new way to play with Phenom X4: 4 cores, 4 frequencies!

Printable View

10-30-2007, 10:58 PM
cookerjc

new way to play with Phenom X4: 4 cores, 4 frequencies!

We know that in Nov.15 HD 3800 will begin to sell. But we still don't know that RD790 and Phenom X4 will come out earlier(than the AMD plan) or not.

Here is some news that every AMD fanboy would like:

AMD is developing a software called "AMD overdrive" .Just like nTune,it can adjust different system values. It's interesting that we find out the software can adjust multiple frequencies of different cores independently.

Personally I think that's good news for people that cares about the total power consumptions of their computers. They can just turn off some cores while they are watching DVDrips.

http://www.expreview.com/img/news/07..._overdrive.jpg

source(finally, the site loves FF now):http://www.expreview.com/news/hard/2...3419d6698.html
10-30-2007, 11:01 PM
theclash

This will be useful when playing with core affinity.
10-30-2007, 11:10 PM
Brother Esau

Not to be disrespectful but whats up with you're Avatar? Looks like you have a cap from a Salt Shaker on dudes head:p:
10-30-2007, 11:22 PM
DeepThought86

Did anybody notice the 3.3GHz overclock on core 3? :up:

And 3.2 on core 2 as well
10-30-2007, 11:23 PM
[XC] DragonOrta

That's one of the guys from Daft Punk. :p:

This could be useful. How many of us have had a core that just won't go past a certain speed while the others will go another 100-200mhz?
10-30-2007, 11:41 PM
cookerjc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Esau

Not to be disrespectful but whats up with you're Avatar? Looks like you have a cap from a Salt Shaker on dudes head:p:

:rofl:
10-31-2007, 12:16 AM
RaZz!

Quote:

Originally Posted by [XC] DragonOrta

This could be useful. How many of us have had a core that just won't go past a certain speed while the others will go another 100-200mhz?

this will be a nice feature for sure. but it would be kinda annoying if your core1/2 hits significantly lower clocks than your core3/4 - and you're playing games that are only optimized for 1 or 2 cores hehe.
in this case it would be cool to change the order the cores are used =D (or is that already possible somehow?)
10-31-2007, 12:18 AM
zanzabar

Quote:

Originally Posted by [XC] DragonOrta

That's one of the guys from Daft Punk. :p:

This could be useful. How many of us have had a core that just won't go past a certain speed while the others will go another 100-200mhz?

but what will that do to teh memory controller since its linked to frequency and not the htt and it has 2 (1 for each channel) so this looks like it could have strange consequences, and i dont see a voltage per core so that could also be a problem since if u have a high voltage at low speed its much hotter than the high voltage at what ur oc is like when u oc with c&Q
10-31-2007, 12:21 AM
RPGWiZaRD

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaZz!

this will be a nice feature for sure. but it would be kinda annoying if your core1/2 hits significantly lower clocks than your core3/4 - and you're playing games that are only optimized for 1 or 2 cores hehe.
in this case it would be cool to change the order the cores are used =D (or is that already possible somehow?)

That's the idea of setting affinity. Of course that would be a pain in the arse to set all the time but I'm sure we'll see a nifty software that would make this much easier. :) But perhaps we also see some software from AMD or some1 else yet that allows you to specify in which order the cores should be utilized, then disabling cores wouldn't be required.

If core 2 and 4 for example clocks significantly higher you would use those by setting affinity to core 2 and 4 and turn of the others. This is useful though only as long as things doesn't improve over 2 cores. Well you could also of course do the same for single threaded apps, just use the core that clocks highest and for apps that would use 3 cores you could at least disable the core that clocks worst.

So yea independent core frequency adjustment is a quite nice feature. It will give you better chance of reaching better results in a non 4-core utilizing application vs a normal quad core CPU without this feature.

So except power consumption saving it should give a garantuee of slightly better performance in apps that utilizes no more than 3 cores max as long as it's not core4 that is the worst clocking core. Should also be quite interesting to see how much the max clock results varies between the cores on the same CPU.
10-31-2007, 12:58 AM
ziddey

cool. it'd be nice if some of the cores suck but others overclock well
10-31-2007, 01:10 AM
LordEC911

Quote:

Originally Posted by zanzabar

but what will that do to teh memory controller since its linked to frequency and not the htt and it has 2 (1 for each channel) so this looks like it could have strange consequences, and i dont see a voltage per core so that could also be a problem since if u have a high voltage at low speed its much hotter than the high voltage at what ur oc is like when u oc with c&Q

Independent clocks and voltages for all you mentioned, so that won't be a problem.
10-31-2007, 01:19 AM
FischOderAal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Esau

Not to be disrespectful but whats up with you're Avatar? Looks like you have a cap from a Salt Shaker on dudes head:p:

cat > new ava

on-topic: that's an interesting feature. but what is the use of it? if you got a software that uses all cores the slowest will be the one that counts.
on the other hand, maybe one core just bails out at a lower clock and then you can overclock the others higher and have an improvement in single-core applications.

we will see what this will bring. this should be the biggest advantage for energy saving though. two cores run at 100% and the other two are bored so they can clock down.
10-31-2007, 01:22 AM
zerazax

Well core affinity helps make sure that certain cores aren't used if they aren't needed.

Anyways, I guess with the split power planes and all that, handling the overclocks of separate cores shouldn't be a problem.
10-31-2007, 01:25 AM
kl0012

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordEC911

Independent clocks and voltages for all you mentioned, so that won't be a problem.

No independent voltages - only clocks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FischOderAal

cat > new ava

on-topic: that's an interesting feature. but what is the use of it? if you got a software that uses all cores the slowest will be the one that counts.
on the other hand, maybe one core just bails out at a lower clock and then you can overclock the others higher and have an improvement in single-core applications.

we will see what this will bring. this should be the biggest advantage for energy saving though. two cores run at 100% and the other two are bored so they can clock down.

Needs to be seen and compared to overclocked Yorkfield.
10-31-2007, 01:26 AM
BeardyMan

look at the multiplier settings, and how far it still can go :D

locked chips when you buys tehm, but unlocked with this prog :shocked: :D
10-31-2007, 01:29 AM
dinos22

now that's VERY cool :cool:
10-31-2007, 01:30 AM
FischOderAal

Quote:

Originally Posted by kl0012

No independent voltages - only clocks.

and what about the "split power lines"? if you can't adjust the voltages of each core this wouldn't make any sense.
10-31-2007, 01:38 AM
kl0012

Quote:

Originally Posted by FischOderAal

and what about the "split power lines"? if you can't adjust the voltages of each core this wouldn't make any sense.

Sorry to disappoint you, but split power lines are only for HT and cores. Which mean one voltage for cores and other voltage for HT.
http://multicore.amd.com/GetFile.asp...wer_now_01-jpg
http://multicore.amd.com/us-en/AMD-M...fficiency.aspx
10-31-2007, 01:50 AM
FischOderAal

damn it. thanks for the info though. then the energy saving effect isn't that big if two of the cores run at 100% and the others clock down...
10-31-2007, 01:51 AM
Shintai

Without affirmity. Any OS will jump around on the different cores. So unless you are crunching or that style. You would end up with a changing speed in games.

Also note this could lead to severe TSC issues for those still using software. Mentalray is one of them as an example.
10-31-2007, 03:03 AM
duploxxx

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD

That's the idea of setting affinity. Of course that would be a pain in the arse to set all the time but I'm sure we'll see a nifty software that would make this much easier. :) But perhaps we also see some software from AMD or some1 else yet that allows you to specify in which order the cores should be utilized, then disabling cores wouldn't be required.

If core 2 and 4 for example clocks significantly higher you would use those by setting affinity to core 2 and 4 and turn of the others. This is useful though only as long as things doesn't improve over 2 cores. Well you could also of course do the same for single threaded apps, just use the core that clocks highest and for apps that would use 3 cores you could at least disable the core that clocks worst.

So yea independent core frequency adjustment is a quite nice feature. It will give you better chance of reaching better results in a non 4-core utilizing application vs a normal quad core CPU without this feature.

So except power consumption saving it should give a garantuee of slightly better performance in apps that utilizes no more than 3 cores max as long as it's not core4 that is the worst clocking core. Should also be quite interesting to see how much the max clock results varies between the cores on the same CPU.

yep, i know some folks that are working on affinity prog, would be nice if you can select a list of program 's that default run on different cpu.
10-31-2007, 03:14 AM
xt0m

Mhh.. Interesting development...
10-31-2007, 03:37 AM
Morais

Awesome... Me, an addicted to power consuption will love this tool :yepp:
10-31-2007, 03:38 AM
awdrifter

That is a nice concept, but it makes oc'ing so much more time consuming. Now we need to test each core for stability (8hr P95 x 4?), then after we found the max speed for each core we need to test all of them at their highest speed for stability (another 8 hrs).
10-31-2007, 04:04 AM
naokaji

Quote:

Originally Posted by awdrifter

That is a nice concept, but it makes oc'ing so much more time consuming. Now we need to test each core for stability (8hr P95 x 4?), then after we found the max speed for each core we need to test all of them at their highest speed for stability (another 8 hrs).

i see it more as a nice compormise between sacrificing max clock with all 4 cores on and having to disable cores...

but maybe thats just me
10-31-2007, 04:12 AM
knightwolf654

interesting indeed!
now i take it that phenoms will all be unlocked???
already looks like its gonna be a learning curve to o/c it!
10-31-2007, 04:24 AM
v0dka

Quote:

Originally Posted by knightwolf654

interesting indeed!
now i take it that phenoms will all be unlocked???
already looks like its gonna be a learning curve to o/c it!

It just looks like independant CnQ on all cores. Jumping to the conclusion that all Phenoms are unlocked upwards is not justified at all. It would be logical if all the cores were unlocked downwards only.

So you would probably only use fsb for overclocking. Similarity to CnQ reminds of problems that CnQ has while overclocking the fsb: the mem speeds jumping like crazy and you can only use stock Vcore. (But I would be seriously suprised if Phenom did 3.3Ghz on stock Vcore, so you could probably ignaore that last part. ;) )

Could the thread starter comment on any of this please?
10-31-2007, 04:25 AM
Jigsaw

Any word on Phenom/Agena pricing?
10-31-2007, 04:26 AM
awdrifter

Quote:

Originally Posted by naokaji

i see it more as a nice compormise between sacrificing max clock with all 4 cores on and having to disable cores...

but maybe thats just me

Well, I do agree that it's a nice idea, because it seems like AMD can't get good yields on this large piece of die, so we might get some cpu that have one core that just will not oc. But I'm just saying it'll make oc'ing 4 times more time consuming because we'll now need to find out how high each core will go.

I think the multi probably will not be upward unlocked. We'll probably have to drop the multi of all cores in the bios to lower than stock, increase fsb in bios, then play with individual core multi in windows with this overdrive program.
10-31-2007, 04:37 AM
knightwolf654

it will help to be able to get the max o/c for each core, then just the max for the weakest core.
10-31-2007, 04:55 AM
tictac

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeepThought86

Did anybody notice the 3.3GHz overclock on core 3? :up:

And 3.2 on core 2 as well

so max clock would be 3.3GHz? Can it go any higher? :shrug:

Jeff.. That looks like Cinebench on the background... What the score... huh? ;)
10-31-2007, 05:43 AM
largon

Quote:

new way to play with Phenom X4: 4 cores, 4 frequencies!

Existence of independant core clocks has been publicly known ever since June '06 analyst day.

But sure, it is a nice feature as it allows more efficient CnQ functionality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by awdrifter

That is a nice concept, but it makes oc'ing so much more time consuming. Now we need to test each core for stability (8hr P95 x 4?), then after we found the max speed for each core we need to test all of them at their highest speed for stability (another 8 hrs).

If this blows your mind then imagine Oc'ing the Phenom X8 "Montreal" octacore...

Quote:

Originally Posted by v0dka

(...)
Similarity to CnQ reminds of problems that CnQ has while overclocking the fsb: the mem speeds jumping like crazy and you can only use stock Vcore. (...)

We're looking at a core that runs IMC at an independent frequency. IMC is no longer tied to CPU core speed as on K8. This means RAM speed stays the same regarless of core multipliers.
;)
And btw, you don't have to use stock vCore with CnQ even on K8...

Now, all we need is +50% more OC headroom... :yepp:
10-31-2007, 05:52 AM
LowRun

Very nice feature and the OC is not too shabby either :up:
10-31-2007, 06:06 AM
[XC] gomeler

Very interesting but we need independent core voltages. Doesn't this come with AM3?
10-31-2007, 06:26 AM
VulgarHandle

so, would that be the official AMD stability test on there?
10-31-2007, 06:33 AM
kl0012

Quote:

Originally Posted by [XC] gomeler

Very interesting but we need independent core voltages. Doesn't this come with AM3?

Independent voltage regulator for each core? I don't belive we will see such soon. Rather I belive AMD and Intel will integrate in their cores some logic to shut down unused blocks.
10-31-2007, 06:45 AM
tictac

voltage tab on that tools... cool! wonder what will we get on that tab
10-31-2007, 06:51 AM
largon

Quote:

Originally Posted by [XC] gomeler

Very interesting but we need independent core voltages. Doesn't this come with AM3?

Not gonna happen.
Independent voltage for each core would require horribly complicated motherboard PWM circuitry.
10-31-2007, 07:22 AM
PhilDoc

Yep, can't see independent voltages anytime soon, if at all. I suppose they could add some type of voltage divider circuitry to the chips itself, but I doubt that would be feasible.

Personally, I think this is very cool. It'll add a little bit to the challange of overclocking and a small amount of performance gain. I can see a lot of possiblities for this.
10-31-2007, 08:40 AM
hollo

definitely cool, i can see the k10 spi threads now - one core at 3.5ghz, the others at 2.5
10-31-2007, 09:25 AM
Cheffy

Just an FYI - i have 0 issues atall running C+Q enabled with overclock, i think its down to the motherboard's implementation and how close to the edge you are and how the voltage scaling of your chip is....

(X2 4800+ (939) @ 12*258, abit AX8 rev2)

multi can roam free between 5x and 12x and v-core is worked out as "C+Q v-core + the additional over stock picked in bios" eg, 1.1v = 1.1+(1.4-1.65) = 1.35V.

if you go into u-guru and wind down the oc a touch, (2920 @ 1.425) 1.1v C+Q now = 1.125v.

so i can see no issues with this myself. and as someone else mentioned the memclk is now detached from the core freq somewhat, so there should be less bouncing about.
10-31-2007, 10:44 AM
Shadowmage

Quote:

Originally Posted by FischOderAal

damn it. thanks for the info though. then the energy saving effect isn't that big if two of the cores run at 100% and the others clock down...

Although voltage is a large part of power consumption, frequency is as well:

Power = <some constants>*Vdd^2*f

So if the frequency is say at 600MHz for CPU0 while the other cores are running at 3GHz, then CPU0 will use 0.6/3= 20% of the power of the other CPUs.
10-31-2007, 10:47 AM
Shadowmage

Quote:

Originally Posted by knightwolf654

already looks like its gonna be a learning curve to o/c it!

No one says you have to run at different frequencies :D

What I would do is do your regular overclock, and when you hit the limit, then start seeing if you can increase any of the core frequencies for added performance. Note that the maximum step is in 0.5x multiplier units, so you may have to sacrifice some clock speed on the other cores to max out another. I would think that this would only be useful for overclockers when running single-threaded programs like SuperPI, etc.
10-31-2007, 10:48 AM
deathman20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Esau

Not to be disrespectful but whats up with you're Avatar? Looks like you have a cap from a Salt Shaker on dudes head:p:

More like an updated Cobra, you know from GI Joes.

BTW thats interesting, different frequencies and different multis.. Curious if there will be different voltages as well applied to them. Now that would be intresting definatly taking a new step to fine tuning the system, oh this processors good at 3.3 but that, na that one can do 3.6Ghz at the same voltage.
10-31-2007, 11:43 AM
rob[GL]

thanks for all this!
10-31-2007, 11:52 AM
Caparroz

Quote:

Originally Posted by deathman20

More like an updated Cobra, you know from GI Joes.

BTW thats interesting, different frequencies and different multis.. Curious if there will be different voltages as well applied to them. Now that would be intresting definatly taking a new step to fine tuning the system, oh this processors good at 3.3 but that, na that one can do 3.6Ghz at the same voltage.

Did you read the thread? No different voltages...

OT, this will be great for mobile cpus aswell.
10-31-2007, 12:01 PM
XS Janus

cool gimmick, but i bet this will win the "most useless new feature" award for 99.9% users.
10-31-2007, 12:03 PM
Shadowmage

Quote:

Originally Posted by XS Janus

cool gimmick, but i bet this will win the "most useless new feature" award for 99.9% users.

No it's not, since AMD's Cool&Quiet will automatically control this for 99.9% of the users.
10-31-2007, 12:28 PM
PhilDoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by XS Janus

cool gimmick, but i bet this will win the "most useless new feature" award for 99.9% users.

Probaby true considering that 99.9% of users don't overclock. For the rest of us it'll probably be fun. I would expect Intel to offer something similar in the near future.
10-31-2007, 02:27 PM
XS Janus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowmage

No it's not, since AMD's Cool&Quiet will automatically control this for 99.9% of the users.

Probably true, but whats the point if the voltages remain the same for all the cores together. No power savings there:( (again I mean for regular users)
10-31-2007, 02:32 PM
Lightman

For me this will be great feature to use and play with! I already can imagine my setting for gaming will set 2 cores at high freq while other 2 at minimum. For browsing I will put only 1 core up to 2GHz and 3 cores at minimum speed. For 3D modeling and other time consuming tasks all 4 cores maxed. The possibilities are almost endless....and when I will set up all this I will make nice and easy icons on my desktop for each settings so switching between modes will be a matter of 2 mouse cliks :up: !

Regarding independent core voltages, they are not available for K10 in AM2+ incarnation but this feature will be implemented in mobile Griffin CPU! I heard (not confirmed) voices that AM3 might bring it to desktop....
10-31-2007, 02:56 PM
Zytek_Fan

AMD is really going all out now :D
10-31-2007, 05:08 PM
EvlUndrWareNome

This could be nice!

Maybe moving OS processes and other stuff to a slower core and games to the faster ones.

Sounds pretty cool :D

I still want the BULLDOZER!!!! :D :D

has to be the best cpu name ever :D
10-31-2007, 05:39 PM
John600rr

Removed. Got some PM's from some sensitive AMD fans.
10-31-2007, 05:57 PM
informal

I appreciate your attempt at humor,but that was spam.
10-31-2007, 06:26 PM
AliG

Quote:

Originally Posted by EvlUndrWareNome

This could be nice!

Maybe moving OS processes and other stuff to a slower core and games to the faster ones.

Sounds pretty cool :D

I still want the BULLDOZER!!!! :D :D

has to be the best cpu name ever :D

lawl, I just hope for amd's sake it is a bulldozer to demolish nehalem. From what I've heard from a friend of mine that's an engineer at intel, nehalem will definitely be huge, and from what we've seen from k10, there's no way that will be a contendor
10-31-2007, 11:46 PM
kl0012

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowmage

Although voltage is a large part of power consumption, frequency is as well:

Power = <some constants>*Vdd^2*f

So if the frequency is say at 600MHz for CPU0 while the other cores are running at 3GHz, then CPU0 will use 0.6/3= 20% of the power of the other CPUs.

I'm little sceptical about that. When the core is in idle, the most power consumption is coming from transistors leakage because of insignificant amount of transistor's switchings. So frequency reduction can't help here a lot, imho.
11-01-2007, 12:02 AM
LordEC911

Quote:

Originally Posted by kl0012

No independent voltages - only clocks.

Then why do I specifically remember reading, multiple times, about independent voltage and frequencies for individual cores and IMC?

Edit- Hmmm... guess when they said "individual" they just meant one voltage for the cores and another for the northbridge...
Lame...
11-01-2007, 12:02 AM
kl0012

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightman

For me this will be great feature to use and play with! I already can imagine my setting for gaming will set 2 cores at high freq while other 2 at minimum. For browsing I will put only 1 core up to 2GHz and 3 cores at minimum speed. For 3D modeling and other time consuming tasks all 4 cores maxed. The possibilities are almost endless....and when I will set up all this I will make nice and easy icons on my desktop for each settings so switching between modes will be a matter of 2 mouse cliks :up: !

Regarding independent core voltages, they are not available for K10 in AM2+ incarnation but this feature will be implemented in mobile Griffin CPU! I heard (not confirmed) voices that AM3 might bring it to desktop....

What about multithreaded programs? How can you set CPU affinity for dynamicaly created and allocated threads?
11-01-2007, 12:04 AM
kl0012

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordEC911

Then why do I specifically remember reading, multiple times, about independent voltage and frequencies for individual cores and IMC?

All can I say - "don't read "yellow press". Read more creditable source www.amd.com
11-01-2007, 02:56 AM
awdrifter

Hopefully AMD will release a quad-core optimizer to make the OS move the non-demanding stuff to the slower core.
11-01-2007, 03:42 AM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by awdrifter

Hopefully AMD will release a quad-core optimizer to make the OS move the non-demanding stuff to the slower core.

They cant. Its handled by the OS scheduler. Only MS can change it.
11-01-2007, 03:43 AM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by kl0012

What about multithreaded programs? How can you set CPU affinity for dynamicaly created and allocated threads?

You dont. They would have to be hardcoded for it. And then all OCs etc would have to be same on each core. Like best on 2, worst on 4 etc.
11-01-2007, 08:52 AM
MaSell

Quote:

Originally Posted by hollo

definitely cool, i can see the k10 spi threads now - one core at 3.5ghz, the others at 2.5

I'd prefer to disable 3 cores...
11-01-2007, 09:36 AM
RFC Rudel

Remember my tread from 2005

CPU affinity performance gains

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ighlight=games

I wish vista came with the resourse manager, but only server 2008 have it.

I will search a way to port it to Vista when sp1 and 2008 are final (I will move to server 2008 anyway)

Resume: empy the core, then put your app there
11-01-2007, 10:42 AM
Shadowmage

Quote:

Originally Posted by kl0012

I'm little sceptical about that. When the core is in idle, the most power consumption is coming from transistors leakage because of insignificant amount of transistor's switchings. So frequency reduction can't help here a lot, imho.

You're right about that. My equation was for dynamic power. Static leakage will be constant. AMD's SOI process lowers static leakage though, so it's not as big of a deal (although it should still be a good 10-25% of dynamic power).
11-01-2007, 10:56 AM
iddqd

Quote:

Originally Posted by FischOderAal

damn it. thanks for the info though. then the energy saving effect isn't that big if two of the cores run at 100% and the others clock down...

Actually, running at 200mhz as opposed to 2ghz would save you a lot of power, even if you don't undervolt.
11-01-2007, 10:57 AM
v_rr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

They cant. Its handled by the OS scheduler. Only MS can change it.

That´s right, but Microsoft can do it. But it´s very unlikely that Microsoft does that.
11-01-2007, 11:02 AM
RFC Rudel

if you set the afinity to core 1 and core 3 the multithreaded app will use those cores.
if you set to use only one the app will use 1core.

with the WRM you also can set how % of those cores the app can use.

you can send the entire OS to 1 core and leave the others empty.

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:39 AM.

XtremeSystems