msconfig -> boot tab -> advanced settings...
http://forums.extremeoverclocking.co...5&d=1201937581
Check out what it says for number of processors. Try unchecking it if it's checked, or vice-versa.
Printable View
msconfig -> boot tab -> advanced settings...
http://forums.extremeoverclocking.co...5&d=1201937581
Check out what it says for number of processors. Try unchecking it if it's checked, or vice-versa.
That box is unchecked, Kevin told me to leave it so. I'll try tonight to check it and see what happens.
checking the box and selecting a number tells the OS how many CPU's to enable.
I just tried setting this to 2 and my Q6600 Quad instantly became a Dual Core according to Vista.
The TaskManager only shows two cores as well.
http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/6598/castrated.png
Usually when Number of processors is unchecked, the operating system defaults to using all available processors.
Maybe if you set your OS to 4 darkzone, all programs might be able to see all 4 cores.
Edit: I noticed that when Core Temp only sees two cores it thinks I must have swapped my Q6600 for an E6600. :)
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/1647/coretemp.png
Well, the problem is deeper than I thought ... :( Checked or unchecked, 2 cores, 4 cores, it seems doesn't have any effect. So, must dig more deeper :D
burebista noticed some instances when the load reported by the RivaTuner / RealTemp plug-in was significantly different than the built in RivaTuner CPU.dll plug-in and asked me to come up with an explanation. The RealTemp method of calculating load is different than the traditional method so I was curious too of which method is the most accurate. Here's what I found during testing.
I decided to run 4 threads of Prime95 Small FFTs so the RivaTuner CPU.dll plug-in was showing 100% for all 4 cores and the RealTemp RTCore.dll plug-in was showing an average of about 99%.
I stopped Prime95 so the load instantly returned very close to 0%. I went back and did some screen captures which shows the results during this rapid load transition.
Time = 13:46:00
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/6704/image00.png
CPU.dll is reporting 100% for all 4 cores while the RealTemp plug-in is already down to 57.1%
Time = 13:46:01
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/6990/image01.png
The Riva CPU.dll plug-in is showing an average of 29.89% while the RealTemp plug-in is already correctly reporting 0.1%
Time = 13:46:02
http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/1990/image02.png
Exact same as last second. The Riva CPU.dll plug-in is still reporting an average of 29.89% while the RealTemp plug-in is at 0.1%
Time = 13:46:03
http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/7666/image03.png
Finally the RivaTuner CPU.dll plug-in has caught up to the RealTemp plug-in.
My conclusion based on the above is that the RealTemp RTCore.dll plug-in is much faster and more accurate at correctly reporting the load during rapid load transitions.
I don't think the RealTemp RivaTuner plug-in is always 100% accurate but in some situations I think it is more accurate than the TaskManager Load meter as well as other load meters based on similar code.
Edit: During the early part of this test I was using the Clock Modulation feature to adjust the Load. Traditional Load meters will continue to report this as 100%.
See what happens when you pick 1 core. Remember, you're dealing with Windows. Not everything works like it should :rofl: I had to get that previous screenshot from Google because I can't even click on anything in my boot tab. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by darkzone
Hi Unclewebb,
last week, I made a post asking about the 'load' issue in Realtemp.
The issue was that as the cpu speed gets higher, the load % seems to slowly decrease in realtemp.
I'm using a QX9650 and P5WDH board. either 2x2GB Ram or 1x2GB.
At 3 ghz (333x9)=default speed, Realtemp shows load of 99% with Prime 25.5 running.
At 3.7 ghz (370x10), realtemp shows load of 89%.
At 4 ghz (333x12), load is 74%. (same thing happens under Linpack when it gets to maximum stress, btw).
I forgot what it was at 4.1 ghz but it was in the high 60's.
Task Manager shows all 4 cores at 100% usage and process prime95 at 99%.
I actually noticed this problem many months ago but never thought about reporting it.
These tests were all after a fresh boot, with nothing running except necessary windows services, Prime95, Realtemp and CPUZ.
I tried the 3.06 beta and same problem.
You mentioned something in the other post about it but I didnt really understand it.
I tried with one core, two cores etc., nothing changed. I'm waiting for i7 940 to be delivered (I already have mb and RAM), to setup new rig and then I'll reinstall the OS.Quote:
Originally Posted by randomizer
Falkentyne: I don't yet know if your problem is a RealTemp problem or maybe a problem with your CPU when overclocking. The number of people that have reported problems with the Load meter is very limited and during my testing when running 4 threads of Prime95 Small FFTs, it consistently shows in the high 99% range. When I recently did some testing for darkzone using Server 2008 HPC, on the same CPU it got as high as 100.0%. When I run 1, 2 or 3 threads of Prime, I get 25%, 50% or 75% more or less and it stays very consistently at those numbers unless something in the background kicks in and it briefly goes higher.
Use Prime95 Small FFTs when testing because I know the load it produces is very consistent. Are your percentage numbers consistent when you are running Prime95 Small FFTs? When you are overclocking to a higher MHz, does the Load meter initially start out at ~99% and then drop to 89% or 74% and then remain consistent at this amount or does it immediately only go to 74%?
There is a feature within Intel CPUs called Clock Modulation that can become automatically activated either by software or it can also become activated internally by the CPU itself. The percentage numbers you've mentioned have me wondering if maybe something like that is going on. Run Prime95 Small FFTs and go into the Settings window and you can play around with software activated Clock Modulation. The percentage numbers listed (87.5%, 75.0%, 62.5%, etc.) are Intel's approximations from their documentation. Depending on what multiplier your processor has, what you actually end up with will be different and won't equal those numbers.
My Q6600 has a 9.0 multi by default. My Load meter when playing with Clock Modulation will go from 99% to 88%, 77%, 65%, 55%, 45%,... Those first 6 steps seem to correspond pretty closely to 9/9, 8/9, 7/9, 6/9, 5/9 and 4/9. The last two steps I get are more like 3.5/9 and 2.5/9.
When Clock Modulation is activated on my Q6600, for every 9 pulses of the clock generator, 1 or more pulses gets ignored depending on how much modulation is being used. Programs like CPU-Z and RealTemp will still show your CPU running at full MHz but internally the CPU is acting sort of like a heart that is skipping a beat. This causes the CPU to run cooler since internally it's really not doing the same amount of work as a similar processor running at that same MHz which doesn't have any Clock Modulation going on.
Here's an example of my CPU at full load with no Clock Modulation:
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9706/load100.png
When I set Clock Modulation to 50%, that seems to be equivalent to a load of about 5/9 or 55.5%.
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/6493/screen50.png
The Task Manager and other traditional load meters continue to report this CPU working at 100% when internally speaking, it's only working half that hard.
It's obvious that this CPU is not working as hard because the average core temperature has dropped by about 10C compared to the first picture. The Task Manager continuing to report 100% Load does not accurately reflect what this CPU is doing while in this case, RealTemp does.
Do some testing and see if your RealTemp reported Load percentages correspond closely to what you'd get if you manually set Clock Modulation.
It's possible that this is nothing more than a big RealTemp bug but it's also possible that Clock Modulation is going on internally within your processor when you are overclocking. It's just a theory but it looks like the harder you push it, the more modulation kicks in.
I'll read the documentation and see if I can find a way to read the internal Clock Modulation status of a CPU. I think the user Clock Modulation and the hardware Clock Modulation are reported in separate registers. This bug is even more interesting than the last one. :)
Edit:
Model Specific Register (MSR) 0x19A is where software Clock Modulation data is stored within your CPU. User clock modulation is stored in the lower 5 bits. The upper bits are listed as Reserved by Intel but when your processor is reporting some lower than expected Load numbers in RealTemp, try doing a Read MSR on 0x19A. I don't know if it will show us anything but it's worth a look.
You can use my MSR tool for that:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/MSR.zip
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/6374/msrtool.png
You can click on the Read MSR button as much as you like and you won't hurt anything. If you enter random data into those two white boxes and go to different MSRs and click on Write MSR then you might get lucky and crash your computer. :yepp: If that did happen, after you re-booted, everything would be back to normal so no worries.
Also try turning off TM1/TM2 in the bios when testing to see if that makes any difference when you're testing.
Kevin don't forget our good ol' friend: RMClock. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/3689/modulation.jpg
I've always liked RMClock 2.30
I tried a later version once but went back to 2.30.
I'm not sure how RMClock calculates its load percentage or if it will be able to report any internal throttling but it's worth a look.
Hi Unclewebb :)
here 2 screens on 45nm quad test on oc'ed @3600 .. 2 runs - clk modulation 50% and NO clk mod. (common state) - Speedstep/EIST - Disable
all the same as You tested on your's, probably same temperature (10~12C)drop on 50% down-clock.
also noticed that only Everest can register (partly?) this clock modulation only via its CPU (W) wattage / power usage field
just as i see - that dropping power draw ~ approx 50% during 50% clk. modulation state
http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/4787/68222557.th.png http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/387/11659490.th.png
:)
Any idea why Real Temp above 3.00 only displays 3 cores? I've tried vrs 3.05 and 3.06
Using i7 320 + gigabyte EX58 + Vista 32 bit
Attachment 95548
Attachment 95549
It does detect something it's hard to see what's happening. In fact it even gives you a popup telling you you're throttling. :D I tried it once back when I was more afraid of burning my chip up. It didn't show much but I'd say with a bit more heat it would have throttled for long enough to show something valuable:Quote:
Originally Posted by unclewebb
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w...1/th_burn3.jpg
Man, I was still using XP back then... I like this page for showing what should be happening, albeit with an older version of RMClock and using a Prescott.
Hi Unclewebb:
I Tried the programs you mentioned and here are a few results.
At 3500 mhz:
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/6875/3506mhz.jpg
And at 4000 mhz:
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/6065/4000mhz.jpg
So RMclock isn't showing any throttling. MSR isn't showing anything strange either.
1 more comparison:
4000 at 50% modulation:
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/7...z50percent.jpg
BTW the dips in the graph were when I kept stopping prime or messing with the modulation. (prime really needed 1.352v in cpuz to not error out).
i43: Thanks for your pics. Your Quad works like my Q6600 and seems to display accurate Load percentages. rge did a lot of testing on his Core i7 and also had believable looking results.
DGill: Version 3.05 was designed to try and figure out what was going on with darkzone's computer. I made 101 changes trying to understand what was going on with his operating system. I wouldn't recommend using version 3.05. If version 3.00 works for you then continue using that at the moment.
Version 3.06 was designed to fix darkzone's problem and in theory should work OK but obviously it doesn't work for you. Now that I have a clear understanding of what was causing his problem, I'll try making some adjustments and come up with a solution that works for everyone. Maybe 3.06 will become known as the darkzone version.
Falkentyne: RMClock and my MSR tool don't show anything unusual so it looks like either the RealTemp Load meter is borked on your CPU or it is telling you that there is a problem with your CPU when overclocking.
One thing I noticed comparing your first two pictures is that in the first picture your temps are 50, 41, 33, 48 and in your second picture the temps are 57, 51, 44, 54. The difference is 7, 10, 11, 6. That's very unusual. Uneven sensors on a 45nm Quad are not unusual but when running Prime95 Small FFTs and playing with the Clock Modulation or changing the MHz or core voltage, all 4 cores tend to change in temperature more or less equally. Yours don't.
burebista just asked me yesterday to include an option in the RealTemp / RivaTuner plug-in so the Load of each individual core can be displayed. I think I will work on that next because it might give us some more information about what's really going on inside your processor. Currently, RealTemp calculates the Load for each core individually, adds them up and divides by the number of cores to report the average so changing that code to draw 4 squiggly lines instead of one shouldn't be too hard. I'm interested to see if all 4 of your cores are reporting a lower load percentage or only a couple of them are.
You might be able to run a multi-core benchmark like wPrime and compare your results at 4000 MHz to another user with a similar 45nm Quad at the same speed. Run RealTemp at the same time and watch what Load it reports. Your results are either going to be very comparable to another 45nm Quad or if your processor is only working internally at 75% when overclocked to 4GHz then your results are going to be very obvious that something is wrong.
Another test I just tried was to run 5 instances of RealTemp. When the first version starts up, go into the Task Manager and set the Priority to Realtime. Use this one so it can monitor the other 4. Start up the other 4 instances and click on the XS Bench button of those 4, one after another, so all 4 are running at the same time. What does the load meter say on the first instance of RealTemp? The scores on all 4 should each be somewhere around 1330 when you are at 4GHz. With my Q6600 at 3 GHz, all of them are pretty close to 1000. This benchmark scales very linearly with MHz so it might show you if a core or two are not working at full speed.
http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/3707/bench.png
At the moment either RealTemp is wrong or the timers that RealTemp reads within your CPU are not working like other Quads do under load or your CPU is internally throttling. With some more testing hopefully we can figure something out.
Hi,
I just did a quick test at 340x10 (3.4 ghz) and the 4x xsbenches reported
1131, 1130, 1131 and 1131. Time was 12.931, 12,942, 12,940 and 12,934.
I couldn't press them all at the same time as mouse "input" seemed to freeze for a second or so after I went to press the second one.
I'm going to reboot now and try 4 ghz (333x12).
BTW about that sensor:
That third sensor barely moves.
The one that's "stuck" on 27C...
If I run quad prime at, let's say, 3 ghz, the temp doesn't even go anywhere.
However if I run linpack, the sensors get up to 69, 69, 63, 63.
In prime95, the only two sensors that seem to move properly are sensors 1 and 4.
Edit:
Just ran the 4x xsbench + 1 realtime priority realtemp, at 333x12=4ghz.
score were 1328 (11.017s), 1330 (11.003s), 1329 (11.010s), 1330 (11.001s)
Temp sensor#3 remained stuck at 27C.
#1=49C, #2=34C, #4=47C.
Going to try wprime now.
Ok wprime 32M was 10.656 secs
Trying 1024M now.
Ok i just noticed something, unclewebb.
Final score was 338.703s (lowest) and 339.516s) highest).
Cores 1 2 and 4 finished at almost the exact same time in 1024M test, but when they finished, core 3 was at 96% O_o
Um....what does that mean? O_o
RMA the CPU? >_> Or is this a motherboard issue?
I'm going to go back to 3 ghz and try it...
I will say this:
Back when the QX6700 and QX6800 was out (I had an X6800 at the time), I remember a LOT of posts about people saying that 1 "thread" in quad prime95 was lagging behind other threads, and people discussing problems with "load balancing". Now I think I know what they were talking about...But if this happened on the QX6x00's....is this a motherboard or windows problem? Or do I have to RMA the CPU?.....
1 other thing I noticed:
in RMclock,
cores 0 and 1 have a VID of 1.2375v. Cores 2 and 3 have a VID of 0.825v. WHAT? O_o....
Well went back to 3 ghz again. Realtemp showing 99-99.9% load in wprime right now, but again core3 is lagging behind the other cores slightly. So it seems that the core3 lagging problem isn't related to realtemp, as RT is showing 99% at 3 ghz?
I'm going to search XS for more posts about the lagging core problem....
BTW at 3 ghz in wprime, which is running right now, at 1.25vcore, cores 2 and 3 sensors are not moving at all (well, core 2 moved by 1C, core 3 moved by 0. Cores 1 and 4 sensors are functioning properly. Core 3 is pretty much stuck except at high vcore and load (only Linpack gets it to rise up to as much as core 4).
DGill: Version 3.05 was designed to try and figure out what was going on with darkzone's computer. I made 101 changes trying to understand what was going on with his operating system. I wouldn't recommend using version 3.05. If version 3.00 works for you then continue using that at the moment.
Thanks for the reply :up:
Unclewebb
forum was down for awhile :(
anyway, I found the problem with the load% on realtemp.
It's something to do with the multiplier.
At the default multiplier of 9, realtemp shows 99.9% load.
At multiplier of 12, it's 74%, regardless of CPU speed (FSB) used. both 266x12 and 333x12=74% load.
At multiplier of 15, it's 59%. (200x15).
And at 20, it's 49%.(i used 150x20=3ghz).
Benchmark scores are not affected by this (except much longer tests or bandwidth from using a lower fsb);
200x15 in wprime 32M gave 14.1s, same score as 333x9. Benchmark scores related perfectly to core speed.
I haven't tried going under multi 9.
Any ideas why this is happening?
BTW about the core 3 being slightly slower in wprime, seems that is more related to load balancing; I ran some "1 thread" tests (took a really long time) with affinity for the new wprime process that appeared, set to a separate core, and core2 seemed fastest, followed by core 4, 1 and 3. But at 1700 seconds, core 3 taking 10 seconds more than core 1, is not much (basically a 10 second difference between the cores finishing, at about 25 minutes).
In the 4 thread test though (which finished in 5 minutes 32 seconds) it was much more pronounced; core 3 finishing about 16 seconds after the first 3 (which finished at the same time). That seems to point to an issue with load balancing I guess....still very strange how that's happening though... 10 seconds slower at 25 minutes with single core/thread test, and 16 seconds at multithread/4 threads at 5 minutes... weird...
Quote:
Originally Posted by pra
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/6485/89122695.th.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by burebista
Man, you forgot to launch prime95 when RealTemp asked you. :)
Please do it because you have 0.1% load.
sory :(Quote:
Originally Posted by burebista
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/8864/62705062.th.jpg
Falkentyne: I've been trying to post all morning that I think I figured out what's going on with the load meter on your computer but XS was down so I guess you beat me to it.
The method and timers that I am using are somewhat documented for the Core i7. I found they also seemed to work on most Core 2 processors so that's why I included a Load meter based off of them in RealTemp. On most Core 2 Dual and Quads like my Q6600 with a fixed multiplier the RealTemp Load meter works great. On Extreme processors that have an adjustable multiplier, it looks like I need to adjust the load meter based on what multiplier you're using compared to the default multiplier. When you are using a multiplier of 12 and your default multiplier is 9 then I think the load meter will be reading about (9/12) X 100% or ~75% when running 4 threads of Prime95 Small FFTs.
The internal timer I'm using seems to get screwed up when you change the multi on the Core 2 QX processors but I think it's fine on all Core i7 processors, including the 965 Extreme.
It should be very easy to correct for this and come up with a quick fix for you if you can help me out. The Intel documentation is like looking at Swiss cheese. A lot of information is labeled as Reserved or in other words, "Good luck trying to figure out what's hiding in this MSR." :)
Can you read a few MSRs for me with your multi locked to 12, at its default of 9 and maybe even locked to a number less than 9.
The 3 MSRs I'm interested in are:
0x17
0x15F
0x198
You can run 3 instances of MSR Tool at the same time so you'll only need to send me or post 3 screen shots. I think there should be enough information in those MSRs to take care of this problem. A 12X multi in hex should show up as the letter C in some of those MSRs when you are using that one.
The last person to complain about the Load meter had a QX6800 but I didn't put 2 and 2 together then. Using the internal timers seems to be the most accurate way to calculate the load so I'd like to get this minor bug fixed.
DGill: I kind of like the new GPU button in version 3.06 for Nvidia owners so I'll try to go back to the old way of reading cores in the next release to get your problem fixed up. Hopefully the next fix will continue to work for darkzone as well.
pra: Stuck sensors are not unusual at all at lower temperatures. Intel only designed these sensors to work at higher temperatures to control thermal throttling and thermal shut down. As long as your CPU runs OK you don't have to worry about the temperature, especially low load or idle temperatures.
Ok I have some screenshots.
x12:
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/3...ltplier.th.jpg
x10:
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/8...tiplier.th.jpg
x9:
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/1...tiplier.th.jpg
x6:
http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/5...tiplier.th.jpg
Do these help?