# Incorrect cpu freq



## abax2000 (Mar 11, 2012)

When not on default multiplier, the multiplier is reported wrongly, and concequently freq is wrong also.
That is for a Q6700.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Mar 11, 2012)

OK, how are you checking cpu frequency? What is reporting?


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 11, 2012)

Give us more information please, your post is rather vague. Maybe what you're trying to do, what you're using for monitoring, and what you're build specs are (might want to add that to your profile.)


----------



## abax2000 (Mar 11, 2012)

CPU-Z reports 6x320=1921
RealTemp reports 9.3x320=2976


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 11, 2012)

abax2000 said:


> CPU-Z reports 6x320=1921
> RealTemp reports 9.3x320=2976



Do you have SpeedStep enabled? If you go into Power Options in Windows and set it to "Performance" do you notice it cranks up to 2.976ghz and when you set it back to balanced it goes to 1.921ghz? It is very possible that your computer is throttling your CPU clock because that is what Intel does to save power when the CPU is idling. A good example is how my 3820 is at 1.5ghz when it is idling and when I put it under load it goes up to 4.75ghz.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 11, 2012)

Yep, speedstep.  Put some load on the CPU, use Prime95 or something, and the speed in CPU-z should be correct.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 12, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> Yep, speedstep.  Put some load on the CPU, use Prime95 or something, and the speed in CPU-z should be correct.



Do I hear an echo?


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 12, 2012)

EchoEchoEchoEchoEchoEchoEcho


----------



## burebista (Mar 12, 2012)

abax2000 said:


> CPU-Z reports 6x320=1921
> RealTemp reports 9.3x320=2976


Maybe it's about the quote below from this post?


			
				CPU-Z said:
			
		

> Of course I admit that CPU-Z is not accurate anymore at idle on latest Intel generations, that is why TMonitor was developped.


----------



## abax2000 (Mar 12, 2012)

1. SpeedStep is in use, so multi fluctuates 6-10 (quite normal)
2. CPU-Z is reporting just fine.
3. I was expecting that RealTemp could also report correctly.


----------



## burebista (Mar 12, 2012)

All I can say is that RealTemp is reporting correctly.


----------



## abax2000 (Mar 12, 2012)

All I can see is that 9.3 multi is certainly not correct.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 13, 2012)

You are correct.  Your multiplier is being reported incorrectly when your CPU is lightly loaded but the problem isn't with RealTemp.  CPU-Z has been designed for MHz validation purposes and the programmer has chosen consistency over accuracy when lightly loaded.  The multiplier of a CPU can be changing 100 times a second when lightly loaded which most users are not interested in seeing.  It looks a lot nicer to report a steady 6 multiplier even if the real multiplier is bouncing up and down all over the place.

RealTemp does things differently.  It uses high performance timers within the CPU and follows the monitoring method recommended by the manufacturer, Intel.  RealTemp tells it exactly like it is.  The multiplier it reports is an extremely accurate average of the multipliers your CPU has used during the last second.  If RealTemp is not reporting a nice and steady 6.0 multiplier then I can guarantee you that your multiplier has not been sitting nice and steady at 6.0.  When a CPU is lightly loaded, CPU-Z can be completely misleading.

You didn't bother mentioning what operating system you are using.  If you are using Windows Vista or Windows 7, the Minimum processor state value controls what multiplier your CPU will idle at.  Whether you have C1E checked off in RealTemp also controls what multiplier your CPU will be using when idle.  







Try playing around with the Minimum processor state.  If you want your CPU to idle down more when lightly loaded then try using a value of 5% instead of 100%.

If you are still using XP then this works a little differently.  If you want your CPU to truly idle down then you will have to go into the Power Options - Power Schemes tab and select Portable/Laptop.  If you don't want it to idle down then you need to use the Home/Office Desk setting.



> 2. CPU-Z is reporting just fine.



If you want to take charge of your CPU and learn a little more how these things really work then check out my other program called,

*ThrottleStop 4.00*
http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/2090/ThrottleStop_4.00.html

If you start playing around with ThrottleStop you will soon realize that CPU-Z may be the most used monitoring application in the world but being popular has nothing to do with being accurate, especially when a CPU is lightly loaded.

When a Core 2 Quad is truly using the 6 multiplier, RealTemp has no problem at all reporting that. 






And when the CPU is not idle, CPU-Z continues to report the same thing.






One of these programs isn't being 100% honest.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 14, 2012)

Same thing when you put 100% load on your CPU?


----------



## abax2000 (Mar 14, 2012)

It's Windows7 (32bit).
Now, that's an enlightening answer. Thank you.

Interesting question by Aquinus.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 14, 2012)

abax2000 said:


> It's Windows7 (32bit).
> Now, that's an enlightening answer. Thank you.
> 
> Interesting question by Aquinus.



SpeedStep could just still be active, regardless of power options. I've never found CPU-Z to be inaccurate on any of my machines I've owned in the past, including a C2D system. I just noticed how both sets of pictures both have <10% load on the CPU which wouldn't normally kick off a higher power state.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 14, 2012)

CPU-Z over simplifies things.  It seems to be designed so that it reports the default multiplier or the lowest multiplier and not much in between.  At full load both programs agree but when the CPU is not fully loaded, depending on how you have your C States and Minimum processor state set up, the multiplier can be bouncing up and down very rapidly.  CPU-Z chooses to ignore this while RealTemp reports a very accurate average of what the multiplier is really doing.  ThrottleStop can report the multiplier of each core or thread in the case of hyper threaded Core i processors and does a better job of telling the whole story.



> I've never found CPU-Z to be inaccurate on any of my machines I've owned in the past, including a C2D system.



Everyone assumes that CPU-Z is always correct because they have nothing to compare it too.


----------



## Aquinus (Mar 14, 2012)

unclewebb said:


> CPU-Z over simplifies things.  It seems to be designed so that it reports the default multiplier or the lowest multiplier and not much in between.  At full load both programs agree but when the CPU is not fully loaded, depending on how you have your C States and Minimum processor state set up, the multiplier can be bouncing up and down very rapidly.  CPU-Z chooses to ignore this while RealTemp reports a very accurate average of what the multiplier is really doing.  ThrottleStop can report the multiplier of each core or thread in the case of hyper threaded Core i processors and does a better job of telling the whole story.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone assumes that CPU-Z is always correct because they have nothing to compare it too.



I trust CPU-Z when i compare it to my BIOS, and I don't call a Core 2 Duo an i-series Intel chip. What you're saying is not correct and I found that even with my old Core 2 Duo and Phenom II 940, it properly reports clock speeds, bus speeds, and multipliers, in both lower power and performance conditions.

I'm not saying that it isn't working properly, it very well might not be. I'm just saying that I personally haven't noticed inconsistances with custom built machines I've used it on. Now checking it under load is a perfectly valid question and doesn't take that long to test. So instead of barking at me for asking a question and throwing in my 6-sense, maybe should should check it, verify that it doesn't change and then say that. I'm just trying to help, and honestly, wouldn't your opinion be sort of biased since you're the "Author of RealTemp"?

Don't bash CPU-Z and say it doesn't do the same things just because it doesn't work with one platform.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 14, 2012)

> Originally Posted by cpuz
> Of course I admit that CPU-Z is not accurate anymore at idle on latest Intel generations, that is why TMonitor was developped.



That is a direct quote from the programmer of CPU-Z.  No one is barking or bashing anyone.  CPU-Z is a great utility but users need to understand that it has been designed as a MHz validation tool so what it shows you when lightly loaded may not be an accurate representation of what multiplier your CPU is using.

At full load, CPU-Z rounds things off to the nearest whole number so it can also be one step behind RealTemp such as in this example posted by rge at XtremeSystems.






abax2000 had some valid questions and I wanted to try and convince him that he can trust what RealTemp is telling him, whether he has a Core 2 or Core i processor.  Hopefully he can post some of his own results after he plays with the Minimum processor state setting.  I will try to post another Core 2 comparison later today when I have more time.


----------



## mudkip (Mar 14, 2012)

Yeah, CPU-z always shows that my Multiplier is 18, because I set the multiplier at 18x in BIOS while having turned EIST and C1E on. Realtemp shows my real multiplier.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Mar 14, 2012)

Just for comparison, here is what it does on my 2600K. CPUz shows it go to idle multi but realtemp fluctuates from 40-43 multi randomly.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 14, 2012)

brandonwh64: If you download ThrottleStop and use it to truly lock your multiplier at 16, you might see RealTemp report 16.  It would be interesting to see if there is any difference in idle power consumption.

ThrottleStop 4.00
http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/2090/ThrottleStop_4.00.html


----------



## NanoTechSoldier (Mar 14, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> Yep, speedstep.  Put some load on the CPU, use Prime95 or something, and the speed in CPU-z should be correct.



I wouldn't recommend, using any burn-in test... Unless, you want to wear out the capacitors on your motherboard & increase the amperage, that the entire system uses... 

The CPU, GC & MB, will use more Wattage etc.. Unreversible & Shortens the life, of all your components...

SpeedStep, will down clock your voltages and multiplier whenever your computer is idle (low load) or not in use.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 14, 2012)

To set up ThrottleStop when testing you need to check off the Set Multiplier box and set that to the appropriate multiplier and you need to click on the Turn On button.  It might help solve some of the multiplier confusion.

NanoTechSoldier: If a computer can not run Prime95 for 30 seconds then there is something seriously wrong with it.  If it shortens the life during a 30 second stress test then you need to upgrade your computer anyway.


----------



## NanoTechSoldier (Mar 14, 2012)

unclewebb said:


> To set up ThrottleStop when testing you need to check off the Set Multiplier box and set that to the appropriate multiplier and you need to click on the Turn On button.  It might help solve some of the multiplier confusion.
> 
> NanoTechSoldier: If a computer can not run Prime95 for 30 seconds then there is something seriously wrong with it.  If it shortens the life during a 30 second stress test then you need to upgrade your computer anyway.



Well, Capacitors, shorten in life, within a split second of full load & Can't control the Power on the MB As well... 

So much you know about electrotechnology..  

It Clutters your registry too.. Try & clean that up.. I Bet You'll Say; "I'll Use A RegClean" LOL..  

The BIOS Chip, Also Gets A Beating Too within 30 seconds.. Using SpeedStep etc..

The minimum Burn-In test, normally is for 15mins-3hours etc.. 

30 Seconds Tests Nothing Of The CPU & Is Actually bad for It.. If The Instruction Sets, Aren't Finished Processing & You Quit Program & Full Load etc..


----------



## Bambooz (Mar 14, 2012)

NanoTechSoldier said:


> I wouldn't recommend, using any burn-in test... Unless, you want to wear out the capacitors on your motherboard & increase the amperage, that the entire system uses...
> 
> The CPU, GC & MB, will use more Wattage etc.. Unreversible & Shortens the life, of all your components...


Trolling much?! Wearing out capacitors!?! What bush did you come from all of a sudden?
Capacitor wear... well.. you can start talking about that in about 10 years time, considering pretty much all halfway decent boards use solid polymer capacitors in the CPU VRM (and elsewhere).
And "more wattage".. come on.. as long as you don't go berserk with the VCore, that ain't gonna hurt anything, unless it's a cheapo board like Asrock or ECS, in which case you'd deserve it frying the VRM on you. Any decent board will have a well overspec'd VRM area.

edit:


NanoTechSoldier said:


> It Clutters your registry too.. Try & clean that up.. I Bet You'll Say; "I'll Use A RegClean" LOL..


portable programs cluttering your registry?


NanoTechSoldier said:


> The BIOS Chip, Also Gets A Beating Too within 30 seconds.. Using SpeedStep etc..


The BIOS Chip isn't being written to (ever) unless you flash the BIOS. All settings are stored in CMOS memory, which is volatile anyways (hence the need for a battery and 5VSB)


NanoTechSoldier said:


> The minimum Burn-In test, normally is for 15mins-3hours etc..
> 30 Seconds Tests Nothing Of The CPU & Is Actually bad for It.. If The Instruction Sets, Aren't Finished Processing & You Quit Program & Full Load etc..


That doesn't even make sense. He suggested using prime95 to load up the CPU *to see if the multiplier in CPU-Z is changing*, nothing else.

Troll.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 14, 2012)

Here's an interesting screen shot while the CPU is fully loaded running two separate instances of CPU-Z.







What should I believe?  

To be honest, they are both correct.  I have set each instance of CPU-Z to read a separate die within the CPU.  With the Core 2 Quad you can run each half of your Quad at a different multiplier and frequency so one half of this CPU is running with the 11 multi while the other side is running with the 6 multi even though all 4 cores are fully loaded at 100%.

This is far from an everyday occurrence but it does demonstrate that a processor can do some funny things internally that a single instance of CPU-Z might overlook.

Here's an example using a Core i processor.






CPU-Z reporting the 24 multiplier for this CPU does not accurately reflect the speed that this CPU is running at.  Both ThrottleStop and RealTemp use the same code and both follow the same Intel recommended monitoring method.  They may not always agree with CPU-Z but I stopped worrying about that a long time ago.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 15, 2012)

Here's another example of what CPU-Z doesn't tell you on the newer Core i CPUs.






This CPU is fully loaded.  If you look at CPU-Z and trust that, you would be convinced that the multiplier is holding steady at 25 and everything is great.  No problems.

Now have a look at what ThrottleStop shows.  All 8 threads of this CPU are reporting that they are throttling, likely due to power consumption.  The core temperatures are high but they haven't reached the thermal throttling point yet.  The C0% across all 8 threads is not able to maintain the full 100.0% so that is another sign that this CPU is doing some throttling.

If the monitoring method that ThrottleStop and RealTemp uses was something I made up off the top of my head, I could understand why people would be afraid to trust it but that's not the case.  The method that I use comes directly from Intel.  When Intel releases a white paper for developers that goes into detail about the proper way to determine the multiplier, I tend to believe them because I think they know what they are talking about.  The results speak for themselves.

Edit: And here's an example from a Core 2 Duo mobile CPU.






ThrottleStop is being used to lock this CPU into SLFM mode.  SLFM stands for Super Low Frequency Mode and was a feature of these Core 2 CPUs.  When a CPU enters SLFM mode, the bus speed gets cut in half and these CPUs set the multiplier to 8.0 so you end up with your CPU running at approximately 8.0 x 100 MHz = 800 MHz.  The VID voltage also drops below 1.0 volts to its lowest value.

Many Dell laptops used a bus speed of 199.44 MHz so half of that is 99.72 MHz.  ThrottleStop gets that right, a reported multiplier of 7.99 is about as close to 8.00 as you can get and it also reports the VID correctly at 0.85V.  CPU-Z doesn't get any of those values right and reports a VID voltage of 1.175 which is impossible when a Core 2 mobile CPU is locked in SLFM mode.


----------



## unclewebb (Mar 18, 2012)

I decided to run a couple of wPrime benchmarks and before each benchmark I decided to also get a CPU-Z Validation so I would have a record of how fast my CPU was performing.  

Here is the official CPU-Z Validation as well as the benchmark results.
Average time to complete wPrime 32M was 11.256 seconds.

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2300535







Here is another example with the same CPU.

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2300557






Average time to complete wPrime 32M was 72.862 seconds.


Based on what CPU-Z is telling me, my QX9650 is running at the exact same speed in both examples.  In the second example it is taking more than 6 times as long to complete the wPrime 32M benchmark.  Why is my QX9650 running like such a slug?  CPU-Z is telling me that there is absolutely nothing wrong with my CPU and in both examples it is running at the same speed.  I even have an official CPU-Z Validation which proves my CPU is running at full speed.

In the above example, the CPU-Z Validation is meaningless.  At over 72 seconds for a wPrime 32M run, it is obvious that this CPU is being throttled to death and is running internally at a fraction of its rated speed.  If you have a look at RealTemp, it correctly shows that Clock Modulation throttling is set to 12.5% and the C0% based Load number is also nowhere near 100% which confirms that this fully loaded CPU is not running at anywhere near its rated speed.  RealTemp tells you when your CPU is being severely throttled.  CPU-Z chooses to ignore this problem.

The end result is that many of the major laptop manufacturers like Asus, Dell, Lenovo and HP have been able to get away with significantly throttling their Intel laptop processors for years because based on CPU-Z data, most consumers are completely unaware of CPU throttling and how that can kill CPU performance.


----------

