yeh I dont know why that happens sometimes I cant work i out
Printable View
yeh I dont know why that happens sometimes I cant work i out
How are you loading it? mabye it only thinks it needs 1 cpu to do the work it has. Just like with HT you need to run dual prime to use more than 50% of the cpu,you might need 4 prime95,s running to use all of both cpus.The 14 multi looks like the cpu at idle not throttle.What does throttle watch show? :)
Bench both cores separatly (through Windows Task Manager) and see if there is a difference between performance of those cores.
Run 2x superpi together (two installs) so that both cores are 100% loaded. Then compare the two results :)
no yours is the C1e enabled, if you go into bios and disable that you should see both multipliers at 15. But atleast your second core is showing 15 for multiplier where as mine never shows anything but 14, that is why I still say this proc I got is hosed from Intel.Quote:
Originally Posted by nando19
Your Prime95 benchmark run confirms that the cores are running different speeds.
(58.5s*3787MHz)/3534MHz=62.7s (Result is identical with the actual result in Prime95 for the core 2.)
I have disabled C1EQuote:
Originally Posted by SlimySquid
Is it possible that windows is doing this or some windows program/driver is downclocking one core?
Can someone test this under, lets say, server 2003 or linux possibly? I just don't want to jump on the "Intel screwed it up" wagon until this is verified.
EDIT: Even 98 if thats even possible...
well there may be another setting in bios then cause core 1 being lowered is a easy spot of that. if I enable it in my bios then both my cores will be running multiplier of 14. But having all those disabled my core ) shows 15 for multi and core 1 shows 14 a almost clear sign something is not right with cpu. Yours is reversed, your core 0 is 14 multi and your core 1 is 15 almost a easy spot the Intel power saving are kicked in on yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by nando19
maybe cpuz read it un-correct ?
can you try with other app ?
He already said that Prime95 confirmed that they're running at different speeds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrewv
Here is another link but this time it is throttling both cores with it under load from super pi and it is definatly set to 15x multiplier in the bios I think that it is bios pains from this Abit Motherboard
http://img22.echo.cx/img22/1821/bob9jo.th.jpg
Yep! the core 2 is running slower then the core 1.
Core1
http://venes.org/bilder/dualcore/core1pentiumd.JPG
Core2
http://venes.org/bilder/dualcore/core2pentiumd.JPG
What 2 do?
How to fix?
They shuld run at the same speed both i guess?
This is what Intel had to say about the whole ordeal.
(((Intel(R) does not use nor recommend benchmarks. I need you try the processor on another motherboard. If the problem persists please contact an Intel(R) Technical Support Center via telephone for a replacement. The North America Technical Support Center is 916-377-7000. If you live in another country, you will need to go to:
<http://support.intel.com/support/9089.htm> to find the Support Center for your country.)))
I really want to get atleast 1 good review site to look into this, then maybe it will catch the eye of intel and they might tell us what is going on.
Send e-mail to every review site that there is, maybe some of them make a fuzz about this and then we might know.
Email theinquirer, they like to put up stories which show Intel in negative light :)
I loaded up 2k pro and it is same, can't do 98 since it is not a multi core enabled OS.Quote:
Originally Posted by ahmad
I have emailed, hardocp, anandtech, xbitlabs, theinquirer, and no responce.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans.Gruber
I guess Intel gets to get away with this then, there is onviously something happening in the chip that they are not disclosing.
Why else would every result ran so far show core 2 being clower then core 1 at every benchmark thrown at it? I am at a loss to what is happening and I wish we could get to the bottom of it.
:cheer2:
Have seen the same over on OCforums, someone posted about their new chip, one core shows 15* the other 14*
Maybe its an issue with a certain batch of chips?
Cornel
I am still confused.The screeshot shows core one under load in task manager and core 1 at 15x then the second screen shows core 2 under load in task manager but you are still showing core 1 on cpu-z and as it is not under load it is at idle of 14x.looks right to me.
I think you need to run 4 apps to get full load.There is also a rumor that windows xp might not have good support for dual core.