Changing multi means false readings in Windows

S

skizzled

[H]ard|Gawd
2FA
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
1,945
I'm having an issue trying to find the max FSB that my system can handle due to Windows not recognizing the change after lowering the default multi from 10x to any other value. I've disabled every power savings option there is that is located in the BIOS but Vista64 seems to have issues with seeing any change. Leaving the multi alone lets me overclock without issues but I would like to test out performance on my system with a 1:1 memory ratio but can't due to this issue.

For instance, I can change the multi to 6 and up the FSB to 400 but no change in Windows occurs and I can't figure it out. It seems like I'm the only one who has experienced this as I haven't been able to find anyone with a similar problem. I'm sure its something simple.
 
EIST (SpeedStep) is responsible for changing the multiplier. There should be an option about it somewhere in your BIOS - probably under CPU settings, or the like? If you do manage to get EIST off, I recommend you turn it back on once you've sorted out what you're doing - it's free power saving and doesn't cost performance.

However, I'm not sure what the CPU multiplier has got to do with your RAM or FSB? Neither of these depend on the CPU multiplier - the only thing it does is set the CPU speed relative to the FSB. Running your RAM at 1:1 means that it's at the same speed as the FSB (which will be doubled for the effective RAM frequency, since it's Double Data Rate RAM) - not that it's running at the same speed as the CPU. Having EIST turned on will also not degrade your performance, as it automatically sets the multiplier up to the maximum once the system is under load.

Oh, also - where are you looking to see the CPU speed? If you're looking in System Properties - don't. Try CPU-Z instead.
 
I thought that I would need to change the multi in order for my memory to run at 1:1 seeing as how leaving it at stock doesn't help as it is 200FSB which gives me an effective memory speed of 400MHZ with a 1:1 ratio. Looking at my BIOS, I realized that it says DRAM Speed (CPU : RAM), would that make any difference as I've heard these are "quad pumped" processors and at Default, I get a ram speed of 816MHz.

Hmm, I didn't realize Windows had that in its power profiles, figured the mobo handled that. That said, I have set the profile to High Performance with no change in readings in System Properties, Everest, or even CPU-Z. At this moment, I set the FSB = 400, multi = 8, and memory divider to 1:1 and all of the readings state its operating at roughly 1596mhz with a bus speed of 199mhz even at load. Something isn't right as this should give me an effective clock speed of 3.2GHz
 
The quad pumped effects FSB, not memory; memory is 2x the fsb ( for ddr2)

no, the Windows power settings have zero effect on performance, those affect.. "hibernate or shutdown..etc.

I see that the default FSB for the e2180 is 800 ( 4x 200 ). Have you tried adjusting that? so default, your at 10x 200 = 2.0GHz

Maybe start off trying fsb @ 266 ( 1066), 8x multi. thats a small bump to 2.128, linked /synched ram would be 533mhz
 
Well that sure is interesting. Setting the fsb to 266 and multi to 8 shows the correct MHz value in Everest. Farting around, I set the fsb to 333 and multi to 9 also shows me the correct MHz of about 3GHz. But, setting fsb to 400 at any multi seems to produce false results. Analyzing the numbers, it seems that at an fsb of 266 with a quad pumped processor would equal an overall fsb of 1064mhz and an fsb of 333 would equal roughly 1332mhz (which is the theoretical max of the motherboard according to the specs). Is this correct? Now, if this holds true, how exactly are people hitting 1:1 ratio with these processors (having ram at 800mhz and fsb at 400mhz) because I sure can't?
 
Well, having 1:1 FSB:DRAM doesn't necessarily mean that you're running the RAM at 800MHz; you could have 333MHz FSB and run your ram at 666MHz (well, 667MHz) if it's set to 1:1. RAM speed doesn't make much difference on current Intel systems; I'm not totally sure whether running at 1:1 at 667MHz or at another multiplier at 800MHz is better though. I'm suspecting the latter but I'm not sure.
 
All good to know information. I finally managed to get 400mhz fsb to stick and show in Windows with a multi of 8x. Happy days! With all of the speedstep and things disabled, it actually idles fairly low (about 34C) which I am surprised about as I had to up the voltage on the vcore in order to sustain a stable boot with 3.2GHz. I am a happy camper if this remains stable with low temps. Hopefully this was all worth it.

So, my ram is running 1:1 with my computer and all it took was some fiddling around. I knew the answer was infront of my face. Thanks for all the help! Now, to see if there's a difference in performance.

Little tid bitty update: I figured out what was keeping Windows from reporting it correctly, EIST. With that disabled and everything else enabled, it is perfectly fine and dandy. Trying to enable it causes the same problem I was having. I should have known it was something simple.
 
I've turned off EIST (and the other power saving option - can't remember what its called now) and running at 376 x 8 (3.0 GHz). Vista64 reports the CPU speed ( via System Properties) 3.38 GHz. However, CPU-Z reports the correct speed.
 
Weird thing about this is that, it seems very voltage based. For instance, if I run one notch lower in vcore (1.40v - I believe), everything including CPU-Z and EVEREST reports the cpu running at a much lower speed. But, at 1.4250v, it reports the correct speed. Is that normal? I always thought that if you don't have enough volts the computer might be unstable but report the correct speed. This is very interesting to me as I've had to raise the MCH voltage to 1.370v in order to get it to report correctly. But at the same time, lowering the vcore produces the same results I've had before where it would not show the correct speed.
 
System Properties shouldn't be trusted. It claims my CPU is running at 2.39GHz, which is neither correct for its full speed (3.0GHz) or SpeedStep speed (2.0GHz). It's just reading the stock speed in my case.

As I wrote earlier, I'd turn EIST back on once you're happy with how things are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top