# i5 6500 3.6GHz on 4 cores?



## P4-630 (Sep 4, 2016)

I was trying to find out if I can set the turbo to 3.6GHz on all 4 cores.
Found a thread here about another guy asking this http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/answers/id-2889072/questions-core-6500-build-sli-turbo-boost.html but he didn't get his answer.

If I have these options in my BIOS, can I just set all cores to 36 and thats it?
Or would it not work?
My max load temps @ stock speed is never above 50C.

Not my screenshot btw:


----------



## INSTG8R (Sep 4, 2016)

I just use the "All Cores" setting in my BIOS. I will admit I have never actually checked if it's working in that way.


----------



## P4-630 (Sep 4, 2016)

INSTG8R said:


> I just use the "All Cores" setting in my BIOS. I will admit I have never actually checked if it's working in that way.



Ok I will check these settings, but does this apply to non K CPU's?


----------



## INSTG8R (Sep 4, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> Ok I will check these settings, but does this apply to non K CPU's?


I just checked my BIOS it was called "Sync All Cores" I'll be honest I would expect it work regardless it's just for the Turbo afterall. I mean I am not OC'ing my 4970K at all just using that "tweak" so I get my 4.4 Turbo on all cores.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 4, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> Ok I will check these settings, but does this apply to non K CPU's?



Yes, with a locked CPU, you should be able to do that.  It just wont' let you go over a multiplier to 36.  But you should be able to set it so that turbo boost goes up to 36 with all 4 cores loaded, unlike with just one loaded like the default turbo settings.


----------



## P4-630 (Sep 4, 2016)

After some searching in my BIOS I found it, 
did some benchmarking and for some reason it still runs at 3.27GHz in the taskmanager when I run 3d mark firestrike. (a small bclk OC because of my XMP profile)

Also ran valley and in the end it was reporting i5 6500 3192MHz. 

Did I miss something?
In the BIOS?


----------



## GreiverBlade (Sep 4, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> After some searching in my BIOS I found it,
> did some benchmarking and for some reason it still runs at 3.27GHz in the taskmanager when I run 3d mark firestrike. (a small bclk OC because of my XMP profile)
> 
> Also ran valley and in the end it was reporting i5 6500 3192MHz.
> ...


unigines benchies never report the right clock


https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/gtx1070-gtx1080-owners-club.223660/page-11#post-3516707
i told you ... it report stock speed (3.5) and i run it at 4.4 (setting in bios and reading in CPU-Z )

and taskmanager also is not precise ... 4.31 TM reading 4.4 CPU-Z and HWInfo64 reading


----------



## biffzinker (Sep 4, 2016)

I thought I remember reading in a news blurb about Intel was locking down that form of overclocking on the Skylake non-K chips. I might be wrong though.

Edit: Sounds like the Xeon 1240 V2 I tried the same on (force turbo on all cores) didn't budge for me it's locked down other than small 7 MHz bump to bclock.


----------



## Kursah (Sep 4, 2016)

I've been doing this very action on almost every CPU I've deployed since the 2000 series. Very rarely do I come across a board I build with that doesn't have a sync core/link for max multiplier. For a little extra and free performance boost its absolutely worth it.

Use OCCT, HWMonitor, Open Hardware Monitor or Intel XTU or AIDA to verify clocks and even for testing if you need.

Maybe there's something else going on if those programs fail to show the clocks...could be a reporting or UEFI issue. I would consider updating to latest stable UEFI release and/or clearing CMOS. 

I haven't ran across an issue where this feature didn't work...but it could be likely different CPUs are set to respond differently to it. I'm curious of your results as you keep testing.


----------



## P4-630 (Sep 4, 2016)

biffzinker said:


> I thought I remember reading in a news blurb about Intel was locking down that form of overclocking on the Skylake non-K chips. I might be wrong though.
> 
> Edit: Sounds like the Xeon 1240 V2 I tried the same on (force turbo on all cores) didn't budge for me it's locked down other than small 7 MHz bump to bclock.



I have an older bios which still allows bclk overclocking.
Ok it's not about that, I have it set to 36 "per core" now to see if it makes any difference.

If the taskmanager cpu speeds are incorrect I have no way of knowing how fast it runs.

Just leave it as is I guess, per core 36 at all cores.


----------



## P4-630 (Sep 4, 2016)

Kursah said:


> I've been doing this very action on almost every CPU I've deployed since the 2000 series. Very rarely do I come across a board I build with that doesn't have a sync core/link for max multiplier. For a little extra and free performance boost its absolutely worth it.
> 
> Use OCCT, HWMonitor, Open Hardware Monitor or Intel XTU or AIDA to verify clocks and even for testing if you need.
> 
> ...







Ok a quick CPU stresstest results in 3374MHz on all cores, ok, faster then 3.27 but also no 3.6GHz...

Just read this on intel site:

"_Due to varying power characteristics, some parts with Intel® Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 may not achieve maximum turbo frequencies when running heavy workloads and using multiple cores concurrently.

Availability and frequency upside of Intel® Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 state depends upon a number of factors including, but not limited to, the following:
_

_Type of workload_
_Number of active cores_
_Estimated current consumption_
_Estimated power consumption_
_Processor temperature_"
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us...ology/turbo-boost/turbo-boost-technology.html

My temperatures are fine though, core temps staying below 50c under load.


----------



## P4-630 (Sep 4, 2016)

Also tried Asus multicore enhancement to disabled, did not make a difference either, it's probably the Intel:

_Availability and frequency upside of Intel® Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 state depends upon a number of factors including, but not limited to, the following:_


_Type of workload_
_Number of active cores_
_Estimated current consumption_
_Estimated power consumption_
My locked chip may not run faster with all cores at 36 because otherwise it's power usage will be over 65Watts?


----------



## INSTG8R (Sep 4, 2016)

Yeah that is the same setting I am using on mine but I always see "close" to my 4.4. I was running 3Dmark earlier as I just unlocked all the shaders on my Fury and it was saying 4.4398..I also use AIDA with my G19s so I have my clocks on my LCD all the time too. I will make a quick new page on it and have my core clocks on it and see for sure.

Edit: Yeah mine is definitely Turbo on all cores 4.4


----------



## tabascosauz (Sep 4, 2016)

INSTG8R said:


> Yeah that is the same setting I am using on mine but I always see "close" to my 4.4. I was running 3Dmark earlier as I just unlocked all the shaders on my Fury and it was saying 4.4398..I also use AIDA with my G19s so I have my clocks on my LCD all the time too. I will make a quick new page on it and have my core clocks on it and see for sure.
> 
> Edit: Yeah mine is definitely Turbo on all cores 4.4



That's because it's a 4790K. If paired with a capable board it can theoretically go to any multiplier it wants. This is not the case with the i5-6500.

@P4-630  As far as I know, "multi-core enhancement" was originally designed to allow *Sandy Bridge / Ivy Bridge* parts *with Turbo Boost* to reach a somewhat higher multiplier than their turbo tables suggested. This was known as "partially unlocked" and did not apply to i3s because they didn't have boost, but applied to *traditionally locked i5s and i7s without -K nomenclature*. Intel even had slides advertising this feature:






When Haswell came along, Intel took the feature away. Any family that is Haswell or later does not support the same thing. There was surely a lot of talk of MCE allowing later locked CPUs to reach their specified 1-core Turbo speed with all 4 cores, but it's not officially supported. Nowadays I'm sure MCE only refers to overclocking -K parts on H- chipsets.

For every Intel CPU now that does not have an unlocked multiplier, one can only try BCLK. But now that Intel has supposedly locked that down too, I'm not sure if deviating from the turbo table is possible anymore.

TL;DR *Turbo Table is the law for locked SKUs*. here is the relevant turbo table for Skylake i5s:





If you don't have a i5-6600K, you don't get to deviate from the spec.


Just a kind reminder of how far Intel has fallen in the absence of competition from AMD. It used to be in the Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge era that you could save money buy going Xeon E3, but you pay for it by not enjoying the same Partial Unlock as i5s and i7s because E3s were fully locked. Now, none of these SKUs can go past their rated 4-core turbo speed, and you can't even buy E3s for 10-series chipset boards.


----------



## biffzinker (Sep 4, 2016)

There it is ^. Thanks for the post tabascosauz

It's like having a locked Xeon with a different name now.


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 5, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> If the taskmanager cpu speeds are incorrect I have no way of knowing how fast it runs.



Use CPU-Z.  Though it seems moot, as tabascosauz pointed out.


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 3, 2016)

Idle it runs at the expected speed:


 

At load getting these clocks, so it's probably as @tabascosauz posted, 3.3 is max on for all 4 cores


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 3, 2016)

You have this going on in two threads now?????? Come on man!!!!!!!!!


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 3, 2016)

Question about "Multi core enhancement", should I disable or enable this?



EarthDog said:


> You have this going on in two threads now?????? Come on man!!!!!!!!!



Forgot about this thread...  Found it again!


----------



## biffzinker (Oct 3, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> You have this going on in two threads now?????? Come on man!!!!!!!!!


Well can't blame him myself since I thought the same for a Ivy Bridge Xeon. I misunderstood I would be allowed to force Turbo over all cores when in fact no. I found it interfered with the multiplier steps for a three core, and 2 core load when I tried forcing it to Turbo.


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 3, 2016)

Question about "Multi core enhancement", should I disable or enable this?

I have it currently disabled.


----------



## biffzinker (Oct 3, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> Question about "Multi core enhancement", should I disable or enable this?
> 
> I have it currently disabled.


You can give it shot but I doubt your going to have a better chance with it on, pretty sure I tried that, and still no luck getting turbo on all 4.

Edit: That's the main reason I bought the i7-4790K, and passed the Xeon 1240 V2 to my brother.


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 3, 2016)

biffzinker said:


> You can give it shot but I doubt your going to have a better chance with it on, pretty sure I tried that, and still no luck getting turbo on all 4.



No it had no effect on getting the full speed on all 4 cores, the speed stays at 3375MHz enabled or disabled.

But should I enable this for some other reason?


----------



## biffzinker (Oct 3, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> No it had no effect on getting the full speed on all 4 cores, the speed stays at 3375MHz enabled or disabled.
> 
> But should I enable this for some other reason?


If the UEFI gives you the separate option to turn on XMP (which I'm sure it does) then I would just leave it disabled, your not missing anything else.



> Multi core enhancement basically puts the highest turbo multiplier on all cores under load. Let's say you have a 3770k. The base frequency is 3.5ghz. Under normal circumstances, it will be at 3.9ghz if one or two cores are being stressed, 3.8ghz if 3 cores and being stressed, or 3.7ghz if all 4 are under stress. If you enable multi core enhancement, it automatically puts the turbo multiplier to 39 under any load situation, regardless of how many cores are being utilized. http://www.overclock.net/t/1308469/multi-core-enhancement-enabled-or-disabled


----------



## biffzinker (Oct 3, 2016)

I even tried messing with Throttlestop at the time, and multipliers still wouldn't budge.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Oct 3, 2016)

Disable Turbo and just OC bro


----------



## biffzinker (Oct 3, 2016)

Durvelle27 said:


> Disable Turbo and just OC bro


If he does overclock he'll lose AVX/AVX2, all power management, and the ability to read on die core temperatures (I believe the Cores get locked to the C0 state as well.)


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 3, 2016)

Durvelle27 said:


> Disable Turbo and just OC bro



I have thought about that too,I should be able to with the BIOS I'm using.

I might try that someday, till now everything is fine with gaming, noticed no bottlenecks yet.
It's just that the memory speeds XMP profile and the cpu voltage need to change and have no experience with that (yet) on this system.


----------



## Durvelle27 (Oct 3, 2016)

biffzinker said:


> If he does overclock he'll lose AVX/AVX2, all power management, and the ability to read on die core temperatures (I believe the Cores get locked to the C0 state as well.)


I don't see the cons


----------



## biffzinker (Oct 3, 2016)

Durvelle27 said:


> I don't see the cons


This guy again?  What if @P4-630 doesn't want power management disabled or he does run a executable with support for AVX or even the boost AVX2 (Integer Units) gets you?


----------



## Kanan (Oct 3, 2016)

No avx is bad. Even games start to use it now. Must be the last stand to overclock the cpu, the losses make it unprofitable.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 4, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> I have thought about that too,I should be able to with the BIOS I'm using.
> 
> I might try that someday, till now everything is fine with gaming, noticed no bottlenecks yet.
> It's just that the memory speeds XMP profile and the cpu voltage need to change and have no experience with that (yet) on this system.



Xmp is automatic in 90% of cases. Enable it. Lower voltages until you are not stable. The game hasn't changed much honestly.


biffzinker said:


> If he does overclock he'll lose AVX/AVX2, all power management, and the ability to read on die core temperatures (I believe the Cores get locked to the C0 state as well.)


Why would you lose AVX instructions when overclocking? Lose temperature readings?

I know you lose c states and hyperthreading, but, you don't have a HT chip and you are overclocking so c states shouldn't matter. I've never heard of losing avx instruction sets though. Last I recall it was something about the avx instructions running 128bit vs 256bit because it loses the power management. It is slower, but it's still processing the instructions.

Edit: Reference - http://hwbot.org/newsflash/3307_non...ated_to_256_bit_vector_warm_up_(hardware.fr)/


----------



## biffzinker (Oct 4, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> I've never heard of losing avx instruction sets though.


Ask the people that are/were overclocking locked Skylake.
*Non-K Skylake Overclocking Hurts AVX2 Performance, Problem Related to "256-bit Vector Warm-up"*



			
				massman comment @ HWBOT said:
			
		

> On Skylake, the BCLK frequency is artificially limited for non-K processors using the PCU. Simply put: if the PCU detects >103 BCLK, it shuts down the processor. The way the BCLK is 'unlocked' for the non-K Skylake processors is by disabling the entire PCU in the CPU. This way there is no BCLK detection and thus no logic to shut down the CPU if you're over 103 MHz.
> 
> Disabling the PCU causes all the side-effects listed by the motherboard vendors: no IGP, no power management and poor AVX performance. What the Hardware.fr article now explains is why the AVX performance is so poor. In order to enable the upper 256-bit address for AVX2, the PCU needs to 1) detect the instructions and 2) enable higher power consumption mode. Because the PCU is disabled, it cannot accommodate for the AVX2 instructions.
> 
> The AVX performance for non-K processors is not artificially limited by Intel. It's a side-effect of disabling the PCU to enable non-K overclocking.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 4, 2016)

That's what I just linked. It's still using avx. Just a lot slower. Sorry, a stickler for literal terms I suppose, lol!

I also bench those chips through hwbot.


----------

