Printable View
phenom II has 4 power states and they are all supposed to change together instead of individually like phenom I did. as some people have found out in windows xp they all still change on their own. this makes it so cool n quiet is just impossible to use unless you want a huge performance loss. im guessing this problem is only on windows xp but it might be on other things. anyway does anyone know how to fix this? im wanting to use cool n quiet but its just unusable at the state it is in.
This works Fine here for phenom 9850.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...hlight=K10stat
*edit* Ah sorry Roofsniper you already spotted that thread*
hmmmm how could Kstat change it? i really don't know what to do but it would be nice if threads didn't bounce around in the cores. hopefully windows 7 will fix this issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gener_AL (UK)
Well using AMD powermonitor it is quite easy to switch P-States that you have configured Using K10stat.
how would i do that? i dled it and all i can do is view things but not change them. i would either like to have all the cores run at the same speeds or find some way to make the threads not bounce between the cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gener_AL (UK)
Hopefully this picture saves me 1000 words.
Yeah! I'm yet to find a solution for that. In my opinion AMD would need to release new C'n'Q driver for XP/2003. It would be nice to have more control over what CPU is doing. Best would be to have functionality of K10Stat built into BIOS and/or AOD. Also switch between independent core and ganged core clocking would be very welcome!
well yea you can change the power state in power monitor but it doesn't solve the issue of the threads bouncing around in the cores or the cores being changed individually. i can change the power states easily but it has to be done manually instead of depending on load. idk i have lots of issues with cnq on now i see. sometimes it doesn't detect the l3, cpuz rarely opens, programs crash, and its really slow. didn't have this problem with my phenom I maybe i need to do a complete reinstall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gener_AL (UK)
I saw a big drop in speed in XP, probably because of the independent core clocking. Games loaded slower (until I forced affinity), 3Dmark05 CPU test showed a quite significant drop. Vista is all good though. Probably because the CPU changes clocks on all cores at once.
I wanted to run XP on here but that just makes it not an option.
This is one of those things that really makes me go "Hmmmmm". AMD engineers had to know that threads fly all over the place and that performance was going to see a major hit if the cores were clocking at 800 MHz when performing tasks... My good 'ol Q6600 has no problems with XP, thanks to its "rudimentary" EIST.
yea thats exactly it. i wonder if theres a way to fix it. because im not going vista but windows 7 is awhile away.Quote:
Originally Posted by swaaye
I imagine that it would take at least a CPU driver update from AMD. Their driver is from 2007, probably Phenom's launch or some such. Vista just works out of the box with PII's new CnQ method. There's no 3rd party driver to get.
you would think that it would be really easy for amd to do which makes me wonder why it hasn't been done yet.
I had the same problem, enabling CNQ slowed the system to a crawl. If you're interested, my solution is posted here:
http://home.comcast.net/~pmc650/site...4cfc46a7a02692
thanks i might check it out.
data flys all over the place in deneb regardless of clock speed I did a superpi with affinity to core 0 and saw three cores still geting use up 15% on vista, maybe it just vista though.Quote:
Originally Posted by swaaye
just checked that and when i set the affinity to one core in xp super pi stays on that core. without it it divides the load equally across 4 cores.
I didn't see any performance hit that was noticable on my 720BE on XP. I haven't measured the speed, but it runs smooth and responsive over here.
hmmmm maybe you have some kind of difference in the system because from what i have been seeing mostly everyone has been having this issue on xp because of the way xp handles the clocks and the threads. really it should be easily fixed with an amd driver because i don't believe xp has the ability to change the clocks based on load while vista does. and the amd driver hasn't changed in awhile.Quote:
Originally Posted by charged3800z24
The cores jump around, but speed is not hindered. I am on AM3 with DDR3 but can't see that being any diff.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
my problem was that with running super pi all cores would stay at 800 mhz because super pi is spread out amongst the 4 cores giving each core about a 6.25% load which wouldn't boost up the speed. i guess the main problem is just that the threads are being spread out on the cores so its not really showing true load so something like super pi which is single threaded takes forever to do. just moving around in windows took forever and the clock speeds rarely got kicked up.
OH, ya if I don't set priority to one core I loose 3secs on score on Pi. But on Multi-threaded apps like wPrime I saw 0.1sec diff. I don't run Pi unless I am OCing and C&Q isn't on. I am just saying, I don't see any speed diff when just using the PC as normal. Any other time I have C&Q off. I do agree with you though. XP needs a better solution for this, do to the way it handles threads.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
not exactly sure but the way it is on my system its unusable. errors, everything takes forever, even multithreaded apps idk. i guess its just the drawbacks of using windows xp when it is 8 years old. not gonna switch to vista anytime soon so it looks like ill just have to wait until windows 7. but thats another story because as it appeared at first windows 7 was better than both xp and vista i haven't been seeing as good of performance lately.
hmm, i am having trouble getting cool n quiet enabled without blue screening. is it possible to have an overclocked fsb, and still use cnq? i am windows stable at 252x14, but will blue screen with cnq on. i had no problems with my old x2. i am using vista x64
How high is your NB Freq? I noticed the same problem on my M4A79 Deluxe with CnQ enabled when the NB Frequency is at or over 2550mhz or so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veedo
--Matt
Yes, CNQ can normally (?) be used with FSB overclock, but...
The Phenom IIs have 4 power (performance) states. Each pState has an associated CPU multiplier and voltage. When you bump the FSB, you risk causing an instability at any one of the 4 pStates. Sounds like you're stable at pState=0 (max performance), but probably not at pState=3 (max power save).
At a FSB 252 and pState=3, the CPU frequency is 1008MHz (up from 800MHz), but, the default voltage specified in the pState table still applies, which could be a problem.
Unfortunately, I don't know of a good way to permanently alter the voltages in the pState table.
this was the problem. i lowered my ht multiplier from 10 to 8, set freq to 1600, and changed my multi to 14x, while still using my 252fsb setting. this is giving me a little lower nb speed of 2268, while keeping my ram around 500mhz, which is what i wanted :D.Quote:
Originally Posted by mattkosem
i then setup k10stat so that my max powerstate is 3400mhz, and lowest is 1700ish, with .98 volts. still going to play around with lowest settings, but it seems that power draw changes very little going any lower than 2000mhz and 1volt.
i created a shortcut to k10stat with the options
-loadpstate -nowindow and added it to the startup folder. i had to disable uac to keep from getting the blocked startup entry notification in vista.
so now my system boots at around 3500mhz, but when windows loads, cnq takes over and runs me at 3400 when at load.
difference in power draw at idle states is about 120 watts less with cnq enabled. keeps my systems power supply fan spinning slower, and is much quieter now! 120 watts is a pretty big difference, even more so for those using a higher vcore or clock speed. you can get the best of both worlds by doing this :)
I figured it would be that. It sucks though huh? That extra NB clock makes a BIG difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veedo
--Matt
really? do you have some benchmarks? this is my first phenom, so im still learning. i may run some benches and compare sometime, but i wont have time this weekend. thanks for the info :DQuote:
Originally Posted by mattkosem
I've just developed a small tool addressing exactly issues like these, here's the thread: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=220185Quote:
Originally Posted by pmc650
Sure. It's makes a very substantial difference. Here are some quick comparisons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veedo
--Matt
Anyone tried this tool or any other 3rd party tool? Is AMD aware of the problem? The review sites completely missed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by pmc650
Just noticed this yesterday myself: quick superpi 1M bench on Windows XP scores all over the place (between 24 and 29 seconds) but if I set affinity to 1 cpu, 21s no problem.