# Disabling CPU EIST impact ??



## finndrummer (Jul 1, 2010)

what will be the impact of disabling this feature as my system can only work stable 100% if i disable it.
am talking about the impact on power consumption and cpu life at the long run.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jul 1, 2010)

finndrummer said:


> what will be the impact of disabling this feature as my system can only work stable 100% if i disable it.
> am talking about the impact on power consumption and cpu life at the long run.



Well to be honest when I have had intel CPU's I always disabled it, as long as your not putting crazy volts through it then you need not worry about the lifespan, also with regards to power consumption it will use more when disabled but to be honest your cpu will probably not be running at 100% load constantly anyway (in which case eist would disable anyway) so the power consumption wont be that dramatic. My oc is 24/7 no power saving features, though a lot of the time I am just browsing and listening to music so its not like its using up tons of electricity as it is.


----------



## Scheich (Jul 1, 2010)

Your Psu is wasting close to 150 W (20%) and you are thinking about savings.. Intels power saving only works somehow if the  pc is completly idle (i think), even then its pretty small and of course it will crash any overclocking.


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Jul 1, 2010)

Scheich said:


> Your Psu is wasting close to 150 W (20%) and you are thinking about savings.. Intels power saving only works somehow if the  pc is completly idle (i think), even then its pretty small and *of course it will crash any overclocking*.



not true all the time. I run my i7 with EIST ON and am overclocked to 3.9ghz@1.26v when idle it drops the speed down to 1.6ghz and voltage to 1.1(IIRC) and have yet to have a problem.

In terms of diabling it most people do it because of overclocking and it doesn't really have any harmful effects on anything other then heat output and power consumption maybe alittle higher  but only a small amount.


----------



## finndrummer (Jul 1, 2010)

Scheich said:


> Your Psu is wasting close to 150 W (20%) and you are thinking about savings.. Intels power saving only works somehow if the  pc is completly idle (i think), even then its pretty small and of course it will crash any overclocking.


don't know which 150 W you are talking about.

am running at stock speeds and with eist off my multiplier hits always it's max "x24" which is normally the one when one or two cores are active. is it safe to run it like this all the time ?


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Jul 2, 2010)

finndrummer said:


> don't know which 150 W you are talking about.
> 
> am running at stock speeds and with eist off my multiplier hits always it's max "x24" which is normally the one when one or two cores are active. is it safe to run it like this all the time ?



Simple answer is yes.
Its not any worse on it then overclocking it or look at it like this. If it wasn't safe would Intel have let it do that? I'm sure if it would be a problem Intel wouldn't let that happen because they need to protect there rep and make all the money they can.(make less money because of RMA's if it did harm the CPU)


----------



## finndrummer (Jul 2, 2010)

thanks for the replys man, i think i will just overclock it to 3.6 and work with x20 multplier (180*20).


----------



## Mr McC (Jul 2, 2010)

finndrummer said:


> thanks for the replys man, i think i will just overclock it to 3.6 and work with x20 multplier (180*20).



Why don't you turn it off, reach a stable overclock and then try turning it on to see if things remain stable?


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Jul 2, 2010)

finndrummer said:


> thanks for the replys man, i think i will just overclock it to 3.6 and work with x20 multplier (180*20).



good luck. Just a word of advice. I have often read of people having better luck using odd multipliers  like 17,19,21,23,etc i haven't had problems using any multiplier i wanted so maybe it was just for older BIOS that had the problem


----------



## finndrummer (Jul 2, 2010)

just to have higher bclk.


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Jul 2, 2010)

finndrummer said:


> just to have higher bclk.



From what i have found there isn't much benefits other then slightly higher RAM performance because of the bclk and QPI link.

Wow this stuff can get confusing.I was doing this -> when i took a look at the BIOS and first started learning how to overclock this architecture way confusing when coming from AMD's AII (PII) that was basicly the same as the PI and the PI was only alittle different then the Athlon's. sorry for the rant


----------



## finndrummer (Jul 2, 2010)

me too, it was confusing the first time and really actually i just know the basic settings and i use a light overclock. i just let the options to "auto" but the inconvenient is they put high voltages in this case.


Mr McC said:


> Why don't you turn it off, reach a stable overclock and then try turning it on to see if things remain stable?


overclock is already stable at 3.6 but with eist on i have always some freezes problems.


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Jul 2, 2010)

finndrummer said:


> me too, it was confusing the first time and really actually i just know the basic settings and i use a light overclock. i just let the options to "auto" but the inconvenient is they put high voltages in this case.
> 
> overclock is already stable at 3.6 but with eist on i have always some freezes problems.



It has been said to never leave voltage's on auto and to set them yourself. Try setting them to the lowest setting you can and stress test. Thats what i did because when i left things on auto i was getting high over volts on everything so i set everything myself and tested it and adjusted as needed.


----------



## INSTG8R (Jul 2, 2010)

Can't really speak for the newer sockets. But I have run this Rig with it on from pretty much Day 1 of establishing my OC: I have never had any issues. My clocks and volts drop no problem. Heck I watch it flip back and forth all the time while gaming on my G15 LCD thru Everest.


----------



## MohawkAngel (Jul 2, 2010)

Don't know but for AMD its called Cool'N'Quiet that adjust in the bios . We also have a program called Asus EPU-4 that slow down everythign else like hdd, fans,optical when not used. That spawn longer life and save lot of energy.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jul 2, 2010)

Assuming that the theory of Turbo is the same on an i5 as it is on an i7, disabling EIST will obviously disable Turbo, much of the power saving measures in the Bios are linked to Windows Power saving modes, on the i7 of course, to enable Turbo you must have EIST enabled in Bios and "Performance" set in Windows.  Some applications perform better with turbo enabled so 3.6 gig with a 20x multi will run some things slightly slower than 3.6gig using a 21x multi, even though the BClock is higher with 20x, often the multiplier > Clock theory is the reverse of what we knew of in S775.


----------



## Sasqui (Jul 2, 2010)

This is a good thread!

Didn't know this, but the latest EIST version varies both the frequency (via multiplier I assume?) and the VOLTAGE:

" V3.1 (EIST) is used with the first and second generation of Pentium M processors (Banias and Dothan cores, used in Centrino platforms). With this technology, the CPU varies its frequency (and voltage) between about 40% and 100% of its base frequency in increments of 100 MHz (for Banias core) or 133 MHz (for Dothan core). With this technology, Intel also introduces realtime Level 2 cache capacity variation, further improving power savings. "

(A little dated from Wiki).  No doubt if EIST is lowering the voltage on your rig, it's hitting a point of instability.  Too bad you can't control one or the other.

To answer your question, of course you are going to use more power.  The only way to tell how much is get a wall meter like a Kill-A-Watt.

Lifespan?  That's a loaded question with many opinions.  Most of all, keep your CPU at decent temps, even under load, and you'll probably run it for a long as it takes you to upgrade to the next best thing.


----------



## finndrummer (Jul 2, 2010)

Tatty_One said:


> Assuming that the theory of Turbo is the same on an i5 as it is on an i7, disabling EIST will obviously disable Turbo, much of the power saving measures in the Bios are linked to Windows Power saving modes, on the i7 of course, to enable Turbo you must have EIST enabled in Bios and "Performance" set in Windows.  Some applications perform better with turbo enabled so 3.6 gig with a 20x multi will run some things slightly slower than 3.6gig using a 21x multi, even though the BClock is higher with 20x, often the multiplier > Clock theory is the reverse of what we knew of in S775.


yeah disabling EIST disables also turbo boost. the turbo boost works well with "balanced", when you choose "performance" it"s like you disable EIST and the cpu runs always at his max. and about the applications 3.6Ghz with 21x turboboost will give 4Ghz at full turbo speed so this will need some voltages modifications as it will not be stable.
for me 20x 3.6Ghz runs quicker then reference and give a super boost in games and without boosting the voltages and i just use my pc for gaming/surfing on net i don't care about applications. i have see from reviews that the number of applications that can run slower is small and include some light applications like winzip/winrar cause they can't use many cores simultaneously. 



Sasqui said:


> This is a good thread!
> To answer your question, of course you are going to use more power.  The only way to tell how much is get a wall meter like a Kill-A-Watt.


thanks
the sensors on everest/hwinfo32 don't give the correct cpu consumption ?


----------



## Sasqui (Jul 3, 2010)

finndrummer said:


> thanks  the sensors on everest/hwinfo32 don't give the correct cpu consumption ?



Those are based on board sensors and may be close.  Think of "brake horsepower", believe what you see at the wall plug.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jul 3, 2010)

finndrummer said:


> yeah disabling EIST disables also turbo boost. the turbo boost works well with "balanced", when you choose "performance" it"s like you disable EIST and the cpu runs always at his max. and about the applications 3.6Ghz with 21x turboboost will give 4Ghz at full turbo speed so this will need some voltages modifications as it will not be stable.
> for me 20x 3.6Ghz runs quicker then reference and give a super boost in games and without boosting the voltages and i just use my pc for gaming/surfing on net i don't care about applications. i have see from reviews that the number of applications that can run slower is small and include some light applications like winzip/winrar cause they can't use many cores simultaneously.



Take a look at this......

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/ci7-turbo-ht-p1.html


----------



## somebody (Jul 3, 2010)

Tatty_One said:


> Assuming that the theory of Turbo is the same on an i5 as it is on an i7, disabling EIST will obviously disable Turbo



Disabling EIST disables EIST not Turbo. 

It's probably your BIOS that is restricting you to a single non-turbo performance state and likely doesn't disable EIST at all. Of course with only one performance state there are no other states to switch to except sleep states or, if your single performance state is turbo then you might get the benefits of running a higher turbo when some cores are idle. Depends how your set up.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jul 3, 2010)

somebody said:


> Disabling EIST disables EIST not Turbo.
> 
> It's probably your BIOS that is restricting you to a single non-turbo performance state and likely doesn't disable EIST at all. Of course with only one performance state there are no other states to switch to except sleep states or, if your single performance state is turbo then you might get the benefits of running a higher turbo when some cores are idle. Depends how your set up.



You may be right about the board/Bios, but if you are it relates to many boards then because I, and many here (with different boards) cannot acheive turbo without EIST enabled, that includes some boards from Asus, EVGA and other Gigabyte models that I know of, I was not sure if it applied to i5 though, but having done a little research, it seems that most  55 boards from Asus also require EIST enabled, I read this guys thread from Toms's, he states at the bottom he needs EIST enabled, Turbo Boost technology requires reading C states according to Intel's white paper, does EIST not therefore allow it to read the C states?  Not an expert on this however I do know that on my board (and many others) turbo will not, never, ever enable without it enabled.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/281166-10-eist-turboboost-stuck-high-speed-resuming-sleep


----------



## finndrummer (Jul 4, 2010)

Tatty_One said:


> You may be right about the board/Bios, but if you are it relates to many boards then because I, and many here (with different boards) cannot acheive turbo without EIST enabled, that includes some boards from Asus, EVGA and other Gigabyte models that I know of, I was not sure if it applied to i5 though, but having done a little research, it seems that most  55 boards from Asus also require EIST enabled, I read this guys thread from Toms's, he states at the bottom he needs EIST enabled, Turbo Boost technology requires reading C states according to Intel's white paper, does EIST not therefore allow it to read the C states?  Not an expert on this however I do know that on my board (and many others) turbo will not, never, ever enable without it enabled.
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/281166-10-eist-turboboost-stuck-high-speed-resuming-sleep



and from my experience, eist must be enabled to have turbo boost working. also when i set c states to "auto" it alters turbo boost as it will never reach the x24 multiplier so i have to set it to "on".


----------



## somebody (Jul 4, 2010)

I'm a little confused Finndrummer, in one post you say





finndrummer said:


> am running at stock speeds and with eist off my multiplier hits always it's max "x24"



in another post you say





finndrummer said:


> and from my experience, eist must be enabled to have turbo boost working.



but if your running a i5-750 then 24x is a turbo bin so turbo boost must be enabled for it to work. If you load all 4 cores with something like Linpack then I doubt you will see 24x but probably something like 21x.


Tatty_One, from what I've personally seen, which isn't that much, I can believe you when saying it works that way with many boards.

Your system specs are an i7-920. The i7-920's non-turbo ratios are 9-20, turbo bins are 21-22. What happens if you set 21 in the BIOS with EIST disabled? If you get 21 then your BIOS has enabled turbo with EIST disabled. You might not see 22x as the BIOS might cap turbo to 21 in this case. Finndrummer, you could try this also, 21x with 4 cores IINM or even just enable 2 cores and select 23x or one core and 24x. I'm not sure if they are the right maximum multi's for the 750 with 4,2 or 1 cores but something like that. They are however turbo bins.

Now I'll try not to be too confusing here, although that might be difficult , but after doing this if you run RealTemp and open the settings window you will likely see that EIST is enabled. WTF. This is because instead of really disabling EIST your BIOS is setting the multiplier then not passing any performance states to the OS so the OS should not try to change the multiplier which is effectively like disabling EIST.  

If your BIOS has not locked EIST the box will not be grayed out and you could go ahead and really disable EIST. It will not affect turbo boost but will leave the system at the last multi that was set. If you have that 21x multi running try ticking the "Disable Turbo" box in RealTemp. Then you should see your 21x turbo multi drop to a 20x non-turbo multi. Turbo really has been disabled.

Another thing you could both try is to enable the 20x multi with EIST disabled in the BIOS and then un-check "Turbo Disable" in RealTemp if it's enabled and run a single thread such as SuperPi while keeping everything else generally idle to see if that turbo pops up. 

The "i7-Turbo" application that comes with RealTemp is real good at seeing changes in your multipliers ratio.


C-States are not linked to EIST, they are driven by the OS and/or sometimes software. Turbo boost however, is linked to C-States.


IMO if your using a fixed core voltage then your probably not going to notice much difference in the power usage average with EIST enabled or disabled.


----------



## finndrummer (Jul 4, 2010)

thanks man for the nice reply/lesson , it"s the first time i use realtemp, but i have a remark, all other monitoring apllications gives me that x24 all the time whereas realtemp gives normal multipliers 9x/10x idle, 21x 4 cores and 24x two or one core, it"s like nothing is altered with eist disabled. am using 21x in the bios like you say.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jul 4, 2010)

My Bios entry is simply "Enable Intel turbo Boost", I always have it enabled, then when I go back in BIOS and disable EIST, once back into windows, I can run WPrime if I wanna work all cores, SuperPI if I wanna use just one etc etc, all with CPU-Z and realtemp open, I never get the 21x (and therefore am running slower, SuperPI confirms that)....Same exercise in reverse, back to BIOS, touch nothing apart from enabling EIST, back into Windows, same set of tests, same monitoring....... est voila!  21x.


----------



## somebody (Jul 5, 2010)

finndrummer said:


> all other monitoring apllications gives me that x24 all the time whereas realtemp gives normal multipliers 9x/10x idle, 21x 4 cores and 24x two or one core, it"s like nothing is altered with eist disabled. am using 21x in the bios like you say.


I don't know exactly why it is like that, Unclewebb would be the guy to ask, but I would guess your still using C-states so while idle your CPU cores may only be fully awake 1%-2% of the time. When switching to sleep states it may be possible some of the cores spend a little time at the LFM (9x multi). Realtemp, i7 Turbo and now Coretemp measure the average multiplier over time so if it's spending some time at the lowest frequency mode then the average will be lower than the set multi and probably will appear erratic. Other monitoring software may take a spot reading or over the time a frequency calculation is done so it isn't a true average but more like an instantaneous reading so you just get a reading for just that short moment while the cpu is generally busy. 21x for 4 cores and 24x for 1 core is turbo boost at work and is controlled by the cpu. If only one core is working and the other 3 are idle/sleeping then you will get 24x. If all 4 are working then they are limited to 21x.



Tatty_One said:


> when I go back in BIOS and disable EIST, once back into windows, I can run WPrime if I wanna work all cores, SuperPI if I wanna use just one etc etc, all with CPU-Z and realtemp open, I never get the 21x


Tatty_One, would you please post or PM a cpu-z dump while running as above so I can see what is happening, thanks.


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 5, 2010)

Disable C1E in RealTemp and have a look at the Control Panel -> Power Options -> Minimum processor state.  Both of these settings control what multiplier you are actually getting at idle.  Some monitoring programs ignore the multiplier jumping around at idle but RealTemp and i7 Turbo tell it like it is.

RealTemp 3.59.3
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip

Some motherboard bios options don't work the way you think they are working.  You might disable something in the bios but then another setting you enable turns something else on without your knowledge.  This is definitely confusing for users.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 5, 2010)

finndrummer said:


> what will be the impact of disabling this feature as my system can only work stable 100% if i disable it.
> am talking about the impact on power consumption and cpu life at the long run.



it wont effect lifespan, but it will certainly raise idle power consumption, and possibly idle temps.

EIST and C1E often change the same things, so its entirely possible disabling EIST didnt disable the multi control, but DID disable volts control.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jul 5, 2010)

somebody said:


> I don't know exactly why it is like that, Unclewebb would be the guy to ask, but I would guess your still using C-states so while idle your CPU cores may only be fully awake 1%-2% of the time. When switching to sleep states it may be possible some of the cores spend a little time at the LFM (9x multi). Realtemp, i7 Turbo and now Coretemp measure the average multiplier over time so if it's spending some time at the lowest frequency mode then the average will be lower than the set multi and probably will appear erratic. Other monitoring software may take a spot reading or over the time a frequency calculation is done so it isn't a true average but more like an instantaneous reading so you just get a reading for just that short moment while the cpu is generally busy. 21x for 4 cores and 24x for 1 core is turbo boost at work and is controlled by the cpu. If only one core is working and the other 3 are idle/sleeping then you will get 24x. If all 4 are working then they are limited to 21x.
> 
> Tatty_One, would you please post or PM a cpu-z dump while running as above so I can see what is happening, thanks.



Okey  Dokey, am at work now, will do it when I get home.


----------



## finndrummer (Jul 5, 2010)

unclewebb said:


> Disable C1E in RealTemp and have a look at the Control Panel -> Power Options -> Minimum processor state.  Both of these settings control what multiplier you are actually getting at idle.  Some monitoring programs ignore the multiplier jumping around at idle but RealTemp and i7 Turbo tell it like it is.
> 
> RealTemp 3.59.3
> http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/3/3/1794507/RealTempBeta.zip
> ...



so the realtemp values are the right values ?
another question, with eist disabled, have i to put a stable vcore instead of "auto" to have less power consumption at idle ?


----------



## sneekypeet (Jul 5, 2010)

Auto, from my experience, tends to overvolt. I would see where it sets with CPUz or a similar app, then decrease it from that point until you become unstable. Once the point of instability is reached, move the Vcore up one notch and let her rip.


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 5, 2010)

finndrummer said:


> so the realtemp values are the right values ?



In the November 2008 Turbo White Paper, Intel explains a very accurate and efficient method to determine the average multiplier during a sample period.  This method uses high performance timers within the CPU that are running at billions of cycles per second.  They can determine even the slightest change in the average multiplier.  Intel added these timers to their CPUs specifically for monitoring purposes so I started using them in 2008.  Most Core 2 CPUs also have these timers available so based on the Core i7 documentation, I was able to get this method working for Core 2 CPUs too.

Being extremely precise is not for everyone.  Some users are not interested in what's really going on inside their CPU.  They would prefer to see a steady multiplier at idle even if it is not necessarily true.  If the multiplier in my CPU is hunting up and down at idle because the C1E setting is fighting against the Minimum processor state setting then I want to know about that.  I find most enthusiasts want to know about that too once they understand that RealTemp is not just full of crap.  Get your computer set up correctly and RealTemp will be nice and steady at idle, just like other programs are.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jul 5, 2010)

somebody said:


> Tatty_One, would you please post or PM a cpu-z dump while running as above so I can see what is happening, thanks.



You were right!..... well I was as well in so much as it wouldn't play before, I played around, updated my Bios (which was the key here as I googled a number of sources where people were reporting the same) and it's now fine.  In the screenie, I have disabled only EIST, everything else remains enabled (Turbo, 21x multi..... which was greyed out when EIST was on prior to Bios update)..... Opened CPU-Z and real temp and ran Intel burn test just to put some load on the cores.........


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 5, 2010)

Tatty_One said:


> In the screenie, I have disabled only EIST, everything else remains enabled



RealTemp reads the EIST bit from within your CPU and your screen shot shows that EIST is still enabled.  As I said before, sometimes the bios can be misleading.  You think you've turned it off in the bios but some other feature like turbo boost might need EIST on so if you have turbo enabled, that automatically turns EIST on and your bios ignores that you have EIST turned off in a different part of the bios.

With those settings and C1E enabled, as soon as you go back to idle your multiplier will be jumping up and down, regardless of what CPU-Z is telling you.


----------



## somebody (Jul 6, 2010)

finndrummer, generally better savings will be had with auto vcore. If your using a fixed vcore voltage EIST probably wont do much for you as all that will be changing is the core frequency which is linear with respect to power. If you run at 9x133 it might use half the power of running at 18x133 but 18x133 should execute in ~half the time so will spend a longer time at idle in the high power saving c-states such as C6. It's not really quite as simple as that, but serves as an example. Everyones setup can be a little different so if you really want to find out what's best for you try for yourself and see what works best for you on your system.

Tatty_One, thanks for that ss. I said earlier you could use RealTemp to really disable EIST if it was not locked by the BIOS. Looking at your ss has reminded me that the older RealTemps (3.40) disabled changing EIST in software so you really need a later version to do this. Try the one Unclewebb posted a link to a few posts up. I think there is a good chance EIST isn't locked for you so you could go ahead and really disable EIST and I think you will find your 21x multi will carry on as normal. It's good when you can do these things yourself rather than having to take somebody's word for it. (pun intended)


----------



## Mussels (Jul 6, 2010)

somebody said:


> finndrummer, generally better savings will be had with auto vcore. If your using a fixed vcore voltage EIST probably wont do much for you as all that will be changing is the core frequency which is linear with respect to power. If you run at 9x133 it might use half the power of running at 18x133 but 18x133 should execute in ~half the time so will spend a longer time at idle in the high power saving c-states such as C6. It's not really quite as simple as that, but serves as an example. Everyones setup can be a little different so if you really want to find out what's best for you try for yourself and see what works best for you on your system.
> 
> Tatty_One, thanks for that ss. I said earlier you could use RealTemp to really disable EIST if it was not locked by the BIOS. Looking at your ss has reminded me that the older RealTemps (3.40) disabled changing EIST in software so you really need a later version to do this. Try the one Unclewebb posted a link to a few posts up. I think there is a good chance EIST isn't locked for you so you could go ahead and really disable EIST and I think you will find your 21x multi will carry on as normal. It's good when you can do these things yourself rather than having to take somebody's word for it. (pun intended)



to back this up, i found that EIST on with a manually set Vcore gave me *zero* power savings, on an E6600, Q6600 and Xeon E3120 (E8500, basically). for the power saving features to work, you truly do need auto Vcore, at least on socket 775.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jul 6, 2010)

My multiplier is jumping in realtemps with EIST disabled at the bios level, usually between 16x and 19x with a couple of apps open.  Interesting that unclewebb mentioned.....

_"You think you've turned it off in the bios but some other feature like turbo boost might need EIST on so if you have turbo enabled, that automatically turns EIST on"_

Which was kind of my point all along when I said that I thought that Turbo required EIST to be enabled.


----------



## unclewebb (Jul 6, 2010)

Turn off C1E in RealTemp and set your Control Panel -> power optoins -> minimum processor state to 100% and you'll get a lot less multiplier jumping up and down at idle.


----------



## Tatty_One (Jul 6, 2010)

unclewebb said:


> Turn off C1E in RealTemp and set your Control Panel -> power optoins -> minimum processor state to 100% and you'll get a lot less multiplier jumping up and down at idle.



Thanks, I am happy with the jumping and power saving options on my 24/7 clocks which is 3.9Gig, but I definatly will bare that in mind for my bench runs at higher speeds.


----------



## somebody (Jul 8, 2010)

If you want to save power make sure C6 is enabled. If C6 is used, C1E probably wont do that much for you.


EDIT: Okay ran some quick tests on a fairly bare OS so the idle power will be lower than a normal system. Run with EIST and fixed Vcore. Fixed Vcore was set to the maximum Vcore reached with auto Vcore. Not really a lot of difference with C6 helping out. 








And a quick screenie with auto Vcore.


----------

