Speedstep and Overclocking?

BEn_2600+ · 9 May 2007 at 18:09

Ive currently got my E6300 at 3.4ghz and im wondering if enabling speedstep will have a negative effect on my overclock (I Know it wont be any faster)?

Has anyone tried overclocking with speedstep enabled? Also, how much does speedstep lower idle temps and power consumption?

Thanks, Ben

Psycho Sonny · 9 May 2007 at 18:24

the 2 dont mix well, and result in unstable systems, if you want to save power run it at stock with speedstep enabled, if you want raw power keep it overclocked,

or why dont you simply turn it on and if it dont work switch it off - simple as that

BEn_2600+ · 9 May 2007 at 19:12

Thanks Psycho, I might give it a go and see

BEn_2600+ · 9 May 2007 at 19:19

Ive enabled it and it seems to be working ok

Dont know what Ive achived tho as the Idle temps are exactly the same

Might aswell just leave it off

Corasik · 10 May 2007 at 01:03

Mine runs happily at 3.2ghz with Speedstep enabled. Never had any stability issues at all.

Could consider that an advantage of the higher multipliers on the E6700's. If you use speedstep, because its dropping all the way from a 10 multiplier to a 6, no matter how far you overclock you can be pretty sure that the lower speedstep voltage and frequency will cause no stability issues.

Mine drops from 3.2ghz to <2ghz when its idle, and it runs very cool on idle

Psycho Sonny · 10 May 2007 at 01:33

what temps are you getting at idle, also what are your settings, for example

e6600
1.5 Volts overclocked at 3.6ghz 55C (full load)
1.8 ghz 30C (idle)

at the lower settings does the voltage decrease? does it actually save electricity?

Cupra · 10 May 2007 at 01:46

idle is more about vcore than anything so speedstep cant lower vcore

Psycho Sonny · 10 May 2007 at 01:51

paul_64l said:
idle is more about vcore than anything so speedstep cant lower vcore

i was under the impression that is the whole point of speedstep it lowers vcore, therefore lowering power consumption and heat output

so what is the point of speedstep if it just makes your computer slower for no reason?

Cupra · 10 May 2007 at 02:12

it takes any strain of the cpu i suppose

Psycho Sonny · 10 May 2007 at 02:48

paul_64l said:
it takes any strain of the cpu i suppose

how do you figure that out? if my cpu was heavily strained at 2.4ghz wouldnt it be under more strain trying to do the same work at 1.6ghz?

you clearly dont understand what speedstep is, its used to save electricity and make your pc run cooler, and more efficiently and prolong its life

Corasik · 10 May 2007 at 12:31

paul_64l said:
idle is more about vcore than anything so speedstep cant lower vcore

EIST/Speedstep does indeed reduce VCore. Core 2 Duo's have various voltage id pins, so the motherboards can detect what the chips are 'good for', and can drop the clockspeed by dropping the multiplier to '6', and lower the vcore by around 30%.

Mine drops from just under 1.3v to just over 1v when idle with speedstep enabled.

Idle temps are around 30 degrees. If I disable speedstep, the cpu idles around 40 degrees, according to TAT.

skanky · 10 May 2007 at 12:50

Psycho Sonny said:
so what is the point of speedstep if it just makes your computer slower for no reason?

whats the point in having a machine that idles at 3ghz when it can idle at much less?

lsg1r · 10 May 2007 at 13:39

BEn_2600+ said:
Ive enabled it and it seems to be working ok Dont know what Ive achived tho as the Idle temps are exactly the same Might aswell just leave it off

did you set windows power saving settings to make use of the speedstep

Psycho Sonny · 10 May 2007 at 15:10

skanky said:
whats the point in having a machine that idles at 3ghz when it can idle at much less?

if theres no saving in electricity or heat, then its better to idle at 3ghz, because then the power is there constantly, but that isnt the case which is what i was trying to explain to the other guy

Crowze · 10 May 2007 at 15:52

But there is a significant saving in power and heat, due to much reduced leakage and lower voltage. The ramp-up time if I remember correctly is around 0.1ms, and it doesn't wait until full load before increasing speed, it's something like 60-70% to cut down on unnecessary fluctuation, so there's pretty much zero performance difference.

Or, look at it this way. If there's no gain in power saving, why did they implement it in the first place?

BEn_2600+ · 10 May 2007 at 17:59

lsg1r said:
did you set windows power saving settings to make use of the speedstep

No, how do you do it?

lsg1r · 10 May 2007 at 18:52

control panel
power options
"power schemes" - minimal power management.

That should tell windows to slow everything down when not in use, you can adjust the bits below it if you want, ie the hard drive etc

simonnance · 10 May 2007 at 19:49

heat production of a chip is a function of BOTH frequency AND voltage, so by dropping the multi at a SET voltage the temps should drop.

stresses the chip less i guess, and should uve less power as well, even at a given voltage.

According to an online PSU calculator (http://www.extreme.outervision.com/psucalculator.jsp):
E6600 @ 2.4Ghz/1.3V = 65W (100% of TDP)
E6600 @ 3.6Ghz (400*9)/1.45V = 121W (100% of TDP)
E6600 @ 2.4Ghz (400*6)/1.45V = 81W (100% of TDP)

so a 40W drop with speedstep.

OK, so its theoretical, and not hard fact, but its a farly reliable calculator.

BEn_2600+ · 12 May 2007 at 12:33

lsg1r said:
control panel
power options
"power schemes" - minimal power management.

That should tell windows to slow everything down when not in use, you can adjust the bits below it if you want, ie the hard drive etc

With that enabled it drops my idle voltage to 1.050v (read via CPU-Z) and thats at 2.9GHz :eek:

Runs stable too! Might be a CPU-Z bug but it will be excellent if not

Thanks a lot, ben

lsg1r · 12 May 2007 at 15:41

no probs