Haswell Preview Benchmark - Page 40

TheMawn · 2013-11-04, 03:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by db597

It could vary depend on the motherboard. My understanding is an overclock is a type of turbo mode. Just that the max turbo multiplier is higher than usual. So you still get all the benefits of it being able to downclock to save power when there is no load. And once the load comes, it turbos up to the 4.7GHz or whatever overclock you've set.

That's not quite accurate. If it's supported by your CPU (yes for Intel's latest) and your operating system (yes for Windows 7) then this kind of power-saving feature is enabled. Turbo-boost is a bit different.

The turbo clocks your hardware up past its design specifications if, and only if, the CPU believes it can survive the heat. Even with stock coolers this is the case. I had an i7-920 which was locked. Its base frequency was 21 x 133 MHz = 2.8 GHz. When all cores were loaded, the Turbo Boost would increase the multiplier to 22 (2933 MHz). When only one core was loaded, the frequency was increased to 3066 MHz. However, the idle cores had to be IDLE. I managed to get a single-core prime stress test to only tax the one core, and I saw the 3.06 GHz sustained for a few minutes (it was rather exciting) but even opening the task manager to check the other cores was enough to de-idle the rest of the processor and the frequency dropped to 2.93 GHz and it stayed there as the task manager itself put enough load on the processor.

This all sort of plays into the power saving feature you've mentioned. It's similar, so the confusion is perfectly fine. This feature clocks your processor down (to a minimum of 1.6 GHz, I believe) whenever it's idle. More specifically, it does this on a per core basis. This in tandem with turbo boost is what allows the higher frequencies to be reached. If the processor can run full tilt on four cores, then it must be able to run at least slightly faster on a single loaded core. Unfortunately, there isn't some threshold for bringing the processor up to max speed from 1.6 GHz, so right clicking your desktop is enough of a load that your operating system thinks the processor should ramp up.

Ideally, the processor core would only speed itself up if it was under a 10%-20% load. This would be an amazing power saving feature. To be perfectly honest, your average home user and a lot of work users would hardly ever need 3.6 GHz to kick in. My processor runs at some silly voltage like 0.900 V when it's at 1.6 GHz. The efficiency you would see from only running at that kind of speed until you really needed it would be mind blowing.

LaurV · 2013-11-04, 06:00

test.
this thread is broken (it doesn't show last page). posts moved?
edit: now it is ok, feel free to delete this post.

db597 · 2013-11-06, 10:26

Ah, to put in context, we're talking about a Haswell 4770K. Though it could depend on the implementation of the motherboard. My memory is foggy, but I recall from Sandybridge onwards it was advisable to enable turbo. On Asus motherboards (and I'm sure others) you can override the short and long duration power package limits.

The other cores don't need to be idle to achieve an overclock. It can turbo up to a multiplier (e.g. to overclock override the max turbo from 39x to 47x) as long as the power consumption doesn't exceed a level (instead of 84W power limit, override to 255W - which can never be exceeded). In practice, this will make it a permanent overclock when the load from P95 comes.

But of course this is only recently, and if I'm not mistaken also requires a K series processor. For Nehalem and earlier it didn't use to work this way.

kracker · 2013-11-25, 22:00

Thinking of upgrading this old AMD quad to a haswell, and hearing stories of really bad OC's, is it worth getting the K?

paulunderwood · 2013-11-25, 22:26

IMHO Haswell is great with fast RAM -- it scales well. I would recommend replacing the stock cooler with something special to keep the overclock/overvoltage cool. My 4770k has been up 5 days with the BIOS saying 4.7 GHz (see the previous post of mine in this thread) and now LLR says 4374.22MHz -- this is with less throttling I think due to a lower voltage of 1.27v.

TheMawn · 2013-11-25, 22:27

Thermal issues will be lesser in the i5 that has no hyperthreading. It has its own graphics. If you have a GPU the iGPU can be turned off... or something. Idle. Whatever. Something like that.

K-chip is still a better chip. Better stability (and probably better thermals) at stock. I'd pay the extra $20. Invest in some good cooling too. H90 or H110, depending on what your case can hold would be nice.

TheMawn · 2013-11-25, 22:29

Get a board with good power delivery. I'd recommend something from ASUS, personally. Get something better than their second or third cheapest. If you're looking to splurge a bit, go for the one with the VRM waterblock for more stable power delivery.

kracker · 2013-11-25, 23:53

Thinking about these two:
MSI Z87-G43
ASRock Z87 Extreme3

Both companies I like, leaning toward the ASrock one, not really willing to spend more than I have to, any Z87 is really just what I need..

As for watercooling, looking at the CM Hyper Evo, it performs more then good on stock, even overclocked. (I don't plan to OC too much)

EDIT: Yes, I plan on 2400 MHz memory.

Prime95 · 2013-11-26, 01:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by kracker

Thinking about these two:
MSI Z87-G43

I can't recommend this board. There are some key voltages (like System Agent) that you cannot manipulate.

Good luck on achieving stability. My two Haswells are still not stable. I've been boosting voltages and mem timings and last tried OCing mem to only 2133. No luck. Now trying Linux and Win 7 instead of Win 8.

sdbardwick · 2013-11-26, 01:30

+1 to Prime95's sentiment.
I have the -45 version (upgraded sound) and wouldn't buy it again either. Won't run 2400 memory at speeds greater than 2133 (but at least it is stable for me 7+ weeks uptime on Win7 x64).

kracker · 2013-11-26, 01:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prime95

I can't recommend this board. There are some key voltages (like System Agent) that you cannot manipulate.

Good luck on achieving stability. My two Haswells are still not stable. I've been boosting voltages and mem timings and last tried OCing mem to only 2133. No luck. Now trying Linux and Win 7 instead of Win 8.

Thanks for the advice

2013-11-04, 06:00	#431
LaurV Romulan Interpreter "name field" Jun 2011 Thailand 41·251 Posts	test. this thread is broken (it doesn't show last page). posts moved? edit: now it is ok, feel free to delete this post. Last fiddled with by LaurV on 2013-11-04 at 06:01

2013-11-25, 22:26	#434
paulunderwood Sep 2002 Database er0rr 5×937 Posts	IMHO Haswell is great with fast RAM -- it scales well. I would recommend replacing the stock cooler with something special to keep the overclock/overvoltage cool. My 4770k has been up 5 days with the BIOS saying 4.7 GHz (see the previous post of mine in this thread) and now LLR says 4374.22MHz -- this is with less throttling I think due to a lower voltage of 1.27v. Last fiddled with by paulunderwood on 2013-11-25 at 22:30

2013-11-25, 23:53	#437
kracker "Mr. Meeseeks" Jan 2012 California, USA 37×59 Posts	Thinking about these two: MSI Z87-G43 ASRock Z87 Extreme3 Both companies I like, leaning toward the ASrock one, not really willing to spend more than I have to, any Z87 is really just what I need.. As for watercooling, looking at the CM Hyper Evo, it performs more then good on stock, even overclocked. (I don't plan to OC too much) EDIT: Yes, I plan on 2400 MHz memory. Last fiddled with by kracker on 2013-11-25 at 23:55

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Haswell-E Prelim. Benchmark	sdbardwick	Hardware	37	2015-02-10 18:49
Prime95 and Haswell	Pleco	Information & Answers	22	2014-07-13 16:03
Haswell Rig	TimSorbet	Hardware	64	2014-05-27 13:22
Prime95 version 27.1 early preview, not-even-close-to-beta release	Prime95	Software	126	2012-02-09 16:17
Missing mouse-over preview text	retina	Forum Feedback	1	2011-09-12 15:32

2013-11-06, 10:26	#432
db597 Jan 2003 2·103 Posts	Ah, to put in context, we're talking about a Haswell 4770K. Though it could depend on the implementation of the motherboard. My memory is foggy, but I recall from Sandybridge onwards it was advisable to enable turbo. On Asus motherboards (and I'm sure others) you can override the short and long duration power package limits. The other cores don't need to be idle to achieve an overclock. It can turbo up to a multiplier (e.g. to overclock override the max turbo from 39x to 47x) as long as the power consumption doesn't exceed a level (instead of 84W power limit, override to 255W - which can never be exceeded). In practice, this will make it a permanent overclock when the load from P95 comes. But of course this is only recently, and if I'm not mistaken also requires a K series processor. For Nehalem and earlier it didn't use to work this way.

2013-11-25, 22:00	#433
kracker "Mr. Meeseeks" Jan 2012 California, USA 4207₈ Posts	Thinking of upgrading this old AMD quad to a haswell, and hearing stories of really bad OC's, is it worth getting the K?

2013-11-25, 22:27	#435
TheMawn May 2013 East. Always East. 1727₁₀ Posts	Thermal issues will be lesser in the i5 that has no hyperthreading. It has its own graphics. If you have a GPU the iGPU can be turned off... or something. Idle. Whatever. Something like that. K-chip is still a better chip. Better stability (and probably better thermals) at stock. I'd pay the extra $20. Invest in some good cooling too. H90 or H110, depending on what your case can hold would be nice.

2013-11-25, 22:29	#436
TheMawn May 2013 East. Always East. 6BF₁₆ Posts	Get a board with good power delivery. I'd recommend something from ASUS, personally. Get something better than their second or third cheapest. If you're looking to splurge a bit, go for the one with the VRM waterblock for more stable power delivery.

2013-11-26, 01:30	#439
sdbardwick Aug 2002 North San Diego Coun 821 Posts	+1 to Prime95's sentiment. I have the -45 version (upgraded sound) and wouldn't buy it again either. Won't run 2400 memory at speeds greater than 2133 (but at least it is stable for me 7+ weeks uptime on Win7 x64).