what has intel done?

[SlimySquid]

Can anyone help me explain this here? look at the fsb, both same but multi is different like Intel put a 3.0 core and added the second as ONLY a 2.8ghz core? WTF? and yes it is the same when I put it all back to default speeds.

[K.I.T.T.]

could it be because of the EIST? i thought that the cores could underclock individually on a Pentium D. Correct me if im wrong

[craig588]

I was under the impression that the new EEs were going to be unlocked, have you tried changing the multi?

[freecableguy]

Whoops

[SlimySquid]

could it be because of the EIST? i thought that the cores could underclock individually on a Pentium D. Correct me if im wrong

You mean C1E, I have that disabled in bios, and unless it is un-disableable then it should both be the same. Either cpu-z is screwed or Intel screwed up, I dunno which. i need to find a way to benchmark the cpu's individually then I can see if the second core is actually underclocked. Any ideas how I can bench the cores individually. I have cpumark 99 but there is no option for having it bench 1 core or a second core.

[SlimySquid]

I was under the impression that the new EEs were going to be unlocked, have you tried changing the multi?

There is a option in bios to allow lower the multiplier but only to enable or disable it, I have it disabled now since enableing it gives me no options or anything anyways. this is also not a Expensive edition it is a normal dual core.

[Highland3r]

Think you can choose which cpu you use in prime95, use its inbuilt benchmark function and see what that says

[Turok]

Is BIOS up to date?
Maybe since they are recent, there are some BIOS problems

[SlimySquid]

Think you can choose which cpu you use in prime95, use its inbuilt benchmark function and see what that says

That did it prime shows CPU 0 is faster then cpu 1
wonder what the deal here is. I will call Intel and raise Hell monday.

[Sat Jun 25 12:54:14 2005]
Compare your results to other computers at http://www.mersenne.org/bench.htm
That web page also contains instructions on how your results can be included.

Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 3.00GHz
CPU speed: 3786.77 MHz
CPU features: RDTSC, CMOV, PREFETCH, MMX, SSE, SSE2
L1 cache size: unknown
L2 cache size: 1024 KB
L1 cache line size: unknown
L2 cache line size: 128 bytes
TLBS: 64
Prime95 version 23.8, RdtscTiming=1
Best time for 384K FFT length: 10.344 ms.
Best time for 448K FFT length: 12.600 ms.
Best time for 512K FFT length: 14.191 ms.
Best time for 640K FFT length: 16.806 ms.
Best time for 768K FFT length: 20.341 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 24.368 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 27.144 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 36.098 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 43.507 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 51.973 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 58.455 ms.
Compare your results to other computers at http://www.mersenne.org/bench.htm
That web page also contains instructions on how your results can be included.

Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 3.00GHz
CPU speed: 3786.75 MHz
CPU features: RDTSC, CMOV, PREFETCH, MMX, SSE, SSE2
L1 cache size: unknown
L2 cache size: 1024 KB
L1 cache line size: unknown
L2 cache line size: 128 bytes
TLBS: 64
Prime95 version 23.8, RdtscTiming=1
Best time for 384K FFT length: 11.085 ms.
Best time for 448K FFT length: 13.496 ms.
Best time for 512K FFT length: 15.230 ms.
Best time for 640K FFT length: 17.997 ms.
Best time for 768K FFT length: 21.832 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 26.100 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 29.093 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 38.681 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 46.591 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 55.701 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 62.690 ms.

[Highland3r]

Woah thats really wierd! Dont get rid of the chip, could be worth a pretty penny!

[SlimySquid]

i wonder what Intel's responce is going to be? When i inform them they are either lying to the masses, or producing faulty chips.

On the other hand i wonder what reviewers will say if they found out about this and confirmed this with other chips, wow could put a hurting on intel sales real quick. I should tell them to send me a dual core expensive edition for free as hush money

[ibby]

any updates

[SlimySquid]

any updates

They are closed right now


***THIS IS AN ELECTRONICALLY GENERATED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL.***

Thank you for contacting Intel Corporation. This is an acknowledgement that we have received your e-mail and will respond to your inquiry as soon as possible. If you haven't already done so, you may wish to visit our technical support web site at http://support.intel.com and our corporate web site at http://www.intel.com for any product, service or company information that may be of value to you.

Again, thank you for your interest in Intel.

[Nasgul]

Can anyone help me explain this here? look at the fsb, both same but multi is different like Intel put a 3.0 core and added the second as ONLY a 2.8ghz core? WTF? and yes it is the same when I put it all back to default speeds.

I guess this could explain as to why it happens:

Pentium D processors do not allow monitoring the temperature of both cores, this feature is implemented only in dual-core server processors. So, to our great disappointment we cannot find out what actually happened with the second core. In our case, only the second core got overheated and went to thermal throttling, while the first core kept working normally.

Whole review: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...umd-820_5.html.

I don't think you should call Intel on that one.

[SlimySquid]

I guess this could explain as to why it happens:



Whole review: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...umd-820_5.html.

I don't think you should call Intel on that one.

umm, so you wouldn't complain if your cpu at stock speed that was sold to you as a dual core 3ghz was actuall a 3.0ghz and a 2.8 ghz? That is how it is, the multiplier is locked at 15 for core 0 and 14 for core 1, at stock speed with watercooling your not gonna try and tell me it is thermal throttling, exspecially when it works the same way all the way to 3.9ghz. Hell if it is supposedly thermal throttling at stock speed at 3.9ghz is should be smoldering and melting according to your idea. If you think that is the case you are missing marbles. This is pure and simple Intel screw up, I just wonder how many other dual core chips are the same screwed up way.

oh one part of that story you missed........(The strange thing is however, that the temperature still remained within acceptable range of 75-78C.)

I haven't even broken 40c yet.

[Nasgul]

After reviewing your screen shots, see how both cores have the exact same FSB and BUS Speed, your CPU supports EIST. Just like K.I.T.T. pointed out earlier.
I for once thought it was what X-bit Labs said: "Pentium D processors do not allow monitoring the temperature of both cores, this feature is implemented only in dual-core server processors". Since that you're getting the "readings" from ONE core ONLY, seemed like the second core was throttling but then again jus like X-bit Labs says: water cooling is a good idea.

Anyway, here's how EIST works: (BTW, I'm not calling Intel on this one)
*


Pentium D 830, 840 and 840XE support EIST, except the 2.8 core because it's at 14X already.

[SlimySquid]

After reviewing your screen shots, see how both cores have the exact same FSB and BUS Speed, your CPU supports EIST. Just like K.I.T.T. pointed out earlier.
I for once thought it was what X-bit Labs said: "Pentium D processors do not allow monitoring the temperature of both cores, this feature is implemented only in dual-core server processors". Since that you're getting the "readings" from ONE core ONLY, seemed like the second core was throttling but then again jus like X-bit Labs says: water cooling is a good idea.

Pentium D 830, 840 and 840XE support EIST, except the 2.8 core because it's at 14X already.

no matter how much I load up eithe cpu 0 or cpu 1 it NEVER EVER leaves 14 as a multiplier. So again what good is enhanced speed step technology when no matter what load the cpu cores are under it never adjusts itself? I have disabled speed step in bios now, and it is still the same. So either A Intel did screw up or B the motherboard is not operating properly by disabling it, or C it can't be disabled. I dunno which but by calling Intel on it, and possibly asus.

what EIST really does from Intel and Asus documents........ Setting EIST to auto then saving bios, and going into power settings on screen saver in windows will allow you to adjust it so the cpu will save power. Select any power scheme EXCEPT, Home/office desktop or always on. After you adjust the power scheme you may notice the CPU Internal frequency lowers slightly when CPU LOADING IS LOW.
So what you are trying to tell me my cpu is doing goes against EVERYTHING on both intel's documents explaining it and ASUS documents explaining it. Since running various benchmarks and playing games and running prime95 has yet to get the cpu 1 to go back to where is should be.

[Supertim0r]

let us know dude

[nando19]

Just thought I would let you guys nknow that I am having exactly the same problem the only difference is that I have an ABIT AW8-MAX and there is no option in there for EIST here is a screenie I have it overclocked 290mhz but it does the same at stock setting

[rozzyroz]

in your pic, the vcore on the second proc is higher then on the first...