Question on 1090T and Turbo Core

[mk2racer]

Hello all, I have a quick question. I have the x6 1090T and asus m4a89gtd-pro/usb3 board. I am able to easily hit 3600MHz stable with the multiplier only. All overclocking has been done with turbo core, cnq, and c1e off.

If I change my bus speed to 333MHz and lower the multipliers to keep HT, NB, and DRAM in spec I can go stable to about 3.8Ghz at 59-60c (loaded), which of course is too hot. I have a different cooler coming, but that is beside the point.

At those settings (3.6GHz on 333MHz bus), when I turn on turbo core the AOD utility tells me it is running at like 6000+ MHz and still using 18x for a turbo multiplier, regardless of what I select in AOD. Clearly this is not the case, since it doesn't lock up or get uber-hot.

I realize of course that AOD is not the best utility, but I like to test with it for stability, then re-set in bios once I find something good, and push on with AOD, etc etc. Also I have read that turbo core is no good, however when doing runs with it on and then off I do notice a difference at various clock speeds. My goal (after I get the new cooler) is to run 3.8GHz with turbo set to 4.1GHz or so (if temps allow). I don't want to run that fast on all cores all the time, but I do find the boost useful in apps that don't utilize 6 cores.

So my questions then are these:
Why does it report 6GHz?
If it is accurate, is there a way to correctly use a lower multi for turbo core?
Is turbo core really that bad and I should just forget it?

Any other helpful advice is appreciated, thanks!

 

[BigTerminator]

First off use Prime 95 to test for stability. This will push your CPU 100% and give you accurate test for testing temps and stability. Then get Core Temp to monitor your temps. Up to 80c is actually safe, not 60c. 85c is the max it will probably go. Try to keep under 80c. If you overclock then take turbo completely off. It's only useful for running stock and can cause instabilities. You are overclocking anyway which will gain you performance so turbo is irrelevant. It will never go to 6ghz, that is way off. Use CPU-Z to monitor your CPU specs and speed.

 

[disturbed117]

BigTerminator maybe on an intel system but AMD temps are not read the same way
+ the thuban is know to have a temp bug which reports lower then it really is and the max temp listed by amd is either 62 or 63c.

 

[BigTerminator]

There is CPU temp and Core temp. CPU temps is the temp of the heatsink and core temp is the temp of the actual core. Make sure you are reading it's core temp. When my core gets to 75c my CPU temp is usually around 60's. MK2racer tell me your temps from Core temp. Disturbed are your CORE temps in the 60's or CPU temp?

 

[Lab Rat]

There is CPU temp and Core temp. CPU temps is the temp of the heatsink and core temp is the temp of the actual core. Make sure you are reading it's core temp. When my core gets to 75c my CPU temp is usually around 60's. MK2racer tell me your temps from Core temp. Disturbed are your CORE temps in the 60's or CPU temp?

Dont you mean the other way around. My core temps are usually lower than my CPU temp

 

[disturbed117]

@BigTerminator
i dont let my core temp hit 60
but my core temp is around 10-15 lower then my cpu temp.
And here is the information on the 1090t including max temp
http://products.amd.com/en-us/DesktopCPUDetail.aspx?id=640

 

[BigTerminator]

That's strange. For Intel 85c on the core is the max you want to go. AMD really screwed the temps up with their CPU Just kidding, but seriously

 

[QuietIce]

to OCF!

So my questions then are these:
Why does it report 6GHz?
If it is accurate, is there a way to correctly use a lower multi for turbo core?
Is turbo core really that bad and I should just forget it?

I don't know why it's being reported as 6 GHz but I'm pretty sure it's an error.

Turbo is notorious for killing an overclock. However, there are a few people who have managed to make it work by sacrificing some top-end speed. In general, you can't expect pre-set parameters to work well on an OC, which is why CoolNQuiet and C1E often create problems. Unless you have a lot of applications that will benefit from Turbo I wouldn't waste the time trying to make it work. You're probably better off overclocking as high as you can then using K10Stat or another similar program to make P-states work correctly with an overclock. (P-states are power-saving, low-speed/voltage settings that kick in after a small amount of idle time - but they apply to the whole CPU, not individual cores.)

And here is the information on the 1090t including max temp
http://products.amd.com/en-us/DesktopCPUDetail.aspx?id=640

Just keep in mind the difference between Tcase, which is the actual label for the Max Temp shown on the page you linked, and Tctl. Tcase is the CPU (socket) temp as reported by the motherboard. Tctl is the core temp, as reported by the on-die circuitry. Tctl for most X4 & X6 Phenom II's is 70°, not 62°. In most cases an OC'ed chip will become unstable before it even gets close to Tctl Max. (See AMD Technical Publication #43375 for more information.)

That's strange. For Intel 85c on the core is the max you want to go. AMD really screwed the temps up with their CPU Just kidding, but seriously

It's a well-known fact that heat is the bane of all electronics, solid state or microchips, and AMD's have always had a low heat range. Even the K8's that kicked Pentiums all over town for years ran best below 60°C, so I don't see what you're laughing at. They say a picture is worth a thousand words so here's my reply to you in a nutshell - or maybe I should say an eggshell!



All kidding aside, you really can't compare the core temps of Intels and AMDs. They're two different animals designed and built in two very different ways. In the future, however, you might want to check your facts before posting potentially dangerous information. To put it in Intel terms you just told someone it's OK to run their CPU at 105°C but they should keep it under 100°C.

And your first post started off so well, too ...

 

[Lab Rat]

 

[mk2racer]

Well I got my Scythe cooler in there now, so I'm going to go after faster clocks and just ditch turbo core entirely. I just thought it was odd. The AOD utility was reporting those weird speeds.

For monitoring I usually have CPUz, Core Temp, and PC-Probe II up.

The temps reported in CoreTemp for the cores and those reported by PC-Probe for the cpu temp are usually "relatively" close, but PC-Probe reporting the CPU temp is a bit higher than what Core Temp reads for the cores- not more than 5-6c most times though.


I'm now running the Scythe with 2x 120mm fans (holy **** this cooler is LARGE). Also in the case is a 120mm intake in front and a 120mm vent in the back. The reported core temp and cpu temp are now a little farther off from eachother, with core temp being around 28c at idle and cpu temp being about 35c. I have not had a great deal of time to play with it yet with the new cooler in, but hopefully things will be better now

Thanks for the input.

 

[trents]

Usually, core temps are somewhat lower than socket temps but the differential can vary quite a bit. If the differential is too great, however (more than about 10C) I begin to doubt the accuracy of one or the other. If they are within 5-7 degrees C. under full load then I feel I can trust them. Temp sensors tend to be calibrated for accuracy at the upper end of the operating range so don't take the idle temps too seriously.