any difference. Due to the stress placed on the processor by Prime95, the maximum "boost" provided by "Turbo Boost" is only 300mhz, giving you an effective 3.2ghz. Loading CPU-Z (single-threaded app) bumps me to 3.6ghz according to Intel's turbo boost gadget. I was testing with Prime95 when I made the original post. This note was added after completion of testing.
m
0
l
July 13, 2011 2:37:11 PM

Okay, then why am I still only seeing 2.93 instead of 3.2ghz when running prime 95? My hottest core was about 68 degC, which is still well below "temperature specification limits".
m
0
l
a c 103 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
July 13, 2011 3:03:51 PM

You can run prime 95 on just 1 thread
m
0
l
July 13, 2011 3:53:45 PM

Okay, so I ran it on one thread. It went to 2.93ghz and stayed there. Tried it with more threads up to a max of 8...same thing...
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
July 14, 2011 2:03:56 AM

Check in your bios to see if turbo boost is disabled.....
m
0
l
July 14, 2011 2:08:39 AM

sykozis said:
Check in your bios to see if turbo boost is disabled.....


Please read the entire thread and concentrate on the second post. :sarcastic: 
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
July 14, 2011 2:19:08 AM

Do you have SpeedStep or C1E disabled?
m
0
l
July 14, 2011 3:47:21 AM

sykozis said:
Do you have SpeedStep or C1E disabled?


Not as far as I know. How do I check that? Those aren't settings in my BIOS that I remember...
m
0
l
July 14, 2011 5:41:50 AM

Ok, I had the exact same problem a while back, solved it by updating to the latest BIOS.
As stated, running Prime95 my 870 will max at 3.2Ghz
m
0
l
July 14, 2011 3:52:01 PM

Dontcopy said:
Ok, I had the exact same problem a while back, solved it by updating to the latest BIOS.
As stated, running Prime95 my 870 will max at 3.2Ghz


Are you running the Intel DP55KG Extreme series motherboard? I did check and saw there was a new BIOS version just released in July 11. Installed it and...no dice... Damned thing hits 2.93ghz running prime95 and just sits there on any number of cores/threads utilized. 133.35mhz @ 22 when the multiplier should be higher. 27 for 3.6ghz on one core, for example.
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
July 14, 2011 4:39:32 PM

Go here: http://www.intel.com/support/processors/sb/CS-015477.ht...
Download Intel's Processor Identification Utility. Install and run it. If Turbo Boost is working, the reported frequency will be higher than 2.93ghz. If you go to the second tab, you can see if SpeedStep is enabled. On the 3rd tab, you can see if C1E (Enhanced Halt State) is enabled.
m
0
l
July 14, 2011 5:09:15 PM

Yeah, did that already. Just says 2.93ghz, as advertised. How would it show higher? There's no "stress test" function with that application. I've also run Intel's processor diagnostic tool and it passed everything. Everything is enabled in "CPU technologies", except the last two (vector extension and advanced instructions). 3rd tab says stepping is 5 and CPU is 1E.
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
July 14, 2011 9:40:19 PM

When I run Intel's Processor Identification Utility, it reports a processor speed of 3.2ghz. Turbo Boost has little to do with stress. Turbo Boost is dependent on power draw and temperature. More load doesn't mean more "boost"....it actually means less. "Turbo Boost" will only increase the processor's operating frequency to the point that it reaches the maximum TDP for the processor.

Stepping and CPU model aren't really important. You need to make sure "Enhanced Intel SpeedStep Technology" on the second tab and "Enhanced Halt State" on the 3rd tab both say "Yes". If both say "Yes", and Turbo Boost is enabled in the bios, it should be working. My last motherboard had an option in it's bios to set the multiplier between 12 and 22, or to "auto". Any setting other than "auto" disabled Turbo Boost as well. Look through your bios and see if maybe you have a similar option.
m
0
l
July 14, 2011 9:46:10 PM

Checked all that too. Just went through the BIOS earlier. And, as per my previous post, I ensured Speed Step and Enhanced Halt State said "Yes". You were the one who told me to check for C1E, but now you say it's not "really important"?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a c 100 K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
July 14, 2011 9:46:53 PM

What are you using to see the current CPU speed?? If it's CPUZ, that's your problem.

Use this: http://www.intel.com/support/processors/sb/CS-031038.ht...

Also try running Intel Burn Test. You can use 1, 2, 3, 4... 8 threads and see how it affects the speed.

Also, in all the testing and running of my CPU with turbo boost on it was strictly dependant on how many threads were running, and had absolutely nothing to do with thermal limits or power draw. And I ran as high as 177 base clock with turbo on.

As for the BIOS options, strictly speaking you need EIST (speed step) and C States enabled, and the CPU multiplier has to be either Auto or whatever the default highest is. For example my i5 750 would automatically use turbo even if I had turbo set to disabled, if I was using the 21x multiplier with EIST and C States enabled (my turbo is 21x up to 24x). But if I used 20x multiplier, no dice.
m
0
l
July 14, 2011 10:07:54 PM

What's wrong with CPUZ? Heck, you have it down in your signature line. I also monitor the speed with RealTemp GT. What else would you recommend?

It also looks like you're OC'ing, which I'm not doing, so that isn't a factor here. My BIOS is set to "automatic". When I set it to manual, the highest multiplier I can select is 22 (default), but I left it in automatic.

It shows the right clock speeds below for each number of cores. 3.6 with a multiplier of 27 for one core, 3.2 with a multiplier of 24 for four cores, etc...

But, I'm quite frustrated enough at this point. Looks like the expensive option I paid for may not be working (either Intel CPU and/OR motherboard) and I really don't want to have to tear my new build apart and RMA the crap. I'll try that Intel burn utility (and speed monitoring app you suggest) and if that doesn't show anything promising, then I'll just continue to use it stuck at a slow ass 2.93ghz. LOL

edited to add: I see that utility is, indeed, a speed monitoring app. I'll try it with prime95 and Intel Burn... Thanks.
m
0
l
July 14, 2011 10:34:19 PM

Looks like I'm basically FUBAR. Damn it... Every relevant setting mentioned in this thread is perfectly set and enabled in BIOS. Ran several burn tests at max stress level and 128 threads and everything in between. Freakin' CPU just hits 2.93ghz and stays there. I do have the Intel Desktop Control Center installed and did some overclocking with it in the past, but I put everything back to factory defaults. That shouldn't have anything to do with it, I'd think... Maybe I'll try uninstalling it and see what happens. Can't hurt.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a c 100 K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
July 14, 2011 10:54:59 PM

CPUZ just isn't quick to update. RealTemp is usually pretty good for it, though.
m
0
l
July 14, 2011 11:05:29 PM

wolfram23 said:
CPUZ just isn't quick to update. RealTemp is usually pretty good for it, though.



Well, I'm using several clock monitoring apps and they all show the same thing. I uninstalled the Intel Desktop Controller. No difference. 2.93ghz looks like it's all I'm going to get. Bummer, since I paid for that Turbo Boost... Darned thing should just work with a friggin' INTEL 1156 MOTHERBOARD. :fou: 

I wonder how much of a difference I'd notice it anyway if it were to actually work.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a c 100 K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
July 15, 2011 1:24:27 AM

Have you tried uninstalling that Intel Desktop Controller?
m
0
l
July 15, 2011 1:32:33 AM

wolfram23 said:
Have you tried uninstalling that Intel Desktop Controller?



Ugh...see previous post...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a c 100 K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
July 15, 2011 2:02:59 AM

Oops. Right. Well... you said you installed a BIOS from July 11? If you meant the 1st then that would make sense, otherwise maybe you installed the BIOS for a different board. I say that because I just checked this site:
http://downloadcenter.intel.com/SearchResult.aspx?lang=...

Assuming you're using the latest BIOS... well, I guess one last thing to try is to reset your CMOS by turning off or unplugging your PSU then either jumping the CMOS or removing the battery for several seconds on the mobo.
m
0
l
July 15, 2011 2:13:19 AM

July 11 as in July 2011... I would have stated the 11th as 11 July.

What would resetting the CMOS do?
m
0
l
July 15, 2011 2:38:00 AM

Also, how do you jump the CMOS? I looked at the battery and I'll have to pull the video card and most likely the CPU cooler, which I don't want to do because I did it several times and have really good temps now.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a c 100 K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
July 15, 2011 3:31:50 AM

Well basically if there's any issue on the motherboard's side of things, resetting the CMOS will set it all back to purely stock values/settings.

The jumper is always located very close to the battery. There should be 3 pins, with a sleeve connector over 2 of them. Simply remove the sleeve and connect the other 2 pins (ie: from left/mid to mid/right). That will reset the CMOS. Leave it for several seconds, then replace it back to the start position.
m
0
l
July 15, 2011 3:42:52 AM

Well, that's the thing. My BIOS has virtually stock settings already. The only thing I changed was to turn on the cool blue LED skull with the red flashing eyes (HD activity). LOL

Don't think clearing CMOS would do anything, but I'll give it a better look tomorrow. I might be able to get under the CPU cooler (copper pipe tower type) and pop out the battery after pulling the video card. Can't hurt...

edited to add: I did change the BIOS drive controller setting from IDE to AHCI so my SATA ports were hot swappable, but that shouldn't have affected Turbo Boost in any way...
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
July 15, 2011 9:33:31 PM

buffettck said:
Checked all that too. Just went through the BIOS earlier. And, as per my previous post, I ensured Speed Step and Enhanced Halt State said "Yes". You were the one who told me to check for C1E, but now you say it's not "really important"?

In some bios's, it's listed as "C1E" while others list it as "Enhanced Halt State", the 2 are directly interchangable. The "CPU Model" and "CPU Stepping" listed in Intel's Processor Identification Utility aren't important as we already know what processor you have.

As I'm running out of ideas, this will probably be my last suggestion. Download AIDA64 if you haven't in the past. Run the "Cache and Memory Benchmark". I hit 3.5Ghz during the "Cache and Memory Benchmark". I would recommend using "realtemp.exe" as opposed to RealtempGT. You can also try clicking on "XS Bench" in RealTemp itself. Nothing graphical will happen, but it does trigger "Turbo Boost" if it's actually working.
m
0
l
July 15, 2011 9:42:23 PM

I don't need to download yet another utility. If it isn't working running prime95 or Intel Burntest, then it just ain't working... It's fucked. I even tried backdating to two earlier versions of BIOS and pulling the CMOS battery for 30 minutes. No change. The only thing left is to do a ground up restore of Windows settings, which I am NOT willing to do. I don't think it would help anyway.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a c 100 K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
July 15, 2011 9:50:24 PM

You don't have any utilities installed right? Like, auto OC type stuff? Otherwise you may want to fire off a support email to Intel and see what they have to say in the matter.
m
0
l
July 15, 2011 10:18:17 PM

Nope, no OC anything. I even uninstalled the Intel Desktop Control Center, as that's the only place I messed around with auto OC'ing in the past. Everything is at default values. As for Intel, support. It SUCKS. I've already had several "real time" chat sessions and they couldn't tell me jack. Just kept saying what it was dependent on, did I have the latest BIOS and that they couldn't recommend ANY utilities to "stress" the CPU to see if it was working. Basically, a wasted of time.
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
July 16, 2011 12:15:22 AM

If you have Realtemp, you already have 1 of the utilities I recommended. "XS Bench" is part of Realtemp. It's between "Sensor Test" and "Reset" on the Realtemp GUI. Also, just for %$@$ and giggles....open "i7TurboGT", which was included in the Realtemp zip file, and see if "Turbo Disable" is checked. If so, uncheck it and restart RealTemp then run "XS Bench" again. Burn-In software like Prime95 and IntelBurnTest aren't ideal for testing Turbo Boost functionality because of the "conditionals" for Turbo Boost. Running Prime95, I get to 3.2ghz....while running XS Bench I can get 3.6ghz. The point of Prime95 and IntelBurnTest is to load each core to 100%, which increases power draw and temperature....both of which are used to determine the maximum "boost".
m
0
l
July 16, 2011 1:50:30 AM

Yes, I've run Realtemp many, many times. No matter WHAT I do, it hits 2.93 and that's it. I tried i7TurboGT and Turbo Disable wasn't checked. I tried the XS Bench in Realtemp and RealtempGT. At least you get to 3.2 with prime95. I still max out at 2.93. I think my CPU/mobo must be jacked up. I'm really loathe to tear it all apart and RMA it back to Intel. God only knows how many weeks/months I'd be out of a computer and, quite possibly, be right back in the same situation.
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
July 16, 2011 2:45:29 AM

I've been suspicious of the motherboard since you posted your Intel Processor Identification Utility results. I don't really like suggesting that a motherboard is faulty though without conclusive evidence. If you've never had use of Turbo Boost, and keep in mind that this is a long shot, it may be possible that the socket on the motherboard has 1 or more bent pins. That would be my next suggestion as to things to check if you want to continue trying to diagnose this issue. Otherwise, good luck and sorry I couldn't be of any real help to you.
m
0
l
July 16, 2011 4:51:29 AM

What about my CPU ID results made you suspicious? Check the pins? All 1156 of them? LOL Honestly, is that something even feasible for a normal person to check/fix?

I think I'll buy an ASUS or Gigabyte mobo and go from there. Either Intel will take it back or not. I'm out of my Amazon 30 day return window.
m
0
l
July 16, 2011 6:21:17 AM

Actually, I bit the bullet and bought another Intel DP55KG motherboard. This board just has everything as far as ports, fan headers, AHCI, etc that I want and replacing it would, obviously, be a no-brainer. Either the Turbo will work or it won't. If it does, I'll RMA the original mobo back to Intel and dispute the charge with my bank if Intel refuses a refund. If it doesn't work in Turbo mode, then I'll return the new DP55KG within the 30 return window, RMA the old DP55KG and buy another 3rd party mobo to see what's up at that point. I just really like this board and want it to work. Everything else is running smoothly and the board has been rock solid stable.
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
July 16, 2011 12:20:18 PM

buffettck said:
What about my CPU ID results made you suspicious? Check the pins? All 1156 of them? LOL Honestly, is that something even feasible for a normal person to check/fix?

I think I'll buy an ASUS or Gigabyte mobo and go from there. Either Intel will take it back or not. I'm out of my Amazon 30 day return window.

You said you have Turbo Boost, SpeedStep and Enhanced Halt State enabled, yet Intel's CPU ID detected the proper processor frequency instead of the frequency report being affected by Turbo Boost as it should be. Intel's CPU ID doesn't stress the processor, but it does cause Turbo Boost to kick in....IF it's working.

As far as the pin inspection. It's time consuming, but it's nothing difficult. You use a good flashlight and a magnifying glass to "scan" the socket for obvious signs of damage or bent pins. Trying to fix any damage or bent pins, I wouldn't consider feasible, no.
m
0
l
July 16, 2011 2:16:35 PM

sykozis said:
You said you have Turbo Boost, SpeedStep and Enhanced Halt State enabled, yet Intel's CPU ID detected the proper processor frequency instead of the frequency report being affected by Turbo Boost as it should be. Intel's CPU ID doesn't stress the processor, but it does cause Turbo Boost to kick in....IF it's working.


Ah, I see. Thanks for that info.

As far as the pin inspection. It's time consuming, but it's nothing difficult. You use a good flashlight and a magnifying glass to "scan" the socket for obvious signs of damage or bent pins. Trying to fix any damage or bent pins, I wouldn't consider feasible, no. said:
As far as the pin inspection. It's time consuming, but it's nothing difficult. You use a good flashlight and a magnifying glass to "scan" the socket for obvious signs of damage or bent pins. Trying to fix any damage or bent pins, I wouldn't consider feasible, no.


I didn't think it would be feasible to try to fix any bent pins. Therefore, I won't waste my time looking for them. I just ordered a whole new motherboard instead. :sarcastic:  If that doesn't work (i.e. gives me the same problem), I'll look at replacing the CPU next. Hope Intel is good about taking their crap back because I don't really want to dispute anything on my credit card/bank, but I will if I have to...


edited to add: You don't think anything in Windows 7 could be causing it, do you? Man, with all this monitoring and troubleshooting capability, you'd think SOMETHING would say why it wasn't working or at least tell you there's a problem other than it just not going beyond the rated speed. I'd think a bent pin would at least trigger a POST code or something. I'd have never known about this problem until, one day out of the blue, I thought to see if it did indeed kick into turbo mode. Just wish it hadn't been past Amazon's 30 day return window. Then again, the components sat around for over two weeks before I got the time to put it all together. I'll be sure to check EVERYTHING featured in my components next time. Overall, not too bad for my first build, though as everything went together and booted perfectly the very first time I turned it on to install Windows 7. :sol: 
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
July 16, 2011 4:43:18 PM

It's possible that Windows is causing the problem, though I'm not really sure exactly how to go about testing it to find out. You can check in the Power Options (Advanced Power settings) and see if "Maximum Processor State" is below 100%....and if so, try increasing it to 100%. That's about all I can think of.
m
0
l
July 17, 2011 12:59:02 AM

Good idea, but nope... My computer is set at the largest carbon footprint settings...as it should be...
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
July 17, 2011 3:21:31 AM

lol, already have the power options set to "obliterate the o-zone"? I'm using Asus's "EPU 4" software. I can't afford to do but so much damage to the environment at one time.. I tried overclocking with my H55DE3, but the result was the ASRock IES software crashing...among other issues like losing half my memory and the SATA controller becoming flaky.
m
0
l
July 17, 2011 2:21:45 PM

Well, as I said, I don't do any overclocking. I just want the built in OC I paid for (Turbo Boost) to work. What I meant was I don't have my computer set to shut anything down after a certain amount of time.
m
0
l
July 24, 2011 12:09:15 AM

New DP55KG motherboard arrived today. Install tomorrow. Hope the damned thing works...
m
0
l
July 24, 2011 1:32:34 PM

A friend brought up an interesting point I hadn't thought about. Could a power supply cause a CPU not to go into Turbo Boost if it isn't pumping out enough power or something? I have an Antec 650W power supply, which is also new, which I think should be enough. Especially with only one EVGA GeForce GTX 460 SE video card... But, I'd think if the power supply were too weak, I'd be seeing problems elsewhere, too...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
July 24, 2011 2:17:03 PM

It won't turbo up to 3.6ghz. I have an 870 also and during any stress that uses multi-threads it will only boost up to 3.2ghz... if you increase the bclk to 146-147 it'll turbo up close to 3.6ghz. When turbo kicks in a multi threaded app the multi only goes to 24X so - 24 X 147 = 3528mhz. When I do run with turbo on I just leave my voltage on auto and don't push the bclk any further as I run into stability issues. You just have to adjust your RAM's timings accordingly. All in all, I hate turbo and I just OC - set my dram, pll, vtt, vcore voltages and set my ram timings - turn off turbo, cstates, speed step, and lower my multi until it's stable.
m
0
l
July 24, 2011 2:27:40 PM

No, it will OC to 3.6ghz on one core, AS ADVERTISED. 3.4ghz on 2 or 3 cores and 3.2 on all four physical cores. It should do this automatically OUT OF THE BOX, again...as advertised... Other than having Turbo Boost, Speed Step, etc enabled in BIOS, there should be NO other requirements needed for it to work as Intel claims it should.

It's great that you're seeing ANY Turbo Boost over 2.93ghz. If you've read the whole thread, you'll see that, despite anything I've done, I never break 2.93ghz. Just the fact that you're seeing 3.2ghz with all four cores utilized shows that your 870 is working as advertised. Have you tried an application that will stress just one core? You should (and probably would) see 3.6ghz in that example.

Again, the new motherboard will go in today and I'll see what I can see...as soon as the wife goes to work and I can claim the kitchen with nice static-free tile floor and granite counter tops. LOL

edited to add: I don't want to OC right now, as I'm a complete noob with OC'ing. I just want the CPU to work as advertised. If it won't then I see OC'ing as potentially introducing even more problems...
m
0
l
!