is this normal, x201s idling at 2ghz and 69C?

Message

skanky · #1 Post by **skanky** » Sun Jun 05, 2011 4:25 pm

can my x201s clock itself down from its 2ghz rating, like a intel turbo boost in reverse?

did a google, i have the a 5129CTO, from what i can tell, its supposed to be a 2.13gHz i7-640lm, however the intel turbo boost and windows properties only show it as a 2ghz processor, bit confused there and those cpu id programs are no use as cpu-z shows i have an i5

ozzymud · #2 Post by **ozzymud** » Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:36 pm

I'm not an Intel person, but I do believe that is SpeedStep... it scales back the CPU when idle to conserve power.

Windows XP "My Computer" properties page will show current cpu speed, mine shows 803MHz atm, sometimes 1.99GHz (AMD Cool-N-Quiet @ CPU temp of 31C)...

Even if CPU-z somehow id's your cpu wrong, it should still show clock speed... open it, and stress the system a little... rip a cd, convert a video... and watch the core speed.

skanky · #3 Post by **skanky** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:34 am

ozzymud wrote:I'm not an Intel person, but I do believe that is SpeedStep... it scales back the CPU when idle to conserve power.

Windows XP "My Computer" properties page will show current cpu speed, mine shows 803MHz atm, sometimes 1.99GHz (AMD Cool-N-Quiet @ CPU temp of 31C)...

Even if CPU-z somehow id's your cpu wrong, it should still show clock speed... open it, and stress the system a little... rip a cd, convert a video... and watch the core speed.

it clocks up no problem (using the win7 intel gadget i can see this in "real" time) but it must be able to idle at something lower than 2ghz and 69C according to tpfancontrol!

mine shows "Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU L620 @ 2.00Ghz 2.00Ghz"

ozzymud · #4 Post by **ozzymud** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 2:26 am

Lokking at intel's site, that cpu does support "Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® Technology"

http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/reselle ... 203838.htm

That page says make sure it is enabled in the BIOS, and doesn't mention Windows 7, but in XP it is disabled by default? To turn on in XP you gotta choose "Minimal Power Management", To turn off(default) select "Always On" in Power Schemes... heh, sorry, but I again am an XP person for now... so still no help with 7 & Intel

EDIT: heh, further searching on howto ENABLE speedstep in Windows 7 leads me to links on howto DISABLE it in 7... and people griping how 7 doesn't LET you DISABLE it

... All links lead to making sure it is enabled in the BIOS... Another name I saw is MAXCPUID for a BIOS setting.

(btw: The ones wanting to disable it complain of distortion when using usb audio)

skanky · #5 Post by **skanky** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 2:50 am

ozzymud wrote:Lokking at intel's site, that cpu does support "Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® Technology"

http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/reselle ... 203838.htm

That page says make sure it is enabled in the BIOS, and doesn't mention Windows 7, but in XP it is disabled by default? To turn on in XP you gotta choose "Minimal Power Management", To turn off(default) select "Always On" in Power Schemes... heh, sorry, but I again am an XP person for now... so still no help with 7 & Intel

EDIT: heh, further searching on howto ENABLE speedstep in Windows 7 leads me to links on howto DISABLE it in 7... and people griping how 7 doesn't LET you DISABLE it ... All links lead to making sure it is enabled in the BIOS... Another name I saw is MAXCPUID for a BIOS setting.

(btw: The ones wanting to disable it complain of distortion when using usb audio)

interesting, i will have a poke around my bios tonight when i get home, and in the meantime do a bit of googling for more info whilst i'm, ahem, meant to be working

i use lenovo's power manager and have it on the "power source optimized" plan, weirdly i had never occured to me that always running at 2ghz probably isn't right for a last gen processor given that i used to own a AMD X2 that with cool and quiet, pegged the cpu back when needed.

skanky · #6 Post by **skanky** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:51 am

went into the bios and made sure speedstep was on.

okay, weird, heres some findings using different monitoring tools:
- intel's turbo boost gadget doesnt go lower than 2ghz but shows it ramping up under load.
- cpu-z 1.57, core speed doesnt seem to dip below 2.5ghz, surely not right!
- found an app called "core temp" which has a win7 gadget and shows the clock clocking down to 1.6 on occasion but generally sticks around 2ghz even under <5% load, nice app but needs to run a seperate app :/

edit: went into power manager and change my "power source optimized" profile i use with these settings for on power:
max cpu speed = adaptive
optimize fan control = max perf
intel graphics plan = max perf

..and its showing its clocked down to 1.2ghz now, that seems better!

have come to the conclusion that the intel turbo boost monitor sucks, it shows 2ghz as a baseline whereas at the same time "core temp" shows 1.3ghz.

edit: ended up using a program called "all cpu meter" from addgadget.com, it doesnt show turbo boost'd usage, but it correctly (i hope!) shows the clock speed ramping down..

ozzymud · #7 Post by **ozzymud** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 3:20 pm

Cool, so basically the same things Intel says to check for XP...

BIOS setting, and power settings... glad you got it working

skanky · #8 Post by **skanky** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 3:31 pm

what does the "optimize fan control" set to "reduce noise dynamically" mean?

Bánh mì · #9 Post by **Bánh mì** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 7:49 pm

I don't have the "s" but an i5 x201 and it does not idle at 69C. Average is 45 to 47C at idle. Very little fan movement as seems not necessary due to Intel engineering prowness an Thinkpad case design combining the best in asthetics and cooling.

ozzymud · #10 Post by **ozzymud** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 8:02 pm

@skanky: Hey, do this... get Open Hardware Monitor, run it for a while, idle & heavy usage... then post the results... either in a code block here, or use http://pastebin.com/

In OHM there is an option to "save report", it saves to a standard txt file.

Bánh mì · #11 Post by **Bánh mì** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:14 pm

I use CoreTemp. If you want Apples to Apples could be easier to compare: Core 0: 39 to 45 Load is 0% Core 1: 35 to 42 Load is 3%. This is based on idle, well not exactly as I am typing. IMO, you have a power management setting issue.

TP Power Manager 3.48 (latest) and setting is Battery Maximized.

ozzymud · #12 Post by **ozzymud** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:30 am

skanky wrote:what does the "optimize fan control" set to "reduce noise dynamically" mean?

Looks like it lowers the fan speed as needed(or rather un-needed)... when temps are low, so is the fan to lower noise

skanky · #13 Post by **skanky** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:40 am

ozzymud wrote:@skanky: Hey, do this... get Open Hardware Monitor, run it for a while, idle & heavy usage... then post the results... either in a code block here, or use http://pastebin.com/

In OHM there is an option to "save report", it saves to a standard txt file.

i'll do it when i get home tonight, as far as i know, since i've had it, its always idled around 60-70. i live in the UK, so ambient temp is not exactly hot either!

Bánh mì wrote:I use CoreTemp. If you want Apples to Apples could be easier to compare: Core 0: 39 to 45 Load is 0% Core 1: 35 to 42 Load is 3%. This is based on idle, well not exactly as I am typing. IMO, you have a power management setting issue.

TP Power Manager 3.48 (latest) and setting is Battery Maximized.

i tried CoreTemp but didnt like it even though it had a win7 gadget, it needed me to run the app, for the gadget to get its data but also needed to have admin privledges to run, i work as a standard user.

i'm running the latest TP power manager and using the power optimized profile but it should and now seemingly does clock down. not idea why temps are so high at idle though..

have had a quick look at it on idle (before i leave for work!) and nothing seems out of the ordinary, core 1 is about 5C higher than #2 at 55C/50C, still sounds pretty high though? and this is at idle or minimal CPU usage with the clock currently running at 1197mhz according to the app.

ozzymud wrote:Looks like it lowers the fan speed as needed(or rather un-needed)... when temps are low, so is the fan to lower noise

is this really needed when im using tpfancontrol? whats the best setting to leave it on?

ozzymud · #14 Post by **ozzymud** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 1:11 am

Could be something todo with the temps... a "too many cooks" kinda thing... does 7 have an unmanged fan mode (or is that dynamic setting a checkbox)? If so and you use another app to control fan speeds, I would uncheck it/set it to unmanged. I don't know TP Fan Control, but it is also quite likely that it's settings change the same things as Windows's settings do.

i.e. Change a setting in tpfancontrol... then see if the settings are now also differnet in windows.

P.S. Check this out... scroll down to Vormulac's post (bout half way)
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/25690 ... stock-core

The links in his quote are good reading too

Basically.. your old 69C I woulda worried (Speedstep cured that), 55C/50C is apparently not too bad depending how high it goes under full load. (Looks like the CPU throttles at 70C)

Man, glad I dont have an i7, I'd freak if my machine ever got that high... Room Temp: 21C(65% Humidity)... AMD Athlon II X3 450, 3 cores currently at 23C (27C max), but this is a desktop too

skanky · #15 Post by **skanky** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 2:33 am

ozzymud wrote:Could be something todo with the temps... a "too many cooks" kinda thing... does 7 have an unmanged fan mode (or is that dynamic setting a checkbox)? If so and you use another app to control fan speeds, I would uncheck it/set it to unmanged. I don't know TP Fan Control, but it is also quite likely that it's settings change the same things as Windows's settings do.

i.e. Change a setting in tpfancontrol... then see if the settings are now also differnet in windows.

P.S. Check this out... scroll down to Vormulac's post (bout half way)
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/25690 ... stock-core

The links in his quote are good reading too

Basically.. your old 69C I woulda worried (Speedstep cured that), 55C/50C is apparently not too bad depending how high it goes under full load. (Looks like the CPU throttles at 70C)

Man, glad I dont have an i7, I'd freak if my machine ever got that high... Room Temp: 21C(65% Humidity)... AMD Athlon II X3 450, 3 cores currently at 23C (27C max), but this is a desktop too

tpfancontrol is an app i found on these forums, it controls the fan speed so maybe this is why i'm getting higher temps, i will try disabling it then checking temps again.

don't think windows is able to manage fan speeds natively, or not that i've seen. i think under full load it gets to about 80C, or so tpfancontrol says.

skanky · #16 Post by **skanky** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 11:24 am

turned off the tpfancontrol and according to open hardware monitor, it now idles around 45-55C on core #1, core #2 is about 10C lower or so, so much better!

i guess i'll monitor how turning this off affects the fan sounds (as thats what tpfancontrol is meant to control)

rises to about 65-70C under load (its converting to low quality on the fly then sync to ipod)

Bánh mì · #17 Post by **Bánh mì** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 1:46 pm

IMO, you are overthinking in terms of believing there were any problems.

ozzymud · #18 Post by **ozzymud** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 1:19 am

I know the Intel's are made to run at higher limits, but heat is definately a factor in longevity, any thing you can do to lower heat without sacrificing performance/quality/experience is a plus in my book... there are several posts on this forum about undervoltaging your CPU without any bad effects whatsoever... this would definately lower heat, which again I always think is good...

As to being a problem originally or not, he definately had an issue with non working speedstep, excees heat, battery life... definately don't want a cpu running at X GHz when X Mhz will do

[writing this on my 3.0GHz machine overclocked to 3.214GHz, but currently running at 804MHz

]

skanky · #19 Post by **skanky** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 2:28 am

ozzymud wrote:I know the Intel's are made to run at higher limits, but heat is definately a factor in longevity, any thing you can do to lower heat without sacrificing performance/quality/experience is a plus in my book... there are several posts on this forum about undervoltaging your CPU without any bad effects whatsoever... this would definately lower heat, which again I always think is good...

As to being a problem originally or not, he definately had an issue with non working speedstep, excees heat, battery life... definately don't want a cpu running at X GHz when X Mhz will do

[writing this on my 3.0GHz machine overclocked to 3.214GHz, but currently running at 804MHz ]

what program do you use to undervolt? on XP i was able to use "notebook hardware control" on my t42, undervolted quite nicely whilst also speedstep'ing down so dead happy with that.

need something that'll work on win7 and core i7 cpus though

ozzymud · #20 Post by **ozzymud** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:40 pm

No clue, I'm an overclocker... so

My laptops just run, I don't use them enough to tweak majorly...

Hopefully someone will chime in though, I know i have seen several recommendations on these forums todo just that though,,, undervolt.

Stuff i saw:

T43 thread: Notebook Hardware Control
X60 thread: rmclock
T60p thread: NHC (also RMclock)

Hint: search here for undervolt

Colonel O'Neill · #21 Post by **Colonel O'Neill** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:32 am

Anything after Core 2 Duo generally has the voltages locked out, so no undervolting there.

You'll want to check in Task Manager for anything revving up the CPU (high CPU usage; idle should be around 1-3% usage). Alternately, your fan may be clogged and/or heatsink may be loose.

skanky · #22 Post by **skanky** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 7:07 am

Colonel O'Neill wrote:Anything after Core 2 Duo generally has the voltages locked out, so no undervolting there.

You'll want to check in Task Manager for anything revving up the CPU (high CPU usage; idle should be around 1-3% usage). Alternately, your fan may be clogged and/or heatsink may be loose.

oh didnt know that.

i tried without tpfancontrol and whilst it keeps the temp higher than normal, the fan seems to rev into life more than it used to, think i need to have it back on and live with the higher temps as even with the "reduce noise" setting in power manager, its definitely not as good imo.

hunterman223 · #23 Post by **hunterman223** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 10:57 am

Google for the 'undervolting guide' located over at NotebookReview. It's what I used and it is an excellent resource.

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Colonel O'Neill · #24 Post by **Colonel O'Neill** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:17 pm

You can't undervolt a Core i-Series processor.

Have you checked to see if the fan is clogged with dust?

hunterman223 · #25 Post by **hunterman223** » Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:27 pm

Colonel O'Neill wrote:You can't undervolt a Core i-Series processor.

Have you checked to see if the fan is clogged with dust?

Did I just skip over 2-3 posts of vital information? Yikes. Sorry about that, and thanks for correcting me.

That's too bad, that would be an excellent combination of performance, low heat, low noise, and good energy efficiency. I wonder, what was the point in locking the voltages? I'm guessing to prevent any decent overclocking?

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Colonel O'Neill · #26 Post by **Colonel O'Neill** » Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:07 am

I dunno why Intel did it, but with the Sandy Bridge (and presumably Ivy bridge) CPUs, the whole undervolting thing won't be as necessary anyway.

We weren't really able to overclock the Core 2 Duo's anyway, except through ThrottleStop and locking both cores at the IDA frequency. And even then it doesn't work if BIOS doesn't allow EIST.