A warning about Intel processor power consumption and high CPU usage - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 08, 2017, 06:36:08 pm
content: I've recently made an interesting discovery. As far as I know this only applies to Intel processors as this is the manufacturer of processor I have experienced it on. Specifically i7-6500U in my new laptop. Despite not being a fan of the I series when I came to replace my laptop I found that the only machine that all round had the specification I wanted was in fact one with an i7 processor. So the first thing I set about about was trying to work out how to get programs to use specific processor cores. Core 0 is a physical core. Core one is it's virtual core so all it actually allows you to do is queue up more work there is no real processor behind it to do any work. The same goes for core two and three.I quite quickly found a program called process lasso which claims to help schedule tasks to make more efficient use of the processor. Personally I couldn’t say one way or the other but fact is it does allow you to assign specific programs to specific physical cores.However what I have noticed is that although my processor is rated for 2.5 GHz it will run up to 3.1 GHz although often closer to 3 GHz. But after doing some investigation I discovered that the power rating at 2.5 GHz is 15 W whilst for a mere increase of 600 MHz the power consumption jumped right up to 25 W. Another problem for me is that I run BOINC which makes constant use of the processor. This means that the processor is always forced into its over clock frequency which it seems it can do non-stop if necessary. Obviously given the drastic jump in power consumption this means an awful lot more heat as well as an awful lot more power being used and the fan makes one hell of a racket. But there is a solution. If you go into to the advanced power options of Windows you can limit the percentage of processor speed. This is a bit odd because I have it set at something like 95% but that limits the speed to 2.6 GHz. I think there is a little bit of confusion around what the percentage relates to in terms of the normal clock speeds and the overclocked speed.The problem I had was that I was running BOINC at 20% time usage in order to try and control the noise as often I go to sleep with the laptop on. But once I had limited the maximum processor speed to something like what it was meant to do I actually found that for some reason the programme still never uses more than 2.4 GHz even though the new rating is 2.6 GHz. This is something I have found throughout Intel processors it’s a bit odd what speed it actually goes to even though maximum usage is being demanded. But I can now run BOINC at 100% at 2.4 GHz (which it chooses to do because the processor is allowed to go up to 2.6 GHz) and the fan makes no more noise than it did when it was running on 20% time at 3 GHz. Obviously I’m also using a hell of a lot less power which is a nice thing as well because the laptop as I just said often gets left on overnight. Not much of a problem in the winter as it contributes to the heating of the room anyway but I find it rather odd that the 25 W figure for maximum overclocked speed is hard to find on the Internet. It is repeatedly claimed to be a 15 W processor. Obviously the extra 600 MHz are very welcome but the power penalty for me does not justify it unless for occasional spurts. Say if I was auto routing a circuit board I would be happy for it to run to that power for a few minutes in order to get the routing done more quickly but not continuously.Of course the thing to remember with these Intel processors is that the virtual core is not actually a processing core it is just extra instruction and data queueing circuitry that while it will slightly increase the performance of the processor at the end of the day once you have hit 50% usage you are in effect at 100%. Perhaps given the extra efficiencies the virtual cores bring about you could maybe stretch it to 60%. I do in fact have BOINC set to use only two cores for this reason, using more than two cores would just cause a conflict and on my work computer that has an i7 this actually caused absolute mayhem and tasks were failing to complete.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2017, 06:51:33 pm
content: I would say that for most normal computing needs you should not worry about cores and core allocation at all. Just let Windows do it's own thing with task scheduling and don't try to intervene.I believe BOINC should be written so it only runs in the background when the system is otherwise idle. Does it have a control panel that limits what fraction of the machine it can use? Maybe set it to 10% or something?The advanced power option to limit the fraction of processor speed is a good one to know about. I think many people are not aware of it.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 08, 2017, 07:06:20 pm
content: BOINC can be limited. You can tell it how many processor cores to use and how much time it is to use processor for but that is a bit of a blunt instrument. There is no way of getting it to use a maximum speed though. Yes on the whole allocating programs to processors is not a problem but with the I type of Intel processor if you have a heavy task that is multitasking or you have something like BOINC that will put more than one job on until it fills all cores none of these programs can distinguish between real and virtual cores so mayhem ensues. The thing that I'm not keen on is that there is no simple software switch to disable automatic overclocking.BOINC can also be set to run when you are not using the machine in conjunction with the above limitations. Personally I don't find it causing a problem to the machine while I am using it. The only exception is on and I seven processor because you end up with two programs trying to use the same physical processor and sometimes your own program does not get enough responsiveness. I found this with 3D CAD programs at work that's become very jerky on the display when rotating models if all eight cores of the machine are under 100% use because this means that eight programs are trying to use 100% of four cores.

author: shteii01
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2017, 07:42:37 pm
content: Yeah, the whole i series of intel cpu is like runaway train. They left me behind when they moved past i5 2xxx series.Personally I am happy to see that used i5 2xxx series machines (complete machines, just add hdd/sdd) are hitting 100-150 dollar mark. I might buy a couple of the little ones and set them up for separate tasks, like one machine for cad, one for programming uC, one to play games.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 08, 2017, 07:57:59 pm
content: I don't know what the difference between the i3, i5 and i7 are, but I suspect the power profile is the same on all as it is common across processors, more speed = more heat, so for more speed more voltage is required.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2017, 08:00:45 pm
content: Quote from: shteii01 on January 08, 2017, 07:42:37 pmThat wastes a lot of energy! Better get one beefy PC and use virtual machines to perform various tasks. The best thing of such a setup is that you can roll Windows back to a known good state when it starts to misbehave. I used to have various PCs as well but that drove the electricity bill up considerably.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 08, 2017, 08:06:22 pm
content: Well my new laptop has replaced the desktop as well, it can drive my 4K monitor so the desktop is redundant, now I get to only worry about one machine and knoww that what is on it comes with me everwhere I go and the power adapter is 45W, my old processor could use twice that never mind the whole desktop.

author: Twoflower
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2017, 08:52:23 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on January 08, 2017, 06:36:08 pmYou're not quiet right at the 15W. This processor can be configured up to 25W from the OEM. So it's still within spec (seeark.intel.com).By the way, especially BOINC could run much faster on later processors as they provide more up to date instruction set compared to the good old 2xxx series (running here a 2600k). The AVX2 could be very useful for scientific workloads. Even if the pure frequency and general IPC is similar.

author: shteii01
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2017, 08:53:18 pm
content: On the desktop, i3 were single and dual cores, i5 were quad core, i7 were quad and more cores. Like you, I am not really into i7, I would have to pull up wiki to find out what exactly difference is between i5 and i7.Quote from: Simon on January 08, 2017, 07:57:59 pm

author: shteii01
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2017, 08:57:39 pm
content: I will just turn it off or put it to sleep. I don't plan to run them 24/7.I have a general purpose pc, and after a while it gets really cluttered. The fact that I use some programs rarely and actually forget about them does not help. Then all the patches and driver updates, etc., and 4 or 5 years later I would reinstall os anyway.Quote from: nctnico on January 08, 2017, 08:00:45 pm

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 08, 2017, 09:02:46 pm
content: Quote from: Twoflower on January 08, 2017, 08:52:23 pmYes it was certainly designed for up to 25 W but a lot of specifications state that it is 2.5 GHz and 15 W. What you then find is you have a processor that gives you a pleasant surprise and can run at up to 3.1 GHz non-stop. But what you are not made aware of usually is the huge power consumption increase. I guess that it works the other way as well and that reducing the core speed further get exponential reductions in power consumption. It's just that this thing is marketed as 2.5 GHz and 15 W. There are some specifications around but do say that it can go up to 25 W. My main point is that for a slight reduction in performance particularly on something you're not too bothered about you can gain a huge saving in power which if anything is an advantage for things like noise that is important to you. Unfortunately the smaller you make a fan but noisier it becomes to move the same amount of air. Fan laws are actually terrible things by the looks of it as bad as processor power consumption laws, so by reducing the heat output you reduce your fan speed. If your computer fan only needs to run at half the speed because the processor is using less power your computer fan will use 1/8 of the power.

author: shteii01
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2017, 09:20:42 pm
content: Bigger heatsink is the answer. Water next.Quote from: Simon on January 08, 2017, 09:02:46 pm

author: Twoflower
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2017, 09:28:31 pm
content: The whole turbo states and power reduction states are a mess to understand. I agree. A lot of performance is dependent on the cooling system. Running long time loads is usually not the target for the thin laptops. I'm not saying that's not possible. But you might suffer from the noise.The magic words are run-to-idle. The target is to finish a job as fast as possible to reach faster the low power states. Which is for most users the most power efficient approach. With a task that does not end it just runs.But from my understanding even with the 15W limit the CPU might reach the 3.1GHz. But only one core is used and(!) the GPU on the same processor die is not doing a lot (e.g. not running any 3D applications) and if the temperature is not exceeding certain limits. And in future it will also include the absence of AVX instructions as they drive the power consumption through the roof. The latest Xeon and Xeon-Phi processors already reducing the speed in case of the usage of the vector units (AVX instructions) to stay within the limits.I used to run several instances of BOINC or Seti@home before that. But it was in times a idling CPU used a lot of power just doing nothing. But since a couple of years the power management reduced the idle power to some 100mW. I read a report that modern laptops draw on idle windows screen @100cd about 3W (including the screen!). That made me reconsider not to run such tasks in background any more.Water cooling is not very pleasant in a laptop. It does exist for heavy gaming machines. And bigger cooling: I think the manufacturer on Simons laptop is as big as it could fit.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 08, 2017, 09:43:45 pm
content: My laptop is HP. It is quite noisy on full load at top speed. But as I said before just reducing down to 2.5 GHz drastically reduces the noise even though I am now running 100%. Yes I am pretty sure that running programs like BOINC does use a lot more powe rbut I run it because I want to help the projects not because I think the power pwill be used anyway.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2017, 10:10:10 pm
content: Quote from: Twoflower on January 08, 2017, 09:28:31 pmThat is true for sure. I have a Xeon 5-ish something system from Dell and it is totally quiet even at full load. There isn't even a fan on the CPU itself!

author: Skimask
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2017, 10:15:15 pm
content: Quote from: shteii01 on January 08, 2017, 08:53:18 pmHyperthreading.i5 = nonei7 = yesAs far as that business about Core 0 being physicall and the rest being virtual...Ya...No...Multi core CPUs are just that...CPUs that have multiple physical cores. Case closed.The only virtual about any of the cores are those that might hyperthreaded.Lots of misinformation in thread...lots of it.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2017, 10:27:49 pm
content: Quote from: Skimask on January 08, 2017, 10:15:15 pmNot quite the case for mobile/laptop processors, where it's all over the place. It's a marketing idiot's wet dream.

author: Skimask
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2017, 10:38:57 pm
content: Quote from: Howardlong on January 08, 2017, 10:27:49 pmAye...can't argue there.Clowns just couldn't stick with one formula, one naming convention. They had to go all apeshit with it. I'm sure some dickhead got a big pay raise for it.

author: hans
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2017, 10:58:29 pm
content: Indeed, Intel's i5/i7 structure has become a mess.H and desktop parts i5 and i7 are quad core, with i7 having HT.U parts i5 and i7 are dual core with both HT.The i7 U is clocked like 100MHz higher than the i5 U part, which manufacturers ask a hefty 100-200$ upgrade price for. But it performs almost identically.Even more upsetting thing is that this is still a dual core CPU. It's surely is a quick machine for most tasks, until you start 2-3 VM's and quickly run out of CPU horse power.TDP of 15W is by the way a thermal design power, not actual power consumption. Some of the m-series CPU's are only 3-5W or so, but that is maximum by Intel and some can even go lower. E.g. look at the normal Macbook; it has no fan and uses the chassis for cooling. That machine at full load it will start out using turbo boost but will eventually throttle, unless you watercool the laptop (search Linustechtips youtube channel for that video)By the way, this turbo nonsense on laptop CPU's can sometimes be a bit obnoxious indeed.When I use my Lenovo P50 on battery, I often come across this threshold where the CPU can be passively cooled when I'm idle reading a web page article or something. But as soon as I start scrolling in Firefox (which is not the most lightweight browser to be fair), load goes up, CPU fan turns on with a very noticable kick in rpm at first, idles for 5 seconds and then shuts off again.Maybe I should also seek for a maximum CPU usage on battery dial

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2017, 11:13:49 pm
content: Quote from: Skimask on January 08, 2017, 10:15:15 pmNot quite exactly true. Here is a list of all HT processors:http://ark.intel.com/search/advanced/?s=t&HyperThreading=trueQuoteIt is rather confusing though, when each physical core shows up as two cores in the task manager. If I have a machine with four physical cores, the system info shows "eight" cores each with its own CPU graph.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2017, 11:17:55 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on January 08, 2017, 06:36:08 pmAre you at '100%' CPU usage if the instructions you're executing are only using part of the core? No! These are insanely complex cores with a lot of duplication in them. Why wait for the entire core to be free to perform float operations if the current thread isn't doing floats?QuoteIn real-world usage hyperthreading shows performance boosts much higher than 10%.Except for those who are convinced it can't be a good thing.

author: shteii01
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2017, 11:24:33 pm
content: Quote from: wilfred on January 08, 2017, 10:04:38 pmYou, obviously, never dealt with BOINC and SETI@Home or similar folks. I know because I am one of them.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 07:57:02 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on January 08, 2017, 10:04:38 pmThis relates specifically to BOINC which does not seem to have the ability to distinguish between real and virtual processor cores. The result on and I processor is that it tries to carry out twice the amount of tasks that the processor can actually handle because they are intensive processing tasks and hyper- threading does not help. Trying to give a task to a physical core and a task to the virtual core of that physical core is not going to get you to tasks carried out in the world of BOINC. And yes when you have eight tasks trying to use for cause it did get rather problematic. The machine was not always responsive depending on what tasks were working and sometimes crashed. I don't think BOINC is the best written program because it continually tries to switch between tasks to look like it is doing more work than it really is. The result is that not only do you start twice as many tasks as there are processor cores you also then switch to hold another set of twice the amount of tasks as there are processor cores and before you know it there is an over usage of RAM and BOINC can't figure out why tasks are not completing on time. Of course this was some time ago so the updates may have improved things but personally I am not a fan of BOINC itself as a program as it lacks greatly in flexibility.Of course when you then try to run a 3D CAD program that carries out every bit of graphical visualisation on the processor and RAM rather than the graphics processor although I don't know if the graphics processor could do the job but it is done by the processor in any case this creates absolute mayhem and the screen stutters like mad. Over time I have learnt to fine tune the settings and I limit the amount of cores available to BOINC or set the 3D CAD as an exclusive program as the important thing for the 3D CAD program which I do deem to be rubbish is to have absolute priority access to the RAM memory so that it can carry out all the calculations it needs to carry out when you are rotating models on screen. Of course that computer is quite old now and the RAM is only 1.3 GHz although my new laptop is not that smart on 3D CAD anyway and that has DDR 4 RAM. So the desktop may come useful if I do any serious 3D CAD at home as there is a dedicated high-end graphics card on it and the processor is very fast indeed and it seems that the 3D CAD program sheer brute gigahertz are what give it performance because it is a dumb program and does not seem to take advantage of any particular optimisations.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 07:59:11 am
content: Quote from: shteii01 on January 08, 2017, 11:24:33 pmIf you mean the people that write the program I find them to be extremely obtuse. The lack of functionality and flexibility is mind-boggling. You would expect such brilliant people to have come up with something better. The idea of switching tasks every sixty minutes is absolutely stupid. I had a thundering row with somebody on their forum about this and he just could not see it because he does not understand other people. I had it installed on my dad computer who used to turn his computer on for an hour at a time every now and then so if every time he turned it on for an hour it was going to then start a new task nothing would ever complete but they just could not see it.

author: TiN
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 12:11:05 pm
content: I would call that threat title way too inaccurate. All due respect, you could learn a bit of theory prior to making it. Intel CPUs since very first Core series provide very comprehensive power management features and monitoring , so you can tweak and adjust all aspects of your system as you like, if you spend bit of time learning how those features work. Keywords for googling: EIST, Power Limits PL1, PL2, PL3, Turbo mode, HyperThreading, Affinity, Package Power, TDP. AMD CPUs have very similar amount of features doing same thing, but called differently and working in a bit different way. Same with GPUs...If you want real cores only always, disable HyperThreading. Benchmark yours apps, perhaps you don't get much benefit from HT anyway.To keep CPU at "rated" nominal frequency - disable Turbo mode. It's not overclocking and still fully warranted specification by Intel.One can assign specific app to run on specific cores only, you don't need to install any 3rd-party bodgeware, native OS (assuming windows) have tools to do so. In Windows just run task manager, go to Processes, select your app, select "Set Affinity" in menu. Here you go. You can automatically start app with desired affinity by using simple BAT-file with "start" command.

author: macboy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 04:40:40 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on January 09, 2017, 07:57:02 amYou do not understand hyperthreading. The "virtual core" isn't nearly as useless as you imagine.On Intel's hyperthreaded CPUs, two virtual CPUs share one execution unit (real CPU), and the result is approximately 30% more work done in a given time (actual boost heavily dependant on workload, but always better than unity). This is achieved by allowing the idle CPU of the pair to immediately take over execution from the active one when that one stalls. CPUs stall very often, and for a relatively long time (hundreds of CPU cycles at least) for various reasons but mostly for access to RAM whenever a cache miss occurs. So when CPU0 stalls, CPU1 immediately begins executing where it left had left off, and vice versa. This allows the underlying CPU logic to continue doing useful work during periods of time that a non-hyperthreaded CPU would be simply idle. Hyperthreading was invented to help solve a real problem, which is that CPUs were spending more and more time idle due to stalls, as CPU speed continued to increase and RAM access latency stayed the same or got even worse.

author: macboy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 04:50:44 pm
content: A quick note about why "95%" CPU speed reduces actual speed more than expected.This is because when Windows requests "100%" CPU speed from the CPU, the CPU might actually go into a turbo boost mode. The amount of boost depends on various factors, mostly how many cores are busy at a given time (fewer busy cores = more boost) and temperature (lower temperature = more boost). You might get a speed that is 30%+ higher than the rated speed (e.g. my Xeon system is nominally 2.9 GHz but can boost to 3.8 GHz). However, when windows requests anything less than 100%, the CPU will not boost, so you will always get something lower than the rated speed. This makes the difference between 95% and 100% far more than 5%.

author: senso
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 05:12:05 pm
content: The U means is an Ultra Low power, all U series are dual cores..If you have spent 2 seconds on Google and wrote your processor model you would just see this:https://ark.intel.com/products/88194/Intel-Core-i7-6500U-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_10-GHz# of Cores 2# of Threads 4Processor Base Frequency 2.50 GHzMax Turbo Frequency 3.10 GHzYou have two cores, and you have hyper threading, so 4 cores, HT is not just a number, is half a cpu more or less, and it can do some work..Being an HP is garanteed to be running the supposed 15Watts TDP, if you unlock/get an unlocked BIOS you can access the TDP up options and boost the TDP to 25Watts, that will only gain you time in the short and long term turbo boost maximum durations, so its not THAT worth.Choosing an ULP CPU and wanting to run BOINC 24/7 was also not the best idea, you can buy cheap quad core i7's from the Haswell(4xxx) era from ebay or from you country biggest used sites, I'm currently using a Toshiba P50 as my work horse, and as usual it was gimped, the cpu was limited to 30Watts aka 2.4Ghz max when using all cores, by doing this:https://www.techinferno.com/index.php?/forums/topic/10272-help-cant-unlock-a-toshiba-p50-a-12z-tittle-changed/I wouldn't put even more programs using your "limited" cpu power..I would also recommend you to do a clean install of the SO and install JUST the drivers(Chipset, Management Engine, iGPU, dGPU(if the laptop as one), sound, LAN, WIFI/BT, Touchpad and FN functionality), and leave the rest of the crapware that the OEM puts into the stock image out of the system and you will notice a nice gain in fluidity of the whole PC.Also, remember to dust the laptop at least every 6 months and you should tear it down every year and repaste the cpu/gpu using a decent thermal paste

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 05:27:46 pm
content: Quote from: TiN on January 09, 2017, 12:11:05 pmthe average unsavy user will know nothing of this. The machines come with turbo enabled and I don't know how to disable it. For non intensive use then sure it's not a problem but I run boinc so I run permenantly in turbo mode and for a 24% speed increase the power consumption increase is 66% unless i do something about this. The noise would be horrendous from the fan.Yes I'm sure the virtual core helps some, so I allow 2 cores to be used by boinc and that leaves some headroom for me to get better responsiveness. so my system runs at 60-70% according to windows, well 50% is actually the tw physical cores fully loaded so are 65% that 15% is your 30% of 50%. Lets be honest, 50% s a fully loaded processor, the two virtual cores are just speeding things up a bit so if I am runing 65% I don't think I'll get any more calculation power beyond 65%.So how do I permanently lock a task to a core ? windows tak manager forgets once windows restarts.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 05:29:40 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on January 09, 2017, 05:27:46 pmNo, it isnot!

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 05:48:31 pm
content: ok 65%, thats 50% of actual cores plus your 30% gain from virtual cores.

author: senso
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 05:51:50 pm
content: You are so stubbornYes, a 50% load is a 100% load..If you want to disable turbo boost and no, it is NOT using 66% more power, because turbo boost will only boost at max for 240 seconds, after that you are back to the base clock or 100-200Mhz more, here is how you do it:Right click on the battery symbol that is on the task bar, open Power Options, choose the scheme you want(probably its the balanced one), click on change scheme options/definitions, in the next window click on change advanced options, on the new window, scroll till you see Processor energy options or something along those lines, I'm not on my English SO laptop, so i'm kinda direct translating.On that setting there is one that is called more or less maximum performance state, it will say 100% in battery and 100% when plugged in, reduce it to 99% and your cpu will not turbo boost anymore.That or instal Intel XTU(you must right click on the exe and run as Admin or it wont run on startup), and disable turbo boost there.

author: Avacee
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 05:55:10 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on January 09, 2017, 05:27:46 pmCreate a new shortcut using "cmd /c start /AFFINITY <cores_hex_mask> program_exe"eg cmd /c start /affinity 6 notepad ... Will run notepad on cores 1 and 2 only

author: suicidaleggroll
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 05:59:00 pm
content: You can also go into the BIOS and shut off hyperthreading or turbo mode if you want. For most tasks hyperthreading is useful, but there are some tasks where it will actually slow things down, in which case you just disable it in the BIOS and go on your merry. There's no need to freak out about it so much.

author: TiN
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 06:06:53 pm
content: Also I'm not BOINC afficienado, but running it on CPU seems pointless altogether, as it supports GPUs, on which it's magnitudes faster than 6500U.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 06:09:27 pm
content: Quote from: TiN on January 09, 2017, 06:06:53 pmI'm surprised Simon doesn't run it on his phone.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 06:19:54 pm
content: Quote from: suicidaleggroll on January 09, 2017, 05:59:00 pmNO I CAN'T! my bios does not have this, this is the compromise of laptops, "power" is taken away from you.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 06:21:05 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on January 09, 2017, 06:09:27 pmI do have it on my phone too, and not every task can use the GPU so the person you quoted does not know what they are talking about.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 06:21:52 pm
content: Quote from: senso on January 09, 2017, 05:51:50 pmAs I alreasy explained I have to reduce to 95% to get it to 2.6GHz

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 06:24:30 pm
content: Quote from: senso on January 09, 2017, 05:51:50 pmOh so I was right, make your minds upNo with no limit my processor ran non stop at 3GHz and even with 20% time usage on Boinc made a bit of noise, it now makes not much more noise and runs 100% with the stated frequency of operation being 2.39GHz (although the processor is rated at 2.6GHz in task manager.)

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 06:27:41 pm
content: ok just reset my max speed to 100% and processor is still rated to 2.6GHz and it runs at 100% demand at 2.85GHz with MUCH more noise. but officially it's 2.5GHz

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 06:30:57 pm
content: just reduced my top speed by 1% at a time and it was not until I went down to 95% that the working speed slowed down.

author: TiN
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 06:38:39 pm
content: So?You could do same by setting PL3 limits to whatever power level you want.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 06:55:24 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on January 09, 2017, 06:19:54 pmThe compromise of crap laptops you mean. This is not a CPU problem.Quote from: Simon on January 09, 2017, 06:21:05 pmSo you really do enjoy running it on the wrong hardware - And you and TiN have something in common!

author: Towger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 07:02:58 pm
content: Oh for the days when Turbo was controlled by a button on the case The explanation to Simon's origional post still causes problems, even when it comes from professionals in computer hardware design!

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 07:17:27 pm
content: Quote from: TiN on January 09, 2017, 06:38:39 pmand where do I set those ? I don't think windows is geared up to correctly display the figures for this sort of situation.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 07:18:27 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on January 09, 2017, 06:55:24 pmI'm clearly not knowledgeable enough about this to know what you mean. they offered the app so I installed it.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 07:20:14 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on January 09, 2017, 07:18:27 pmYou want to run highly CPU intensive applications effectively 24/7 - on battery powered mobile devices. Even when connected to a proper power source, they are not designed, never have been designed, and never will be designed to do this.If you want your laptop to run cool and quiet - don't load the CPU all day long. It's not meant to do that.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 07:29:02 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on January 09, 2017, 07:20:14 pmOh that. yes in fact on my 8 core phone the battery quickly overheats and the app stops. So I only let it run on 3 cores and it is happy. Obviously the phone is not designed to run all 8 cores full load none stop.With the laptop this has now replaced my desktop and even on my desktop I was reducing the time percentage BOINC could use due to the noise so nothing new there. And it was a fancy heatsinkthe thing is that I can get more work done on my laptop processor by letting it fully load the processor but having the processor run no more than the headline speed. You do the math, 20% processor usage at 2.99 or 2.85 GHz (maybe ambient temperature determines the max) and 100% processor usage at 2.39GHz and the same noise is made by the fan.

author: Twoflower
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 07:34:44 pm
content: If 50% load on a HT enabled is a fully load CPU is far too simple. Also 100% on a non HT enabled CPU does not mean that the CPU can't to more.Modern CPUs are supersalar and can execute more than one instruction per thread. Of course that only work if they don't rely on each other. Even better the CPU tries to re-order instructions to keep as many execution units busy as possible. Again that only works if they don't depend on each other. Also conditional jumps are bad if the predicted jump direction did not work out well. Also if your program is waiting for data to be present in the CPU (e.g. cache misses, waiting for IO). In these cases the core indicates 100% load to the OS. But if you look to the execution units: They're (partly) idle.HT tries to utilize these execution units. In some cases this works well in others not. The reasons could probably be both codes would like to use the vector unit at the same time, or they cause to flush the other code/data out of the caches.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 07:41:49 pm
content: so what is the percentage usage a measure of exactly ? I used to have the impression that the processor usage was actually the usage of the FSB back in the days of sub 800MHz busses to a memory controller that then needed to talk to the memory,Todays processors have ever more cache and ram now runs very fast. I don't really know much about the inner workings of processors but I think the initial hyperthreading was a bit of a joke. At work I switched it off and the processor noticeably performs better, possible beacause each core has more cache.

author: raptor1956
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 08:00:09 pm
content: I have a pretty high end laptop with 4K LCD screen and have my Abobe suite on it so I can edit and render 4K video on it, but, laptops aren't really designed to handle heavy loading for extended periods of time and rendering 4K video could max out the PC for hours at a time. So, although I have Premiere Pro etc on my laptop I would not use it to render a project that would require a render time more than 5 minutes or so. To handle high workloads like longer 4K video rendering I have a desktop box with i7-5820K CPU that's water cooled and over clocked as well as a 980 Ti GPU that is also water cooled and over clocked. Add in a PCIe SSD for OS/Programs/Scratch and a couple 6TB WD Black HD's for storage and editing and rendering 4K video is much more workable.Choose the right tool for the job -- for prolonged heavy lifting a laptop is NOT the way to go...Brian

author: suicidaleggroll
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 08:04:16 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on January 09, 2017, 06:19:54 pmAll of my laptops have this ability. I believe it's just the low end ones that don't make basic settings such as HT and turbo mode available.

author: suicidaleggroll
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 08:07:46 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on January 09, 2017, 07:20:14 pmThis entire thread is a head-scratcher...he's complaining about the CPU usage and power consumption when running a program whosesole purposeis to load down the processor as much as possible. If you don't want to load down your proc, then don't run that program, it's a very simple solution.Running processor-intensive applications 24/7 on a laptop is a horrible idea. Not only are the cooling systems not designed for this, which will shorten the life of the electronics, but all of this extra heat will destroy the battery in short order as well. Just don't run BOINC on a laptop or phone, it's an all-around horrible idea.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 08:08:13 pm
content: Quote from: suicidaleggroll on January 09, 2017, 08:04:16 pmI have an Acer TravelMate P653 on my desk which has no CPU options in the BIOS at all. All you get are a few I/O, power saving, boot order and security options. That's it. No way to tweak memory or CPU settings. Then again it is an Acer and I'd sooner use it as a door stopper than to do any serious work on it.Quote from: suicidaleggroll on January 09, 2017, 08:07:46 pmAll this is true. You want a tool which is fit for purpose, not expect one device to do everything well.I like to think of it this way: PORTABILITY, PERFORMANCE, RELIABILITY -- Pick two.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 08:10:38 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on January 09, 2017, 08:08:13 pmSimon bought an HP. Presumably consumer-class. About six rungs down from a Travelmate!

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 08:14:22 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on January 09, 2017, 08:10:38 pmAhh yes, those consumer HP laptops are just crap. I'd put it in the same league as Acer... perhaps just a little bit more plastic.My partner killed his HP laptop by doing nothing more than playing games on it. Granted he would spend hours with the CPU and GPU fans going at full speed. Eventually it just died. I did an autopsy and it wasn't overly dirty or clogged with dust, it just didn't survive many hours of intensive operations. As others have already pointed out, they aren't designed for this kind of torture (and it is torture). Components are stressed beyond their rated temperature limits and there is only so much a pissy little heatsink and fan is going to do (not to mention you're probably cooking the battery in the process).

author: suicidaleggroll
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 08:21:29 pm
content: We have a pretty open policy at work in regards to computers. All workstations are built by me (your basic Supermicro case/mobo + Xeon), but if someone prefers a laptop it's up to them who they go with. Most get Lenovo or Dell business line and they all hold up very well, but a while back we had a new hire who insisted on a consumer HP laptop because it was so much cheaper with better specs. Within a couple of months the hinges holding the screen had snapped, a few months after that the battery was dead, and by the 1 year mark it was shutting down, locking up, fan going 100% for no reason at all...basically unusable. He now knows why they're so cheap.

author: Twoflower
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 08:29:08 pm
content: If the OS says 100% it means it cannot utilize more execution units in the CPU. So that's for the end-user the correct reading. No, not even in the FSP times it was the CPU-Load. It is generated by the CPU performance counters. I haven't looked in the exact way what the CPU counts, but it could be the ratio of clock cycles were at least one execution unit is busy over the total number of clock cycles.I think the current core designs are better in several cases. One big improvement might come from the number of execution units and the ability to feed them (here you see them for a single Skylake core, the ones in your cpu). But even then some codes run better without HT others with. Especially with a low number of cores and an interactive machine (you would like to work on your laptop) probably the system 'feels' more responsive with HT is enabled. Even if the throughput of BOINC suffers a bit.By the way: If you limit your software (in your case BOINC) to start so many threads as your CPU has physical cores (in your case 2) you should see some OS-Magic: The HT-Cores get into the 'Parked' state. They won't get used except a new thread appears then a parked core will get activated.One more point: As I said I used to run Seti@home a lot. And I think I killed some 2.5" hard drives of my laptop back then by doing so. The ones installed in laptops are not nearly designed to operate 24/7. More like 8h/day. And the cooling fan won't live forever too.(Wow! 7 new posts while writing this post!)

author: mmagin
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 08:30:03 pm
content: Realistically, all laptops are a compromise in terms of power and thermal management. (With the exception of some huge models made from basically desktop parts.) If you want something that basically never throttles for thermal or power consumption reasons, use a desktop/server. (And even there maybe some minor things you cannot disable.)

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 09:31:47 pm
content: Quote from: suicidaleggroll on January 09, 2017, 08:07:46 pmI think my point is pretty obvious. I don't mind using power but the concern is the watt per gigahertz of processing. I don't want to use 66% more power for a mere 24% gain in speed. The laptop was advertised as having a 2.5 GHz processor the increase in speed while welcome is gained at a horrendous increase in power consumption. Given that I'm reasonably clever I have looked into this and worked out how to get the laptop to not go over a certain speed and remain efficient and not generate too much heat. From there I can run BOINC at any setting I choose which could be 100% or it could be less so that I don't as you say over stress the laptop. This was not about power consumption per se but actual efficiency of the system. The headline figure is 2.5 GHz, I never asked for 3 GHz or 3.1 GHz. I also don't mind loading down the processor as BOINC does a fairly good job of keeping out of my way and given the hyper- threading technology it will if I'm not running two tasks per physical core help with the overall system responsiveness.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 09:35:05 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on January 09, 2017, 08:10:38 pmIt's a HP 250 G5 I have no idea what class it is. It cost me 690 pounds although this was after the upgrade of the hard drive to a solid state and the putting of the correct amount of RAM into the laptop filling both slots because what these bastards do is sell you a laptop boasting dual channel memory when only one slot is filled. I bought it off a guy on eBay so I have no idea what the original laptop cost I think he buys them you up specs them and sells them on. Since I pointed out that I didn't want to cancel my order with him when he told me he could not give me a VAT receipt because I couldn't get the same thing elsewhere anyway even without the VAT he has stuck his price is right up and now wants nearly 800 pounds for the same laptop. As I have said before it is a pretty good machine and has easy replace my quad core bulldozer processor which runs just over 4 GHz with DDR three RAM at 1.8 GHz in my desktop.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 09:38:58 pm
content: Quote from: suicidaleggroll on January 09, 2017, 08:21:29 pmUnfortunately for what I wanted I didn't get much choice. There are a few laptops out there boasting DDR for memory with a HD screen. My previous laptop was a relatively cheap zoo storm one and has been dragged around for a few years and not particularly treated very well and it held up just fine. The processing probably used about as much power if not more than this laptop and it also ran BOINC at 100% for prolonged periods. I only gave it up because I realised the screen was crap, not only was it low resolution but the actual spacing between the pixels was very visible and was making my eyes hurt. When a bit richer I could probably afford a high-end laptop. But this is all I could afford.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 09:44:38 pm
content: Quote from: Twoflower on January 09, 2017, 08:29:08 pmYes indeed I only have two cores enabled for BOINC. It was actually a pleasure to hear somebody advertising and I seven processor with the correct specification. It was advertised as a 2 core machine not a four core as most of the big retailers would. As I said before as far as I am concerned BOINC can use the maximum of the physical cores available and the virtualisation can help with responsiveness. Now with my work computer it is more responsive if I turn a hyper threading off but that is quite an old machine and the technology might not be as good as it is now.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 09:54:47 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on January 09, 2017, 09:38:58 pmYes, very few. Merely all of them.Quote from: Simon on January 09, 2017, 09:44:38 pmY'know, I've had a quick look around and haven't seen anyone advertising a 6500U as quad core.

author: NottheDan
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 10:20:39 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on January 09, 2017, 09:54:47 pmAre there even any HD screen laptops with only DDR RAM? I thought the switch to DDR2 had already been completed when HD screen came on the market.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 10:21:49 pm
content: Quote from: NottheDan on January 09, 2017, 10:20:39 pmOh, probably. But I was thinking of DDR as a general technology, not the first gen specifically..I think he meant DDR4, actually, in which case.. he got lied to, because his laptop uses DDR3.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 10:23:50 pm
content: Quote from: NottheDan on January 09, 2017, 10:20:39 pmHD in laptops still comands a premium, what I am saying is that to get HD AND the latest processor/ram cost that bit more.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 10:27:07 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on January 09, 2017, 10:21:49 pmI think the name has been used over and over again by HP, I also found nothing specific when looking my model up. SANDRA reports:SiSoftware SandraComputerManufacturer : HPModel : HP 250 G5 Notebook PCFamily : 103C_5336AN G=N L=SMB B=HP S=250Version : Type1ProductConfigIdSerial Number : CND63*****ID : 7110666B-E6115667******************SKU Number : X0N34EA#ABUChassisManufacturer : HPType : NotebookCan be locked : NoVersion : Chassis VersionPower Cord(s) : 1Serial Number : Chassis Se***********Asset Tag : Chassis Asset TagBoot-up State : SafePower State : SafeThermal State : SafeSecurity State : External Interface Locked-outMainboardManufacturer : HPMulti-Processor (MP) Support : NoModel : 81EBType : MainboardVersion : 61.30Serial Number : PFXPQI2*******Asset Tag : Type2 - Board Asset TagLocation in Chassis : Type2 - Board Chassis LocationMainboard PropertiesRemovable : NoReplaceable : YesHot Swap : NoOn-board DevicesIGD : Video Adapter (Disabled)Hanksville Gbe Lan Connection : Ethernet Adapter (Enabled)Other : Other (Enabled)3165NGWG : Other (Enabled)ChipsetModel : HP Core (Skylake-U) ULV Host Bridge/DRAM RegistersOEM Device Name : Intel Core (Skylake-U) ULV Host Bridge/DRAM RegistersRevision : A9Bus : Intel CSI (Quick Path)Front Side Bus Speed : 100MHzWidth : 20-bit / 20-bitHTT - Hyper-Threading Technology : YesMaximum Bus Bandwidth : 400MB/sMaximum Power : 3.400WFeaturesVT-d - Virtualisation Technology : YesChipset 1 Hub InterfaceType : DMI (Direct Media Interface)Version : 1.00Multiplier : 0xLogical/Chipset Memory BanksBank 0 : 8GB SO-DIMM DDR4 15-15-15-36 4-51-17-9 3TBank 2 : 8GB SO-DIMM DDR4 15-15-15-36 4-51-17-9 3TShared Memory : 770MBMaximum Memory : 32GBSupported Memory Types : DDR3 SO-DIMM DDR4Channels : 2Width : 128-bitMemory Bus Speed : 2x 1GHz (2.13GHz)Multiplier : 32/3xIntegrated in Processor : YesMaximum Memory Bus Bandwidth : 33.34GB/sMemory ModuleManufacturer : SamsungModel : M471A1G43DB0-CPBSerial Number : 9812****Type : 8GB SO-DIMM DDR4Technology : 8x(4096Mx8)Speed : PC4-17100SO DDR4-2132Standard Timings : 15-15-15-36 4-51-16-5Interface : 1.00Memory DC Line : 1.200VTemperature Sensor(s) : NoTiming @ 1164MHz : 16-16-16-38 4-54-17-6Timing @ 1091MHz : 15-15-15-36 4-51-16-5Timing @ 1018MHz : 14-14-14-34 4-48-15-5Timing @ 945MHz : 13-13-13-31 3-44-14-5Timing @ 873MHz : 12-12-12-29 3-41-13-4Timing @ 800MHz : 11-11-11-26 3-37-12-4Timing @ 727MHz : 10-10-10-24 3-34-11-4Memory ModuleManufacturer : SamsungModel : M471A1G43DB0-CPBSerial Number : 980F****Type : 8GB SO-DIMM DDR4Technology : 8x(4096Mx8)Speed : PC4-17100SO DDR4-2132Standard Timings : 15-15-15-36 4-51-16-5Interface : 1.00Memory DC Line : 1.200VTemperature Sensor(s) : NoTiming @ 1164MHz : 16-16-16-38 4-54-17-6Timing @ 1091MHz : 15-15-15-36 4-51-16-5Timing @ 1018MHz : 14-14-14-34 4-48-15-5Timing @ 945MHz : 13-13-13-31 3-44-14-5Timing @ 873MHz : 12-12-12-29 3-41-13-4Timing @ 800MHz : 11-11-11-26 3-37-12-4Timing @ 727MHz : 10-10-10-24 3-34-11-4SensorModel : Hewlett-Packard PABAS0241231 BATMainboard Specific Support : NoSensorModel : Intel Core CPU [P1, C2, T7]Version : 78.03Mainboard Specific Support : NoTemperature Sensor(s)CPU Temperature : 39.00°CVoltage Sensor(s)CPU DC Line : 0.897VBattery DC Line : 17.028VCapacity Sensor(s)UPS/Battery Capacity : 40.61WhSystem Bus(es) on Hub 1Version : 2.30System Bus 0 : PCISystem Bus 1 : PCIe 3.00 x1 2.5GbpsSystem Bus 2 : PCIe 3.00 x1 2.5GbpsLPC Hub Controller 1Model : HP Sunrise Point-LP LPC ControllerOEM Device Name : Intel Sunrise Point-LP LPC ControllerRevision : C2ACPI Power Management : NoAdvanced TCO Mode Support : NoRNG - Random Number Generator : NoDisk ControllerModel : HP Sunrise Point-LP SATA Controller [AHCI mode]OEM Device Name : Intel Sunrise Point-LP SATA Controller [AHCI mode]Interface : SATARevision : C2Specification : 1.10Maximum SATA Mode : G3 / SATA600Channels : 2In Use Channels : 2, 100%Port : G3 / SATA600Port : G1 / SATA150Disk ControllerModel : HP Sunrise Point-LP PMCOEM Device Name : Intel Sunrise Point-LP PMCRevision : C2Audio DeviceModel : HP Sunrise Point-LP HD AudioOEM Device Name : Intel Sunrise Point-LP HD AudioRevision : C2Type : HD (High-Definition) AudioVersion : 1.00No. In / Out / Bi-Directional Streams : 7 / 9 / 0No. Serial Data Streams : 1Audio CodecModel : Realtek Semi 0282Revision : A4Version : 1.00Audio Channels : 6USB Controller 1Model : HP Sunrise Point-LP USB 3.0 xHCI ControllerOEM Device Name : Intel Sunrise Point-LP USB 3.0 xHCI ControllerRevision : C2Version : 3.00Specification : 1.00Interface : XHCIChannels : 18Companion Controllers : 64Supported Speed(s) : Full (12Mbps) High (480Mbps) Super (4.8Gbps)Legacy Emulation Enabled : NoSMBus/i2c Controller 1Model : Intel ICH SMBusVersion : 2.01Specification : 2.00Advanced TCO Mode Support : Yes, DisabledSlave Device Enabled : YesPEC Support : YesSpeed : 100kHzExpansion Slot(s)J6C1 (1h) : PCIe x1 PME Hot-Plug UsedJ6D2 (2h) : PCIe x1 PME Hot-Plug AvailableJ7C1 (3h) : PCIe x1 PME Hot-Plug AvailableJ7D1 (4h) : PCIe x1 PME Hot-Plug AvailableJ8C1 (5h) : PCIe x4 PME Hot-Plug AvailablePort Connector(s)J1A1 - Keyboard : Keyboard / PS/2J1A1 - Mouse : Mouse / PS/2J2A1 - TV OUT : Video / Mini-DINJ2A2 - CRT : Video / DB-15 pin femaleJ2A2 - COM 1 : Serial Port 16550A / DB-9 pin maleJ3A1 - USB : USB / USBJ3A1 - USB : USB / USBJ3A1 - USB : USB / USBJ5A1 - USB : USB / USBJ5A1 - USB : USB / USBJ5A2 - USB : USB / USBJ5A1 - Network : Network / RJ-45J9G2 - OnBoard Floppy Type : Floppy DiskJ7J1 - OnBoard Primary IDE : ATAJ30 - Microphone In : Audio / Mini-jackJ30 - Line In : Audio / Mini-jackJ30 - Speaker Out : Audio / Mini-jackCtrl0Port0 - Primary HDD Bay* : SATACtrl0Port1 - Secondary HDD Bay* : SATAPerformance Enhancing TipsWarning 2542 : Memory bus speed exceeds Chipset rated speed. Reduce FSB/memory multiplier.Warning 2513 : TPM not detected. Some security features are unavailable.Tip 2 : Double-click tip or press Enter while a tip is selected for more information about the tip.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 10:30:09 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on January 09, 2017, 09:54:47 pmGlad to hear it, maybe the marketing fad has died out. Look out on ebay though, you can get a 10GHz processor........ (4x 2.5GHz processor when it is actually a 2 core.....)

author: Fsck
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 10:32:21 pm
content: Modern processors have sleep states to save power when the user isn't doing much, and burst frequency states for work.I don't understand why you're complaining.The goal is to zip a file or something really quickly using a high frequency state, do whatever else you want, then go back to sleep and not have the user wait on a more efficient processor doing it slowly.Excessive power use at high frequency has been known for quite a while... since the preshot pentium 4 days afflicted everyone.This fact has forced people to seek more parallelism. Top of the line Xeon processors for pure compute can give you 22 cores of 2.2GHz at 135W TDP at a hilarious price tag.If heavy compute isn't needed, the Xeon D-1541 for 8 cores of 2.1GHz at 45W is pretty popular for storage and network appliances.250-400$ USD can net you a v3 Haswell ES 10-14core processor which will stomp a laptop chip into the ground. (you'll likely have to pay more for a board for it)Why are you running a continuous heavy compute workload on a "U"-type processor anyways?The i7-6500U is skylake and not really that old. People are building "new" rigs, on older Haswell ES xeons these days quite commonly. It's successor, the i7-7500U is kaby lake, released in sept 2016, a pretty recent update considering the state of the CPU industry.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 10:38:26 pm
content: So they come in both DDR3 and DDR4, how fun.As for the screen.. You don't need 1080p to be classed as 'HD'. And as for <1080p.. only for the cheap trash!The SSD is standard HP spec, and that spec is £500 with a little hunting.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 09, 2017, 11:39:01 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on January 09, 2017, 09:31:47 pmBut how have you measured this? The power scaling will be faster than the performance as the voltage also adjusts up with frequency. Perhaps you've just found a local minima on the power/performance curve from the limited number of steps the voltage is adjusted in.The fans turning on is annoying from your perspective, but they are unlikely to be very linear with power consumption. The modern core processors will turn of inactive cores and can happily churn away on a single core turbo with surprisingly low power, its when all cores are powered up that the consumption peaks. Trying to game processor affinity is a losing battle when most of the threads will be memory throttled, in general leave the OS to work its magic as it will do better than you can. The only thing left is to finesse the power management to suit your desire of keeping the voltage scaling down, but you'll need to experiment with the workload difference between using just a single thread and powering multiple cores.

author: TechnicalBen
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2017, 12:02:31 am
content: Quote from: shteii01 on January 08, 2017, 08:53:18 pmIt use to be that i7 were still only quad cores, but had the "hyperthreading". Which is more about instruction ques and making use of the entire core, and not letting it go to waist. It does not give you twice the performance or twice the core power/speed/processing. In some tasks, it gives better speed, in others it gives slightly less (due to the wait while it checks to see if it should use hyperthreading or default to using just one instruction).My terminology may be completely off there. But it's a complex pipeline, it's late at night, and I really should read up on it again.But as an example, think of it as putting a divider in the middle of each seat in your sports car. You can now take twice as many half sized people, but you get to the destination in the same time, same speed, snd no quicker than before. You cannot take more mass than before, your seats are the same size, and normal sized people may find the dividers uncomfortable when getting in.macboy gave the proper and fully correct description! I'll have to work on an example with people getting in and out a not full up bus.You can turn HT off on some motherboards, as when doing certain compute tasks it may give a slight advantage to turn it off.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 10, 2017, 07:00:53 am
content: Quote from: Someone on January 09, 2017, 11:39:01 pmum the manufacturers own published data ? they say 2.5GHz 15W which is what it is sold at and turbo mode of 3.1GHz 25W except that it will sit happily at nearly 3GHz non stop so not sure if it's meant to do that but windows allows it.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2017, 09:10:08 am
content: Quote from: Simon on January 10, 2017, 07:00:53 amSo you haven't measured anything.TDP is a measure of the power a cooling system should be able to dissipate. It is not the current power consumption, the minimum power consumption, the maximum power consumption, or any other measure of actual power consumption at any point in time.

author: senso
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2017, 10:42:28 am
content: Quote from: Simon on January 10, 2017, 07:00:53 amNo..The 25Watts are only available IF the BIOS is setup to enable TDP-UP, if not, you will only ever use 15Watts..Download HWMonitor, unzip it and watch the TDP values..

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 10, 2017, 01:00:55 pm
content: ok, I see well I can confirm that given the fan racket a substantially higher amount of power has been used at 3GHz than 2.5GHz.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2017, 12:48:52 am
content: Quote from: Simon on January 10, 2017, 01:00:55 pmYes, the fan noise might be annoying but you've not demonstrated the change in power consumption. There are many dumb fan control techniques out there that will suddenly switch on the fan for just a small increase in temperature.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 11, 2017, 07:43:14 am
content: Quote from: Someone on January 11, 2017, 12:48:52 amSo you say you are disbeleiving the the laws that tell us that a semiconductor device gets hotter when run faster and that when hotter it needs more voltage to run at the same speed ? More clock speed means more power consumption right there as the power is expended every time the gates switch so you will get at least a linear increase in power requirement, but then you need more voltage, clearly this is an exponential relationshitp, granted I do not know how exponential, but the fact that it shoots to 3GHz and then drops to 2.85GHz (oscilating from 2.84 to 2.86) tells me that it is creating more heat at 3GHz than the system was designed to tolerate for a long time and it has to reduce speed while maintaining some extra speed but clearly at increased power demand. Now I'm not exactly complaining, I just like to be aware that when I buy a machine that states 2.5GHz it won't try and kill itself if I want high usage for a longer period. In my case I have analysed the situation and because my use of the machine means long periods of high demand I have throttled it back whilst also only letting BOINC use 50% of processor time.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2017, 09:39:14 pm
content: QuoteMight I suggest a download ofCore Tempwhich will tell you exactly how much power your CPU is using in realtime, along with the CPU usage and details?Not sure about Windows, but traditionally CPU usage percentage is the ratio of overall time vs time spent in the idle loop (that is, not doing anything in particular). Thus 100% usage would mean no time in the idle loop, and 0% would mean nothing happening except idle looping. For a dual-core CPU, anoverallusage of 50% might suggest one core is compute bound, but bear in mind that the machine is doing other stuff too - OS maintenance, display, etc. So a completely bound core should show a figure of something over 50%.Hence why Core Temp and the like is so useful - it will show you what each core is doing individually. If an overall 50% really is a completely bound core, Core Temp will show that as 100% for that core.BTW, if you're running W7 (or 8 probably, or 10 with some third party app) Core Temp does a very nice desktop gadget.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2017, 12:26:59 am
content: Quote from: Simon on January 11, 2017, 07:43:14 amYou are exaggerating the change in power consumption, based on your arguments of the fan speed and your misinterpretation of the part specifications. Until you've found some way to measure the change in power consumption you're just waffling on against all of our real world experiences.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 12, 2017, 07:46:34 am
content: Quote from: Someone on January 12, 2017, 12:26:59 amSo please post some of your real world experiences. Heavier power consumption at higher processor speeds is no mith, it's why the overclocking boys have to work so hard. I never got more than 5% if I was lucky out of stock gear. Obviously the processor was made to go up to 3.1GHz and use 25W but there is no specification on how long for. Laptop manufacturers have had to come clean on how long batteries really last and we have gone from laptops that lasted 5 hours in sleep mode to laptops that can actually be used for 3-4 hours. Clearly one way to achieve this is to make the processor efficient.Now as I just said, we all know that running a processor faster at the same voltage uses more power. Are you or are you not aware that to run hotter at a higher speed requires more voltage (the basic overclockers tool). now can't you see that at the very least with a linear power increase with speed and an square law of power increase with voltage rise (basic ohms law) the speed/power relationship is going to be exponential. I am not saying by how much because as been pointed out I have not made measurements. Unfortunately the program suggested earlier won't diplay my power consumption. What I can say is that 3GHz 20% time usage = noisy fan with warm air coming out, 2.4GHz 50% time fan hardly moving and air is cool! now don't say you can't deduce anyrthing from that.As to all the experiances and data "everyone else" has, please do share. If there is another program that can measure my processor power then please let me know what it is.

author: KhronX
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2017, 12:14:56 pm
content: Guys, i'll give you a hint:https://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/2815/throttlestop-8-30This will, on one hand, allow monitoring of multipliers / clock frequencies / momentary power consumption / temperatures, and on the other hand, allow access to power limit modification, enabling/disabling Turbo, EIST, power-saving and many other Intel CPU features.

author: senso
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2017, 03:56:47 pm
content: I said in page 2 for him to run hwinfo/hwmonitor, didnt care, better to ramble without any facts.

author: KhronX
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2017, 06:27:47 pm
content: Those are just for monitoring; ThrottleStop can also CONTROL some settings

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 12, 2017, 06:47:00 pm
content: Quote from: senso on January 12, 2017, 03:56:47 pmOkay so you want some facts. Firstly if I can't control the speed of the processor how I might do comparative measurements. Hardware monitor as far as I know does not allow speed control. The tech power up program does. So what I am doing now is running BOINC on all four cores just to make sure the processor is fully loaded at 100% time use.with turbo off (2.5 GHz) I get 11.4W with turbo on (2.86GHz) 15W, 14% speed increase 31.5% power increase! Did I or did I not say it was not a linear relationship ?

author: KhronX
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2017, 08:03:44 pm
content: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPU_power_dissipation#SourcesTechnically, the increased voltage needed FOR that higher frequency, is what pushes the power higher, than the frequency itself.That being said, if you're feeling adventurous, if you click on the "FIVR" button, that might give you some access to tweaking the voltage settings for various CPU subcomponents.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 12, 2017, 08:10:49 pm
content: Quote from: KhronX on January 12, 2017, 08:03:44 pmAnd didn't I say just that a couple of posts back. I said that there will probably be a linear increase in power dissipation with the frequency increase and due to ohms law the voltage increase will create a an exponential power increase probably to the square.

author: KhronX
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2017, 11:32:50 pm
content: Then use ThrottleStop to limit your max CPU clock (via setting the multiplier), and job done.Otherwise, it's starting to sound like you're complaining about the laws of physics

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 04:22:38 am
content: Running some real workloads I left the logging on and found that this i7 quad core actually gains efficiency as the cores are spun up. It seems the memory controller, graphics core, and static loads are high enough to mostly swamp the scaling effects. Actually I'm quite surprised that the compute/watt efficiency ishigheras the additional cores are turned on. As always it pays to actually profile your use cases without jumping to conclusions, and it seems that the modern computer design paradigm of boosting clocks to terminate tasks as fast as possible is both better for the user and might use less power even on these bigger processors.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 05:12:03 am
content: Quote from: Someone on January 13, 2017, 04:22:38 amYou mean the highly paid idiots at Intel actually did their research and didn't just bolt these features on because they sound good in the marketing blurb? That's unpossible!

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 07:42:26 am
content: Quote from: KhronX on January 12, 2017, 11:32:50 pmNo I'm just pointing the physics out to people. I never expected my CPU to boost for extensive periods and I am given no obvious control. What I am saying is that if people are running things like BOINC and care about power or fan noise then it pays to lock down the processor. I am please I have found the suggested program as it allows me to do controls on the fly.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 08:00:31 am
content: Quote from: Monkeh on January 13, 2017, 05:12:03 amWell its not in their blurb anywhere I can see, they advertise the dynamic clocking/gating/power as a way to save power by reducing the processor power when its not needed but I havent seen these sorts of work/watt measurements discussed across a wide range of conditions. The traditional thoughts/analyses suggest the opposite I what I measured:http://www.erudianart.com/research/papers/turboboost.pdfWhich is why its interesting.

author: senso
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 04:20:19 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on January 13, 2017, 07:42:26 amThe CPU doesn't use 15Watts to do 2.something Ghz, my 4700 doesn't use 47Watts to iddle at sub Ghz speeds, nor does it use 90 or 120Watts to run at full tilt, open a monitor program and see -.-Its a dynamic power usage that is always oscilating, I have hit 3.4Ghz with less than 25Watts..And the fan does a racket because its undersized and the stock thermal paste is crap.Repaste it with Artic MX-4 or Kryonaut and you will temp drops between 4 and 10ºC.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 04:41:12 pm
content: Yes my processor also shows speeds of 3 GHz whilst not using a lot of power but as soon as you actually put something onto it it slows down due to thermal throttling. The reality is my processor cannot use more than 15 W in power after that it starts to throttle. It might manage sixteen depending on the ambient temperature. The peak is eighteen, Intel claim it could use up to 25 W at 3.1 GHz but I've never seen actually get that fast.It's a bit confusing because even when I had four threads going in BOINC the processor still only showed 50% loaded and windows also shows lowering load percentages when you reduce the processor speed.

author: Towger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 06:33:00 pm
content: TDP is not the power the chip is using, it is the amount of heat it generates. The speed of fan in a modern system depends on a lot of factors. It may not always ramp up linearly and as heat increases. The OS can play with it as well for power saving/performance mode etc.

author: suicidaleggroll
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 06:48:12 pm
content: Quote from: Towger on January 13, 2017, 06:33:00 pmFirst law of thermodynamics. It's not generating sound or light, it's not radiating a significant amount of power via EMI, it's not charging or discharging an energy storage device, etc., which means power in = heat out.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 08:17:28 pm
content: Quote from: suicidaleggroll on January 13, 2017, 06:48:12 pmDon't worry, I work for a heat transfer company and someone started talking about the efficiency of a kettle but could not identify the losses.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 09:03:39 pm
content: Quote from: KhronX on January 12, 2017, 08:03:44 pmActually just increasing the frequency on its own and keeping the voltage constant will increase the power consumption. This is assuming all things remain equal: the CPU isn't shutting down circuitry when it's not being used.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 09:12:16 pm
content: Yes faster clock speeds do draw more power. My understanding as I stated earlier is that it's the actual action of opening and closing transistor switches in the processor that causes the power dissipation not the steady states that they may sit in.

author: rrinker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 06:06:23 am
content: I think you are misunderstanding how the turbo mode works. It only gets to that peak frequency if executing a single threaded application. To stay within the specified TDP envelop, as more cores go active, the top speed has to come down. Run something like BOINC set to use just one core and compare the top speed vs having it use 4 or all 8. With no modern multicore processor can you directly compare peak speed and what it runs at with a decent workload - great, it can do 3.1GHz on a single core (so you install DOS?) but 4 cores running at 2.5GHz are going to complete an awfully lot more work than 1 core at 3.1GHz.The tools mentioned like CPU Temp will show a lot of useful information. There's another similar one called CPU something or other which shows the load on each core as well as temps for each one plus the overall temp of the processor. Also in any of the newer Windows versions, the Resource Monitor (not Performance Monitor) will show a lot of details about each subsystem including the CPU with a chart for each core (real and virtual - and yes, Hyperthreading DOES help a LOT of types of workloads, even if it does little for this one specific case).As for how long it can sustain max power, that really depends on how well the hardware is designed. With proper cooling, the maximum can be sustained forever. With a less than adequate cooling system, the CPU will throttle back when it gets too hot.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 08:30:37 am
content: Well one core only gets me 3.07GHz but like you say it is more efficient to run slower while chewing on more work. That was kind of my point.Yes I know hyperthreading will help lots of stuff baring this as it just loads down the processor and needs resl hardware to run on whioch is why i don't use more than 2 cores for it and lock them.Taking it further with 2 fully loaded cores (or even trying 4 which is pointless) I get up to 2.85GHz but the extra power demand and stresses are probabvly not worth it and if I am knowingly loading my processor down disabling turbo boost is a good ideas which was also my point in creating this thread......

author: Twoflower
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 02:32:55 pm
content: Quote from: suicidaleggroll on January 13, 2017, 06:48:12 pmOK, parts of the energy feed into the Processor are not converted into heat, but I think that's just a minor part. I think Towger means that the TDP doesn't have a 1:1 relationship to the power consumption. The processor is actually allowed to generate more heat than the TDP indicated. But that just for a very short time frame. It takes account the thermal mass of the cooling system. The TDP should be used to calculate the cooling system; if you use this value to perfectly match the power supply you're calling for trouble. To my understanding the accumulated thermal load over a longer period of time will not exceed the stated TDP.Still this TDP value is nowadays widely ignored by laptop manufacturers. It doesn't matter if you buy a cheap or a expensive one. The cheap ones usually save money on the cooling system, the expensive ones try to minimize the volume/weight of the Laptop. Both solutions have a direct impact to the system performance under long lasting loads. An exception might be the so called 'Gamer Laptops'. The question today is only how well the cooling system it is designed. Probably the best solution is to look for a system that's available also in more powerful versions (higher TDP rated CPUs) and hope the system you buy (with lower TDP) has the same cooling system. That may or may not indicate to a better cooling system.But it even gets more variable: The TU Dresden recently published a document showing how the CPU performance behave over a large number of identical processors:The Shift from Processor Power Consumption to Performance Variationssee figure 1b. The performance varies about +/-5% between individual CPUs. To my understanding similar results were made elsewhere too with same or worse results. If and how much this will translate to a Laptop stays on another page. But my personal assumption: This variations will increase in future as the silicon is squeezed out to the last bit and all kinds of variations (Process speed, minor changes in the cooling system and many more) gets visible.

author: SpaceCow
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 02:44:18 pm
content: I'm happy that I don't have to worry about the temp or clockspeed of my laptop. It handles that all by itself.

author: rrinker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 08:42:22 pm
content: Good point. I gave up on even bothering to overclock anything years ago. The newer processors are so much lower in power draw than what was out 10 years ago that you (well, at least I) don't even bother with aftermarket cooling systems in my desktops, the supplied fan in the Intel boxed processors is sufficient for the machine to run hours on end at max CPU load without throttling. My only laptop is an older I5 (dual core, no hyperthreading) provided by work, despite being only 2 cores, I've had it running labs with 3x Server 2012 R2 VMs on top of the Win10 host with no problems. The fan does run at full speed most of the time when doing that, but it kept going with no slowdowns while I build and configured the 3 servers to simulate a system I was designing for a client. During a typical day, when I am just doing some web browsing and have email open, the fan is mostly silent. This is not a gaming laptop, there's no discrete GPU, but it's also not an ultralite design - it's fairly hefty compared to many new laptops.

author: KhronX
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2017, 02:09:09 pm
content: For further details:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Turbo_BoostQuote from: rrinker on January 14, 2017, 06:06:23 amPS: HP laptops, especially those lowly consumer ones are designed and built down to a budget. As in, WAY down. Even the Pavilions from a couple years ago were (and they may well still be). Especially when it comes down to build quality and cooling (and most likely display as well) - those are the few main areas costs CAN be cut.

author: senso
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2017, 03:15:13 pm
content: If you think that a 600€/&/£ laptop as a production cost of around 200€ and half of that goes to Intel you start to see why they are so crappy...No, it will only be allowed to go up to 25Watts in TDP-UP mode, that requires that the BIOS allows the cpu to do that, and you limited cooling system doesn't support 25Watts of TDP, so the TDP-UP option is turned off and removed from the visible options in the user-land BIOS...It can be turned on, but it will be under temp throottle all the time..And remember, there is also vregs and ram controller and most important there is the iGPU in all sharing that 15Watts budged, run the laptop in 16 colours mode at 240x480 and you might gain another watt to the cpu cores.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 19, 2017, 04:23:46 pm
content: It actually limits at 18W or lower depending on ambient temperature.Sent from my phone so mind the autocorrect.

author: slicendice
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 19, 2017, 06:40:35 pm
content: I think there are a lot of misunderstanding regarding the relationship of TDP, Power consumption, Temperature, Thermal dissipation and Turbo Boost.I start with Turbo Boost. Intel processors can up it's frequency above specs while using n-cores (not just 1-core). This means that a 4-core CPU can TB on all 4 cores as long as the designed max power consumption and temperatures are within defined specs. The TB is defined separately for 1-, 2-, 3- and 4-core operation. The settings could be for instance 2/2/7/9, which means the amount of frequency increment steps the CPU can take above specs. The numbers starting from left to right are defined for 4-, 3- 2- and 1-core boosting.Example:We have a 2GHz CPU and it's base frequency is 100MHz, this means that on 100% CPU usage with big enough heat sink the multiplier will be 2000MHz / 100MHz = x20.So now we know the max frequencies we can get during TB.Calculations:n-cores --> ( MULTIPLIER_STEPS + TB_MULTIPLIER_STEPS ) x BASEFREQUENCY = MAX_TURBOBOOST_FREQUENCY4-cores --> (20 + 2) x 100 = 2200Resulting table based on above formula and valuesCoresTB Steps MAXFreq. MAX422200322200272700192900All this info can be found in the CPU specifications (if someone dare to read hundreds if not thousands of pages of CPU specs) :-DMax power consumption is not equal to TDP. You have to consult the CPU specifications documents in order to know how much power is required to run the processor. TDP is the minimum thermal dissapation capacity/power required for a cooling solution under normal CPU operation/load. You have to consult the specs sheet again for more details.Finally we have temperature, the CPU speed is increased and decreased according to temp in relationship to Tjunction, again consult the specs sheets for more details, but basically this means the CPU will power off completely at 100C. And for example MAX turbo boost at a temperature of below 45C. (consult docs for exact values).Simon, if your computer is something cheap, then it is very likely that the cooling solution is not good enough. The heat pipes, the thermal paste could be bad quality and the cooling solution max capacity was designed too close to TDP.Hope I did clear up more confusions than I created by posting this. :-)

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 19, 2017, 06:59:46 pm
content: I think ultimately it boils down to the processor having a maximum working temperature. If you can push it faster in a colder temperature with a higher voltage if necessary then so be it. I think a lot of what Turbo boost relies on is the thermal inertia of the cooling system. If you need a few seconds of maximum possible speed that could not be sustained by the cooling system for long periods you can do that relying on the fact that the actual heat sink material can absorb an amount of heat before its temperature hits the maximum that the processor can withstand. Once you hit that temperature limit then the processor will start to slow down again to maintain that temperature without crashing. This means that you will get more performance in a colder environment and in a warmer environment the process that will limit more readily. It's really quite simple. Obviously when you have multiple cores you can start looking at things like how much more speed can you get for one core alone if you practically turn the other core off which is excellent for single thread programs which most programs are.For example if I am doing work in my 3D CAD program the biggest processor demand is when I moved the model around on the screen. So if I'm going to spend a few seconds at a time moving the model around the processor can afford to put on a spurt of speed to make that movement more responsive and fluid for me.

author: slicendice
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 20, 2017, 08:26:44 am
content: Attached is an image of how Turbo Boost should work. My CPU is by default 2.3GHz but as you can see, the frequency is way beyond that though all 4 cores/threads are almost at 100% usage. :-)