Why are people turning off thermal monitoring, speedstep and that halt-thingy? I have them all enable on my 3.6 rig, which means my idle and low load temperatures are about 28c. If I turn this off, it goes up to about 35, which I know isnt a problem, but surely it makes more sense to keep these enabled? or does speedstep make the system less responsive when it has to flick from 400x6 to 400x9?
speedstep + halt etc
- Thread starter young
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 3,278
It takes ms to switch multipliers and doesn't make any difference.
Some people turn it off perhaps to achieve a more stable overclock.
Some people turn it off perhaps to achieve a more stable overclock.
I leave them enabled.
Any protection they offer may be minimal but perhaps it's better than nothing.
As far as Speedstep and reducing the multiplier is concerned it seems a good idea to me but I too would appreciate comments in response to your questions.
During my first overclock, having confirmed I had left CPU Enhanced Halt, CPU Thermal Monitor 2 and CPU IEST Function enabled, rather than the recommended disabled, I was advised:
Sentiments I wasn't inclined to agree with then or now.
Any protection they offer may be minimal but perhaps it's better than nothing.
As far as Speedstep and reducing the multiplier is concerned it seems a good idea to me but I too would appreciate comments in response to your questions.
During my first overclock, having confirmed I had left CPU Enhanced Halt, CPU Thermal Monitor 2 and CPU IEST Function enabled, rather than the recommended disabled, I was advised:
Sentiments I wasn't inclined to agree with then or now.
I have no experience of it impeding my OC - I think it's one of those tales that gets repeated so often it becomes 'truth'.
The only way I can possibly see it hurting your OC is if the CPU isn't stable at the reduced voltage when SpeedStep kicks in, as the underclocked speed would be higher than default. I think it's unlikely to happen though.
The only way I can possibly see it hurting your OC is if the CPU isn't stable at the reduced voltage when SpeedStep kicks in, as the underclocked speed would be higher than default. I think it's unlikely to happen though.
@ Marse, yeah I read that comment too, thats what has been stuck in my head!
with my oc @ 3.6, when the multiplier drops from 9 to 6, it basically drops my overclock back down to 2.4, which is my stock speed. So to me, having all these enabled is perfect, running at stock for the majority of time, and only pumping up to 3.6 when I'm gaming etc
plus, since I've moved my CPU fan to an aux connector, I get to run my rig silently whilst browsing the interent and using iTunes etc, and the fans only come on full during a game, best of both worlds if you ask me
with my oc @ 3.6, when the multiplier drops from 9 to 6, it basically drops my overclock back down to 2.4, which is my stock speed. So to me, having all these enabled is perfect, running at stock for the majority of time, and only pumping up to 3.6 when I'm gaming etc
plus, since I've moved my CPU fan to an aux connector, I get to run my rig silently whilst browsing the interent and using iTunes etc, and the fans only come on full during a game, best of both worlds if you ask me
Perhaps the recommendation has some merit but only in certain or a limited number of situations.
It would be nice if some of the die-hards would explain the logic rather than simply make bold and extreme statements which don't encourage any challenge of their validity by those new to all this.
I achieved an 8 hour Prime95 stable overclock of 3.438 GHz with these settings and with the volts on Auto.
It didn't go down very well although no reasoned arguments were given why.
It would be nice if some of the die-hards would explain the logic rather than simply make bold and extreme statements which don't encourage any challenge of their validity by those new to all this.
I achieved an 8 hour Prime95 stable overclock of 3.438 GHz with these settings and with the volts on Auto.
It didn't go down very well although no reasoned arguments were given why.
Last edited:
Very simple
You have to have the voltage on auto to enable speedstep (at least on most mb) as the whole process reduces voltage as well as the multiplier. Although the mb will raise the voltage as well as the multiplier there is a lag so at high O/C there is a much greater risk of the voltage being unable to maintain stability when loading the CPU.
Also if you want to increase the voltage to get a higher o/c you have to turn speedstep off
You have to have the voltage on auto to enable speedstep (at least on most mb) as the whole process reduces voltage as well as the multiplier. Although the mb will raise the voltage as well as the multiplier there is a lag so at high O/C there is a much greater risk of the voltage being unable to maintain stability when loading the CPU.
Also if you want to increase the voltage to get a higher o/c you have to turn speedstep off
That seems to explain why setting the volts to auto and enabling speedstep isn’t such a good idea when overclocked.
So if the volts are on manual [not on auto] you don’t need to disable CPU IEST and other options in the BIOS to disable speedstep - on most Motherboards.
Edit: @young: At 3.6 GHz you must be on manual volts and enabling these features enables speedstep for you as it no doubt would for me.
It may be a question of seeing if it's a problem in practice although you might find out at unfortunate time - not that there's probably ever a good time.
So if the volts are on manual [not on auto] you don’t need to disable CPU IEST and other options in the BIOS to disable speedstep - on most Motherboards.
Edit: @young: At 3.6 GHz you must be on manual volts and enabling these features enables speedstep for you as it no doubt would for me.
It may be a question of seeing if it's a problem in practice although you might find out at unfortunate time - not that there's probably ever a good time.
Last edited:
I leave my computer on most of the day and simple observation confirms, no doubt inevitably, that most of the time the Multiplier is on 6.
Monitoring the Multiplier using Everest confirms this.
In my case it would appear that for all but very intensive activities the Multiplier remains on 6.
For most activities therefore this means a 50% reduction in speed from 3.4 GHz to 2.268 GHz.
I'm not sure if that difference can be translated directly into the speed at which non intensive tasks are executed.
I can't help thinking it must have a noticeable and probably significant impact.
The problem for me therefore is that the Multiplier seems not to increase when I would prefer it to.
The threshold or whatever is not ideal for my use of the computer.
The increase in temps with Speedstep disabled is unfortunate but in practice not a problem.
I'm tempted therefore to disable Speedstep and accept that in my circumstances enabling it means I lose more than I gain.
Edit: Further examination of the Everest logs shows that the Multiplier does seem to increase momentarily when starting 'non-intensive' applications and periodically thereafter so perhaps it is worthwhile having Speedstep enabled although there could be some lag in the system.
Monitoring the Multiplier using Everest confirms this.
In my case it would appear that for all but very intensive activities the Multiplier remains on 6.
For most activities therefore this means a 50% reduction in speed from 3.4 GHz to 2.268 GHz.
I'm not sure if that difference can be translated directly into the speed at which non intensive tasks are executed.
I can't help thinking it must have a noticeable and probably significant impact.
The problem for me therefore is that the Multiplier seems not to increase when I would prefer it to.
The threshold or whatever is not ideal for my use of the computer.
The increase in temps with Speedstep disabled is unfortunate but in practice not a problem.
I'm tempted therefore to disable Speedstep and accept that in my circumstances enabling it means I lose more than I gain.
Edit: Further examination of the Everest logs shows that the Multiplier does seem to increase momentarily when starting 'non-intensive' applications and periodically thereafter so perhaps it is worthwhile having Speedstep enabled although there could be some lag in the system.
Last edited:
OK, imagine you have a non-intensive app running. When SpeedStep is off your multiplier is 9, and this app uses 20% of your CPU.
When SpeedStep is on, your multiplier drops to 6. The task will still get executed at the same speed, but because your CPU speed is 50% lower, the CPU load will be 50% higher. So the same app now uses 30% CPU. It doesn't run any slower because it still gets the same number of CPU cycles in the same time.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong
When SpeedStep is on, your multiplier drops to 6. The task will still get executed at the same speed, but because your CPU speed is 50% lower, the CPU load will be 50% higher. So the same app now uses 30% CPU. It doesn't run any slower because it still gets the same number of CPU cycles in the same time.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,871
- Location
- UK
OP, you may also find on the IP35 Pro that the EIST only works with the default multiplier. I use a lower multiplier and higher fsb with 1:1 memory ratios where possible, so disable it. Also as mentioned above, quite a few boards only allow EIST and C1E with the Vcore set to AUTO, probably why it's so common to see them switched off. I use them where possible, my HTPC is based on a P5W and it works great. A bit of testing when I built it and AUTO Vcore does limit the overclock, keeps it nice and cool though.
Last edited: