A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Windows 10 Ultimate performance power plan



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 10th 19, 10:24 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Rene Lamontagne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,549
Default Windows 10 Ultimate performance power plan

On 2019-06-10 2:23 p.m., Paul wrote:
Rene Lamontagne wrote:
I set my system to this plan today for a test and really didn't see
much difference to the High performance plan, Under prime 95 the CPU
ramped toÂ* about 4.34 GHz compared to about 4.28 GHz in the high
performance plan, temperature stayed the same at about 66 deg C.
System was drawing 128 watts full throttle.
At idle it was drawing about 44 watts no load and about 39 deg C.
Anyone here tried it or will it really benefit only heavy usage
programs Â*or newer high end games.

Rene


Intel lists this on the Ark for i7-8700

Â*Â* 6C 12T
Â*Â* Processor Base FrequencyÂ* 3.20 GHz
Â*Â* Max Turbo FrequencyÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 4.60 GHz

This site has the turbo table.

https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/core_i7/i7-8700

ModeÂ*Â*Â* BaseÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Turbo Frequency/Active Cores
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 1Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 2Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 3Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 4
5Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 6
NormalÂ* 3,200 MHzÂ*Â* 4,600 MHzÂ* 4,500 MHzÂ* 4,400 MHzÂ* 4,300 MHzÂ* 4,300
MHzÂ*Â* 4,300 MHz

So the first question I've got it, "why turbo on all
six, yet have a base of 3.2?". I thought the concept
of Turbo, was to increase clock when fewer cores were
running.

The TDP of 65W is probably met when running at base.

There might also be a BIOS option to "lock the cores together",
but I don't know what benefit that has in the real world
("user can't notice any difference").

There's some issue about maintaining the running OS clock when
the Cores run at different frequencies. There's some sort of
handoff in the OS which makes corrections or something.
Locking the clocks on the cores together, means that code
doesn't have to work too hard.

On my motherboard, I had to select operating conditions
that prevented VCore heatsink temps from going sky-high.

It used to be, that VCore prevention-of-thermal-runaway
was done via passive design. My current motherboard
"has an acre of copper" that keeps Vcore at about 38C
all day long. That philosophy stopped some time ago,
where power limiters were fitted to VCore, presumably
with the idea that a MOSFET couldn't go into thermal
runaway. And that's how they can justify running the
teeny tiny Vcore heatsink at a temperature that
burns flesh. (Mine went over 65C. Checked with
digital thermometer.)

So rather than doing what you're doing, I had to be
content with running the machine at conditions that
didn't leave VCore at high temperatures.

*******

If you test with Cinebench, you might notice the
processors with ring connections, kinda "starve".
This means, if you find a way to run them at high
speed, there might not be enough memory bandwidth
to get a benefit.

My 6 core processor, benches at "5 cores", which means
the ring bus is slow enough to eliminate the effective
performance of one core.

Other processors Intel makes, are "grid connected", with
horizontal and vertical busses. Which means in terms
of raw bandwidth, there's more capability between
cores. There is still the possibility though, that
a puny dual channel memory bus, can't keep up.

This means, for core-bound computing, where the operands
live in local cache, you're probably getting a "win"
out of the setting. But under more "real-world" conditions,
you have to wonder whether the uncore and memory stuff
can keep up.

As an example, a sad example, consider my Athlon XP3200.
Paul overclocks it a bit, because all the kids are overclocking
theirs, and Paul wants to see what all the fuss is about.
Paul runs stock 2200MHz, tries 2600MHz, benches and...
"no difference". In other words, the infrastructure
available back in those days (Northbridge and "thin bus"
to CPU), means there's absolute no point in overclocking!
The chipset is gutless.

Your machine no longer has a Northbridge. All of that is
pulled inside the CPU. This means, your CPU has a lot
more cores, and is better able to feed them. But at
the edges, when everything is cranked, the architecture
might still not be "over-generous". And if you find
a good benching tool, it might tell you whether all
this fuss is really worth it.

There are two patterns for game performance. Most games
follow the "boss thread" principle. One core is railed
and runs all the other threads (synchronizes them). The
other cores run at 30% or less. The hardware drivers
have the interrupt load spread over all the cores
like peanut butter (IOAPIC?). This pattern is a good fit for
the Turbo Table.

The other pattern, might be strategic games, where the
graphics animation isn't all that flashy, and most
of the computing goes into AI threads. Perhaps stuff
like Fritz Chess would fall into this category, of
loading the threads evenly. And then the problem
just might be the "starved for memory" one, depending
on how often the game is forced to consult something
in main memory.

*******

Your job as an experimenter then, is to tease out these
details with benchmarks, and like my lousy AthlonXP
experiment, figure out what's really worthwhile :-)
After discovering that 2600MHz was useless, I turned
it back down again. I like a free lunch as much
as the next guy, but not if it's "rice cakes".

I've long since lost track of the ideal conditions
for the modern CPUs. I'm just not running into as
many "experimental results" web pages as I used to see.

Â*Â* Paul


Thanks Paul, Boy that Wikichip site sure gives a tremendous amount of
info on that i7 8700 CPU, a lot to digest.
I did some more testing and ran various benches on the different power
plans and came to the conclusion that there really is not much advantage
to running the Ultimate and High performance plans, at least not in my
case. The best it would do in Ultimate was 4.34 GHz and the temps stayed
at 66 Deg C even after a half hour run of Prime95.
I did learn something though, by watching Task Manager while playing a
game of hearts, When playing steadily it would turbo up to 4.28 GHz and
when at rest between plays the speed would drop down as low as 1.02 GHz,
which supersized me, I never thought it would drop that low. My old i7
950 would only ever drop to 1.56 GHz
So seeing all this I will leave it at Balanced plan, I am glad to see
the temp staying so stable and reasonable under full load..

Rene



Ads
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.