Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Only 2 cores seem to be doing the work?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 25, 2012 5:08:07 PM

Hi all i play world of warcraft and was thinking that i should be getting better fps and such, usually i get around 60fps more less solid barring been in orgrammar which it then goes down to around 25-30fps all settings are on high,also when i have looked at my taskmanager out of the 6 cores i have 2 seem to be doing a lot of work and the other 4 hardly anything, im new to all this technical side of things really so dont know if this is right or if something is holding my system back ? This is the spec of my machine, and also do i need to update the processer drivers looking at them there sayng the driver is from 2006 but never had to update processer drivers before ?

Asus sabertooth 990fx motherboard
Phenom 1100T black edition x6 @ 3.30ghz/oc 3.80ghz
2 x GTX 560ti (448)
2 x 64gb ssd
1x tb harddrive
1000w cooler master silent
Fractal design R3 case in Artic White
64 bit windows ultimate
16gb Corsair xms ram 1600mhz

Also i never run this game in sli because i never see any difference in fps but im pretty sure it should be running smoother than what it is any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

More about : cores work

a b à CPUs
September 25, 2012 5:16:13 PM

the majority of games only utilize 2 cores. That's why everyone says the i5's are the best procs for gaming.

Games do not use Hyper threading or more then 4 cores. (usually only 2 depending on the game)
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2012 5:16:38 PM

Are you using a DX11 version of World of Warcraft? If not, then doing so might help.

Either way, most games, especially old games such as WoW, are not able to use many cores/threads effectively. One or two well-utilized threads and a few other much lighter threads is very common. This is a huge part of why AMD is often seen as underperforming compared to Intel even though AMD tends to have much higher performance at any given budget through sheer core count.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2012 5:19:41 PM

unoriginal1 said:
the majority of games only utilize 2 cores. That's why everyone says the i5's are the best procs for gaming.

Games do not use Hyper threading or more then 4 cores. (usually only 2 depending on the game)


That's not entirely true. A lot of games use more than two cores. Most games that do use many cores simply don't use more than two very efficiently (IE going from one to two cores might double performance if all else is equal, but going from two to three or four is unlikely to add more than around 20-30% more performance in most games). Also, there are some games (very few) such as BF3 MP that can actually use six or even eight cores almost perfectly. Almost all modern games can use Hyper-Threading. This is supported by the OS, not the game. The game sees then as regular cores and going from a Pentium (two cores) to an i3 of the same micro-architecture and frequency (two cores with Hyper-Threading) is known to be a considerable performance improvement (20-30%) in many modern games.
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2012 5:25:00 PM

luciferano said:
That's not entirely true. A lot of games use more than two cores. Most games that do use many cores simply don't use more than two very efficiently (IE going from one to two cores might double performance if all else is equal, but going from two to three or four is unlikely to add more than around 20-30% more performance in most games). Also, there are some games (very few) such as BF3 MP that can actually use six or even eight cores almost perfectly. Almost all modern games can use Hyper-Threading. This is supported by the OS, not the game. The game sees then as regular cores and going from a Pentium (two cores) to an i3 of the same micro-architecture and frequency (two cores with Hyper-Threading) is known to be a considerable performance improvement (20-30%) in many modern games.



Hence why I said most.

*edit* Also Hyper Threading does more bad then good. You wouldn't see a 20-30% increase in performance. Hyper threading can cause stutters in game play. No game besides bf3 to my knowledge even uses it. Possible down the road it would help but as for todays games. it decreases performance when compared to an i5.
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2012 5:32:15 PM

But to be fair... I guess if we did want to get technical. To say it *doesn't use* hyper threading. That would be inaccurate. So my bad on poor choice of wording.
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2012 7:21:03 PM

To be fair, the lack of a single application to scale on multiple CPU's was ONLY discovered way back in the 80's. I really am surprised that people expect a single application to scale well, when the very design of the hardware inhibits this.

Seriously, most programs are serial in nature. So right there you lose the ability to scale well. Then you have to be worried about synchronization, hardware I/O, and the like. And so on and so forth.
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2012 7:25:02 PM

Actually there is a game or two benefit from hyperthreading.

Don't ask me which ones though.

Some people say you need 4 cores to play BF3 with good fps, I say horsecrap, I own noobs all day long and I run a i3 and OC HD5850. Windows does a good job of spreading load across all 4 threads.
a c 108 à CPUs
September 25, 2012 7:31:11 PM


In *some* gaming, booting with 2 cores (instead of six) will see a nice bump as they better share the L3 cache.

You will certainly see a nice bump by cranking your IMC/NB to the 24-2500MHz range. For each 10% you increase the speed of the IMC/NB above stock 2000MHz, memory bandwidth is increased 3-4% and latency is reduced 3-4%.

a c 116 à CPUs
September 25, 2012 7:35:24 PM

luciferano said:
That's not entirely true. A lot of games use more than two cores. Most games that do use many cores simply don't use more than two very efficiently.

Do not confuse Windows scheduling the game's few active threads round-robin or randomly across 4+ threads/cores as "using many cores". You could run single-threaded application on a 6C12T CPU and see activity on all 12 "cores" simply due to scheduling but the overall CPU utilization in Task Manager would only be 8.3%, equivalent to a single logical core at 100% load.

If you have a game that maxes out at 40% CPU load in Task Manager on a quad-core CPU, it is effectively using only 1.6 cores.
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2012 7:42:59 PM

InvalidError said:
Do not confuse Windows scheduling the game's few active threads round-robin or randomly across 4+ threads/cores as "using many cores". You could run single-threaded application on a 6C12T CPU and see activity on all 12 "cores" simply due to scheduling but the overall CPU utilization in Task Manager would only be 8.3%, equivalent to a single logical core at 100% load.

If you have a game that maxes out at 40% CPU load in Task Manager on a quad-core CPU, it is effectively using only 1.6 cores.


I did not make any such mistake. What I said was correct. A lot of games have a few threads that do some work, just not a lot of work and can't efficiently utilize cores as much as one or two *main* threads. This is a common problem caused by developers not coding effectively for high amounts of threads.
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2012 7:43:10 PM

I apologize to the OP as I'm partially to blame for the tangent :p .

But does anyone know how to improve his game play on WoW? :) 
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2012 7:47:08 PM

Like I said at the start of the thread, the best thing to try would be making sure that OP is using the DX11 launcher for WoW. I don't think that there is much else that can be done about the situation. You can't force a game to use more threads than it has unless there is support for it that is locked that can be unlocked.
September 25, 2012 11:23:57 PM

I highly doubt this is possible but I've always wondered if it's possible to combine cores into a single virtual thread and say running 2 3ghz cores at a logical speed of 6ghz... they'd need to share resources though so they would be using the same L1 and L2 cache (I assume?)... I believe it would be near impossible to do though.

Also is it possible to run an octave frequency over a CPU? like for example if you got an extra 1hz every 10hz so a 3ghz core would get 300mhz extra speed? would this let you achieve slightly higher frequency's with a little less heat generation?

I'm just speculating/sharing thoughts haha.
a c 116 à CPUs
September 25, 2012 11:26:30 PM

luciferano said:
I did not make any such mistake. What I said was correct.

While you may be correct, there are tons of people erroneously concluding that an application is using more cores than it actually does only because they see activity across multiple cores when that activity is only an artifact from the scheduler playing musical chair with the one or two active threads.

Personally, an application that has 20 threads but only two that do any meaningful amount of work is fundamentally targeted for dual-core CPUs.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 12:28:30 AM

mikes1992 said:
I highly doubt this is possible but I've always wondered if it's possible to combine cores into a single virtual thread and say running 2 3ghz cores at a logical speed of 6ghz... they'd need to share resources though so they would be using the same L1 and L2 cache (I assume?)... I believe it would be near impossible to do though.

Also is it possible to run an octave frequency over a CPU? like for example if you got an extra 1hz every 10hz so a 3ghz core would get 300mhz extra speed? would this let you achieve slightly higher frequency's with a little less heat generation?

I'm just speculating/sharing thoughts haha.


Combining cores like that doesn't really work. I think that I could figure out something if you want to get into it, but with current CPUs, that simply doesn't work.

Maybe frequency ticks like that could be done without major architectural changes.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 12:32:47 AM

InvalidError said:
While you may be correct, there are tons of people erroneously concluding that an application is using more cores than it actually does only because they see activity across multiple cores when that activity is only an artifact from the scheduler playing musical chair with the one or two active threads.

Personally, an application that has 20 threads but only two that do any meaningful amount of work is fundamentally targeted for dual-core CPUs.


I see what you're getting at. For measuring core count efficiency in games, I prefer changing the game's core affinity so that it can only run on a specific core, then two, then three, and so on so that I can get what should be a more accurate measure of how the game scales with more cores (or threads for Hyper-Threading capable CPUs). Do you think that this is an inaccurate method?
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 12:38:56 AM

When it comes to wow you just not going to get the best fps but that 6 core cpu can handle a lot of wow clients at once. I get similar fps as you but when I open up more clients and begin to log several accounts fps remains the same. Wow uses an ancient engine so what you got is about right. Keep in mind that wow doesn't scale much at all in sli/crossfire.
a c 116 à CPUs
September 26, 2012 1:50:21 AM

luciferano said:
Do you think that this is an inaccurate method?

Playing with affinity does have the benefit of highlighting exactly how many bursty simultaneous things the game might be throwing around on different threads.

For applications/games that use "bursty threading", there might be a noticeable difference between this and my task-manager evaluation. Since few programs are written this way due to the complexity and overhead of setting things up that way and reconciling/synchronizing results afterward, Task Manager CPU% is still a simple and reasonable approximation of how many cores are used most of the time.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 1:59:21 AM

InvalidError said:
Playing with affinity does have the benefit of highlighting exactly how many bursty simultaneous things the game might be throwing around on different threads.

For applications/games that use "bursty threading", there might be a noticeable difference between this and my task-manager evaluation. Since few programs are written this way due to the complexity and overhead of setting things up that way and reconciling/synchronizing results afterward, Task Manager CPU% is still a simple and reasonable approximation of how many cores are used most of the time.


Let's assume that you have a quad-core CPU. 40% might mean 1.6 cores utilized, but it might be that one core is utilized and another is about half utilized, or it might mean that one core is about 80% used and two others are about 40%. It seems less accurate because it doesn't really tell you how the game uses the CPU.
a c 116 à CPUs
September 26, 2012 3:01:14 AM

luciferano said:
Let's assume that you have a quad-core CPU. 40% might mean 1.6 cores utilized, but it might be that one core is utilized and another is about half utilized, or it might mean that one core is about 80% used and two others are about 40%. It seems less accurate because it doesn't really tell you how the game uses the CPU.

But there is no guarantee that you will see any difference between dual or quad core since the dual core should still have more than enough processing power to handle the effective workload of 1.6 cores.

I personally would not lose sleep over this. The bottom line is I would not expect much of a speed-up going from dual to quad with software that only has an effective load of 1.8 cores on quad but I know for sure to expect a slow-down downgrading to a dual-core if the effective load on the quad is higher than two cores. That was what my "TM test" is about.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 3:14:57 AM

You have a point, but the problem is that it might not translate to similar usage with different CPUs. For example, let's assume that we've been talking about a Core 2 Quad. Applying the same workload to say an FX-4100 or an i3 might have different results. For example, the FX-4100's first core of each module is faster than the second core if the second core has lower utilization than the first core.

The same is true if the second core has higher utilization, but the point is the same. The i3 uses Hyper-Threading that with highly threaded performance, let's it more or less keep up with many lower end quad cores such as most Core 2 Quads and some Phenom II x4s and FX-4100 with the Ivy i3s, so a load of say 1.8 cores on the Core 2 Quad might be more like 1.3 on the i3 or depending on the workload, more like 2.1 or whatever. My method gives you real scaling comparisons that should hold true even with CPUs of different micro-architectures and performance characteristics whereas your depends on the individual CPU.
a c 116 à CPUs
September 26, 2012 3:21:27 AM

luciferano said:
You have a point, but the problem is that it might not translate to similar usage with different CPUs. Applying the same workload to say an FX-4100 or an i3 might have different results.

Hello Mr Obvious.

The performance of AMD chips cannot be compared with Intel's in any meaningful way in this context. The usage of similar architecture and clock rates was implied all along.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 3:28:41 AM

InvalidError said:
Hello Mr Obvious.

The performance of AMD chips cannot be compared with Intel's in any meaningful way in this context. The usage of similar architecture and clock rates was implied all along.


Even comparing different Intel CPUs could make your method fail. Heck, comparing two CPUs that are identical in all but frequency can make it fail. Mine has no such fallacy.
September 26, 2012 8:39:49 AM

Hi all and thanks for the replies,some of the replies just blow my mind lol as im new to all this.Couple of things am i best enabling hyperthreading or leaving it disabled which is what its on at the moment,also i run the game using directx11 which i enabled in game is this right too ? or do i have to enable it before i boot the game up somewhere? also i read somewhere that when computer boots up to change the boot up core to the max i have which is 6 is this ok ? thanks again and sorry for the noobish questions but im getting there ;) 
a c 173 à CPUs
September 26, 2012 8:59:15 AM

AMD CPUs don't have hyperthreading.

As far as DX11 goes, the game settings is generally the only place you can enable it AFAIK, so it sounds like you're doing it right
September 26, 2012 9:02:51 AM

Hi sorry my bad i meant Turbo Core should this be enabled or disabled is what i meant to say ;/
a c 173 à CPUs
September 26, 2012 9:20:15 AM

Turbo core speeds up the clock speed of some of your cores when others aren't being used much (like turbo boost),which you definitely want. The problem is it may cause problems with your overclocking.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 11:51:04 AM

geekapproved said:
Actually there is a game or two benefit from hyperthreading.

Don't ask me which ones though.

Some people say you need 4 cores to play BF3 with good fps, I say horsecrap, I own noobs all day long and I run a i3 and OC HD5850. Windows does a good job of spreading load across all 4 threads.


When using only two cores, you take a hit to minimum FPS, and you get a LOT more stuttering, even if FPS comes in the same (too be expected).

As far as windows offloading to cores, all Windows does is allocate a thread to the core currently doing the least amount of work. And given how only a few threads do significant amounts of processing at any one time, you typically end up hitting the brick wall scaling wise at 2-4 cores, depending on the application.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 12:01:43 PM

The negatives of leaving hyperthreading on in games is so small you would never notice anything.
a c 116 à CPUs
September 26, 2012 12:45:51 PM

luciferano said:
Mine has no such fallacy.

Actually, yours fails every bit as badly for the very same reasons. You could do your thread affinity tests on AMD and Intel CPUs and come up with completely different outcomes. Both techniques are only valid within a given CPU family.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 1:59:51 PM

InvalidError said:
Actually, yours fails every bit as badly for the very same reasons. You could do your thread affinity tests on AMD and Intel CPUs and come up with completely different outcomes. Both techniques are only valid within a given CPU family.


I disagree. Mine can have this problem accounted for whereas yours can not. If a game scales up 100% on an LGA 1155 i5 from one core to two cores, then I can not only expect the same to be true for an FX-4100 with Core 0 and core 2 enabled in the thread affinity, but I can also then without even actually testing it, account for how the second core of each module will improve performance with simple math if I continue the test on the i5 to three and four cores and I could do the same on the i3s and pretty much any other CPU.

For example, if a game scales 100% across four cores (a very unlikely scenario for most games, but an easy to work with number for proving a point) on the i5-2500K, then so long as the graphics can keep up, I can expect the same game to scale 100% across core 0 and core 2 on the FX-4100 and then with all four cores, I can assume 50-75% scaling beyond the two-cores enabled example with around 60-70% being most probable. Real-world testing would almost definitely reveal that this is true.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 2:25:02 PM

luciferano said:
I disagree. Mine can have this problem accounted for whereas yours can not. If a game scales up 100% on an LGA 1155 i5 from one core to two cores, then I can not only expect the same to be true for an FX-4100 with Core 0 and core 2 enabled in the thread affinity, but I can also then without even actually testing it, account for how the second core of each module will improve performance with simple math if I continue the test on the i5 to three and four cores and I could do the same on the i3s and pretty much any other CPU.

For example, if a game scales 100% across four cores (a very unlikely scenario for most games, but an easy to work with number for proving a point) on the i5-2500K, then so long as the graphics can keep up, I can expect the same game to scale 100% across core 0 and core 2 on the FX-4100 and then with all four cores, I can assume 50-75% scaling beyond the two-cores enabled example with around 60-70% being most probable. Real-world testing would almost definitely reveal that this is true.


Incorrect assumptions, since you disregard the fact the internal elements of the two CPU architectures are totally different. Techreport did an investigation into this not too long ago:

http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-ga...

Frame latency matters just as much, if not more, then FPS.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 2:27:25 PM

vitornob said:
Borderlands 2 - Cpu Scale Benchmark
This is a game that scales VERY well.


Meh. Seems to scale to 3-4 cores, then IPC increases seem to be the major performance factors. Hence why we continue to see the PII X4 ahead of six core BD's.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 2:32:07 PM

gamerk316 said:
Incorrect assumptions, since you disregard the fact the internal elements of the two CPU architectures are totally different. Techreport did an investigation into this not too long ago:

http://techreport.com/review/23246/inside-the-second-ga...

Frame latency matters just as much, if not more, then FPS.


The CPU architecture and performance differences are exactly what I accounted for.

I wasn't arguing about frame latency, I was arguing about performance scaling across multiple CPU cores and virtual threads. Latency, although important, is irrelevant for this discussion.
a c 116 à CPUs
September 26, 2012 2:36:58 PM

luciferano said:
I disagree. Mine can have this problem accounted for whereas yours can not.

First thing, accuracy was not my point. A quick and simple assessment.

Second thing, measuring CPU load scaling by playing with thread affinity does pretty much the same thing. If an application manages to generate 100% load across four cores in TM on i5, it will most likely generate 100% usage on AMD X4. Your method is more complicated but not necessarily more accurate.

There are too many variables from platform to platform and from program to program to call any evaluation 'accurate', which is why I said there is no point splitting hairs and losing sleep over it.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 2:44:56 PM

I'm not measuring CPU load because as we've already established, that is inaccurate; I'd measure in-game performance. This method removes variables quite effectively and any remaining variables such as background tasks can be taken care of until they have minimal effect and repeating tests should account for any margin of error.

What my method does is work for more than only 100% load situations and not only that, but shows how performance rather than only load (they don't necessarily correlate directly) scales.

Reading your posts, I feel as if I've offended you somehow. If so, then I apologize, I had no intention of being offensive.
a c 108 à CPUs
September 26, 2012 6:14:16 PM


chuggs1977 said:
Hi all and thanks for the replies,some of the replies just blow my mind lol as im new to all this.Couple of things am i best enabling hyperthreading or leaving it disabled which is what its on at the moment,also i run the game using directx11 which i enabled in game is this right too ? or do i have to enable it before i boot the game up somewhere? also i read somewhere that when computer boots up to change the boot up core to the max i have which is 6 is this ok ? thanks again and sorry for the noobish questions but im getting there ;) 


Wisecracker said:
In *some* gaming, booting with 2 cores (instead of six) will see a nice bump as they better share the L3 cache.

You will certainly see a nice bump by cranking your IMC/NB to the 24-2500MHz range. For each 10% you increase the speed of the IMC/NB above stock 2000MHz, memory bandwidth is increased 3-4% and latency is reduced 3-4%.


There you go ...




a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 6:47:49 PM

luciferano said:
I'm not measuring CPU load because as we've already established, that is inaccurate; I'd measure in-game performance. This method removes variables quite effectively and any remaining variables such as background tasks can be taken care of until they have minimal effect and repeating tests should account for any margin of error.


And as I noted: FPS is a horrid way to measure performance. Its theoretically possible to output 60 frames per second, yet only draw 2 separate frames to the screen! (Yes, would never happen, but it shows how poor a benchmark FPS is. Average frame latency is gives a MUCH better indication of whats going on under the hood).
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 7:09:41 PM

Hmm... Measuring average frame latency of 99% of the frames might be a better thing to measure than FPS. However, I'm not sure if it would scale properly. It could be a more realistic benchmark, but would it be more affected by the graphics than raw FPS?

Still, measuring by scaling in thread affinity changes is probably much more accurate for cross-CPU architecture comparisons than looking at CPU load.
a c 116 à CPUs
September 26, 2012 8:20:34 PM

luciferano said:
Still, measuring by scaling in thread affinity changes is probably much more accurate for cross-CPU architecture comparisons than looking at CPU load.

Nobody really cares about accuracy of core affinity scaling. What people care about is moving frames along at the smoothest, steadiest pace possible to avoid stuttering and this depends every bit as much on the software architecture (software + OS + drivers + firmware + etc.) as it does on the hardware. There is no be-all, end-all accurate magical number for this since the outcome can change drastically with any single variable.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 9:05:03 PM

InvalidError said:
Nobody really cares about accuracy of core affinity scaling. What people care about is moving frames along at the smoothest, steadiest pace possible to avoid stuttering and this depends every bit as much on the software architecture (software + OS + drivers + firmware + etc.) as it does on the hardware. There is no be-all, end-all accurate magical number for this since the outcome can change drastically with any single variable.


Performance scaling with CPU cores/virtual threads can greatly impact what CPU should be bought for games. To say that it doesn't matter is no worse than saying that it doesn't matter if you check benchmarks of the graphics cards that you consider buying in games that you want to play.
a c 116 à CPUs
September 26, 2012 11:29:01 PM

luciferano said:
Performance scaling with CPU cores/virtual threads can greatly impact what CPU should be bought for games.

But benchmarks are only valid for one specific system using specific parts under specific testing conditions with specific software, drivers, firmware, hardware, etc. versions loaded. As I have been saying for a while, no point obsessing about results under one set of specific circumstances. Benchmarks as everything else are only intended to give a general idea of what to expect, not accuracy.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2012 11:40:31 PM

InvalidError said:
But benchmarks are only valid for one specific system using specific parts under specific testing conditions with specific software, drivers, firmware, hardware, etc. versions loaded. As I have been saying for a while, no point obsessing about results under one set of specific circumstances. Benchmarks as everything else are only intended to give a general idea of what to expect, not accuracy.


Not much of that has an impact on what I'm saying and what does have an impact does not impact my point, only the reasoning for why my method would be applied. My point is that we can measure how a game scales across CPU threads and this can be important in choosing the right CPU for the job. If the games that someone plays are all quad threaded or less, then we already know that going beyond four cores is probably not going to help much at all unless that person wants to multi-task while gaming and even then, we can now estimate with very good accuracy to what extent that person could multi-task with any given CPU.

Assuming that we got more specific and said that although the games are quad-threaded, they only scale beyond two threads by about 20-30%, then going beyond two cores with Hyper-Threading is probably unreasonable if this person doesn't want to multi-task. If they scale about 50-70% beyond two cores, then going beyond an FX-41xx CPU is probably unreasonable if this person doesn't want to multi-task. If they scale perfectly across four cores, then going beyond an i5 or an FX-81xx (with only one core per module fully enabled, of course) is probably unreasonable unless they multi-task.

Like with how benchmarks show what graphics card is right for the job when you know what settings and resolution you want to play at, benchmarks can also show you the right CPU for the job.
September 29, 2012 9:50:24 AM

Hey wise thanks for the replie im not sure what you mean by cracking up my IMC/NB help in this would be appreciated thanks.
a c 108 à CPUs
September 29, 2012 2:53:46 PM


In Advanced Mode in the AI Tweaker menu ... See: CPU/NB Frequency
- the IMC/NB at 24000 to 2600MHz should be a 'slam dunk' -- the 'Pros' are going over 3000MHz. If you take manual control of the NB voltages, 1.2v to 1.25v should work well at noted speed.

Also - In Advanced Mode in the Advanced menu ... North Bridge submenu - *Memory Configuration*
- verify that the DCT is in *Unganged Mode* (DCT is another fancy name for the IMC, or integrated memory controller). The IMC is the direct CPU connection to your RAMs via the 'north bridge' though it is not really a NB-bus is the old sense of the term. Your X6 has a 128-bit memory controller, or technically, 2x64-bit in *unganed mode* 128-bit operation is really only needed in enterprise applications and can effect stability on occasion in desktop games and apps when OC'ing.

You have a really great CPU and motherboard that will suit you well for quite some time. Hopefully, your upgrade path will take you all the way to Steamroller. It is important that you understand your BIOS, the terminology that we use (it can be exasperating!), and how your system is inter-related. Take your time and try to learn a little something every day.

With the X6 1100 Thuban, the *Turbo* mode adds another '2' to the CPU multiplier. At stock the X6 is running 16.5x200MHz, but may Turbo 2 cores to 18.5x200MHz. So -- when you are running 3.8GHz (19x200MHz), with Turbo enabled up to 2 cores run 21x200MHz, or 4.2GHz. If you wish to overclock higher, it is likely recommended that you disable Turbo when running 6 cores above your current level. Running 6 cores, no Turbo, at 20x200MHz 1.4v is not uncommon.

BUT !!! -- If you are running 2 cores only, 20x200MHz with 22x200MHz Turbo may be a 'slam dunk' with your chip and a little voltage tweaking.

Confused, yet? :lol:  :ouch:  :lol: 

IMPORTANT ----->> In Advanced Mode in the *Tools* menu, you may save up to 8 BIOS profiles [:lutfij:4]

Use it!





September 30, 2012 7:32:08 AM

Hi wise cheers for the replie and the advice ive learnt so much these past few months with the bios ect and is nice to learn even more,yesterday i tried turning off 2 cores so now im running with 4 which seems to have improved things also i have turbo turned off going to try it with it turned on shortly see if i see any difference thanks again big thumbs up :) 
a c 108 à CPUs
September 30, 2012 8:43:48 PM


Good job!

With the PhIIs, 4 cores sharing the L3 cache typically works better in gaming than 6 cores sharing the L3 cache. You will find instances where 2 cores (or 3!) will perform even better in gaming.

Part of this has to do with **Core Hopping**

What the guys were discussing above is how your operating system schedules work in 'threads.' Quite a number of games (and applications) will run great on 1-2 cores, but Windows can sometimes 'core-hop' between 3-4-5- or even 6 cores because it tries to **Load Balance** CPU work across the cores. Core hopping can easily ding you 10% or more in performance.

Here is an example of the cache structure for an X4 -- add 2 more cores and L2 cache still sharing 6MB of L3 cache ...



Also -- AMD has a desktop utility that will help you shut down non-essential background services to boost your performance.


!