Is it time for Quad Core?

gurusan · 17 Dec 2008 at 19:27

keeping speedstep enabled when clocking doesn't do anything anyway....the vcore does not drop....therefore it's very ineffective anyway.

rypt · 17 Dec 2008 at 23:47

gurusan said:
keeping speedstep enabled when clocking doesn't do anything anyway....the vcore does not drop....therefore it's very ineffective anyway.

Board manufacturers/Intel really need to release an inteligent speedstep system that lets you set multiple profiles (kinda like what GFX cards have).

JeffyB · 18 Dec 2008 at 00:06

I have toyed with the idea of speedstep but never actually used it, does the lower clockspeed use less juice or is it the same regardless of clockspeed at any given voltage?

Sean_UK · 18 Dec 2008 at 00:19

Speedstep drops my pc's cpu from 3.6 to 2.4, dought it saves anything, but then im not an oracle of knowledge when it comes to the feature, only reason I left it on been it didn’t effect overclocking

dirtydog · 18 Dec 2008 at 04:51

JeffyB said:
I have toyed with the idea of speedstep but never actually used it, does the lower clockspeed use less juice or is it the same regardless of clockspeed at any given voltage?

AFAIK it uses the same regardless of clock speed, which is why leaving it enabled when you overclock is pointless. It only drops the vcore if you don't overclock and that is what saves power.

Stonedofmoo · 18 Dec 2008 at 07:47

gurusan said:
keeping speedstep enabled when clocking doesn't do anything anyway....the vcore does not drop....therefore it's very ineffective anyway.

Not true, you still save power as the vcore does drop. Watch CPU-Z when switcing between idle and load and you'll see it rise and fall. Even my Q6600 does this!

Here's the difference enabling speedstep makes: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/speedstep-coolnquiet-c-state,review-31468.html

When you bare in mind the only difference between the two is the CPU that's quite a difference!

dirtydog · 18 Dec 2008 at 07:57

Stonedofmoo said:
Not true, you still save power as the vcore does drop. Watch CPU-Z when switcing between idle and load and you'll see it rise and fall. Even my Q6600 does this!

The vcore does not drop unless you aren't overclocked. Unless your board/BIOS is unlike everyone else's.

Stonedofmoo · 18 Dec 2008 at 08:07

He said when clocking?

You know what, at home my MSI P45 Neo2 DOES reduce the core voltage when using SpeedStep, my last P35 board did it too. I'll grab some screenshots tonight.

MooMoo444 · 18 Dec 2008 at 08:12

When overclocked, CPU-Z will say around 1.43 (at 3420mhz) for me. With speedstep on, it drops to 1.34v (at 2280mhz), so those saying voltage doesnt drop while overclocked with speedstep on must be blind o.o

Stonedofmoo · 18 Dec 2008 at 08:14

Aye thats pretty much what mine does too. At 3.5 it uses more voltage than it does when idle at 2.4Gig or whatever it drops back too. You can clearly see it change in CPU-Z.

redballoon · 18 Dec 2008 at 08:51

So you're setting the vcore to auto while overclocking instead of the lowest stable vcore then. I doubt you really need 1.34v for 2.3GHz.

MooMoo444 · 18 Dec 2008 at 08:57

redballoon said:
So you're setting the vcore to auto while overclocking instead of the lowest stable vcore then. I doubt you really need 1.34v for 2.3GHz.

It's not on auto. It just lowers it to that. I know I don't need 1.34v for 2.3ghz, but thats not the point. The point is, speedstep lowers the voltage from what it is at 3.4ghz.

Stonedofmoo · 18 Dec 2008 at 08:59

No, in my case I'm manually setting the vcore for my processor which applies while the chip is running full speed under load. At idle it drops along with the CPU speed.

My MSI P35 Neo2-FR did this with my Q6600 and my current MSI P45 Neo2 does this also.

Strangely the Gigabyte 965P-DS3 board I'm using here at work with a E6300 does not do it, so it may be a motherboard feature.

redballoon · 18 Dec 2008 at 09:00

Fine. Must be a feature of your board.

easyrider · 18 Dec 2008 at 09:20

I can't believe we have 10 pages on the subject of wether FOX should buy a Quad core.

Its so outdated boring and dull it doesn't warrant such enthusiasm.

It was time for quad core @ 23rd Jul 2007, 12:39 AM when I started the Q6600 overclocking thread.

Nearly 1 year 1/2 ago.

There are better cpu's out now and Q9450's are going for 140-160.

45nm ,more cache,cooler, faster clock for clock and new instruction sets.

redballoon · 18 Dec 2008 at 09:28

I can't believe we have 10 pages on the subject of wether FOX should buy a Quad core.

Its so outdated boring and dull it doesn't warrant such enthusiasm.

Heh. It was really only around 4 pages on whether or not he should change to a Quad. The rest was much worse.

RizlaKing · 18 Dec 2008 at 10:07

Yeah if you read it all Easy you could see it was a reasonable debate until after page 4 then it all got a bit silly.

easyrider · 18 Dec 2008 at 10:09

RizlaKing said:
Yeah if you read it all Easy you could see it was a reasonable debate until after page 4 then it all got a bit silly.

Its a debate that a simple search function can satisfy.

Its one of the most common questions in this forum.

Stonedofmoo · 18 Dec 2008 at 10:10

Stop posting in it then and filling it up further

dirtydog · 18 Dec 2008 at 12:05

easyrider said:
There are better cpu's out now and Q9450's are going for 140-160.

45nm ,more cache,cooler, faster clock for clock and new instruction sets.

Of course the Q9450 is a better chip, but it is also £100+ more expensive than the Q6600 which is still a good performer today. I looked at getting a Q9450 but the difference in performance versus the Q6600 was not significant enough to warrant the high price.

Anyway I will be interested to know how Fox gets on with his new quad and I hope it solves his GTA IV performance issues.