Download the Tom's Hardware App from the App Store
The reference for current tech news
Yes No
Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > Intel Speedstep - On or Off? What's best?

Intel Speedstep - On or Off? What's best?

Forum CPU & Components : CPUs Intel Speedstep - On or Off? What's best?

Related Content
You have searched for "Intel Speedstep - On or Off? What's best?" . You might be interested in the following threads:

See more for "Intel Speedstep - On or Off? What's best?"

Can't find your answer?
Ask!

CPUs

|

Power Supplies, Cases & Mods

|

Sound Cards

|

Servers

|

NICs

|

Other Components

|

Akasa

|

Antec

|

Cooler Master

|

Cougar

|

DeepCool

|

Enermax

Word :    Username :           
 
seabreeze   09-05-2009 at 09:46:42 AM
- 0 +

Just in case you were wondering, here's some results from having speedstep on or off. Having not come across much information indicating one way or the other, I did the benchmarks myself and here they are.

The set up is:
i5-750 2.55GHz 8MB L3
Gigabyte GA-P55M-UD2
4 x 2GB Corsair XMS3 1600C8
XFX GTX285 1GB
SuperTalent UltraDrive ME Series 64GB 2.5" MLC SSD
Gigabyte ODIN 800W PSU
Windows XP SP3 32-bit

Speedstep (EIST) enabled in BIOS and Portable/Laptop selected in Power Options for Speedstep On.
Speedstep (EIST) disabled in BIOS and Destop selected in Power Options for Speedstep Off.

If the Power Options are left on Desktop, it makes no difference whether or not Speedstep is Enabled, Disabled or left on Auto with this system. It will function as if Disabled. Unless the correct Power Option (ie Portable/Laptop) is also choosen when Speedstep is Enabled, then Speedstep will not function.

The following two graphs are from 3DMark06 results (default settings). The first is the total 3DMark06 score and the second is the CPU component from the same run.

For those who do not know this benchmarking tool, it is available from http://www.futuremark.com. You can download the free version to try for yourself.

Please note that I prefer leaving speedstep enabled on all my Intel machines, whether they are my own or builds for clients.

http://i892.photobucket.com/albums/ac124/dark_energy_technology/i5-750SpeedstepOnvsOff10MHzInt3dmar.jpg

http://i892.photobucket.com/albums/ac124/dark_energy_technology/i5-750SpeedstepOnvsOff10MHzIntcpusc.jpge

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by seabreeze on 09-06-2009 at 08:59:55 AM
Reply to seabreeze
Register or log in to remove.
randoMIZER   09-05-2009 at 03:33:32 PM
- 0 +

Interesting that it caused a major drop in performance. I can't say I've witnessed that with C-states, never really checked EIST though.

Message quoted 1 times
Reply to randoMIZER
sminlal   09-05-2009 at 08:40:01 PM
- 0 +

randoMIZER wrote :

Interesting that it caused a major drop in performance.

The Y axis of those graphs is not zero, so the differences are exaggerated. It looks to me like the difference is about 2.5% - so I guess it depends on what you mean by "major". I'm not familiar with the benchmarks, but I wonder if it's just the initial ramp-up of the clock speed from idle to full at the start of the test. If not, then I'm guessing it means the CPU clock drops multiple times during idle periods in the test while the GPU is the bottleneck.

Message quoted 2 times
Reply to sminlal
seabreeze   09-06-2009 at 01:22:24 AM
- 0 +

zipzoomflyhigh wrote :

If our power bill is too low, then leave it off.



Still funny...

Reply to seabreeze
seabreeze   09-06-2009 at 01:26:42 AM
- 0 +

sminlal wrote :

The Y axis of those graphs is not zero, so the differences are exaggerated. It looks to me like the difference is about 2.5% - so I guess it depends on what you mean by "major". I'm not familiar with the benchmarks, but I wonder if it's just the initial ramp-up of the clock speed from idle to full at the start of the test. If not, then I'm guessing it means the CPU clock drops multiple times during idle periods in the test while the GPU is the bottleneck.



Yes, the graph was set with a Y-axis of 4000 min and 6000 max for ease of reading. You've estimated correctly the approximate difference, which some people may find hard to do.

Taking that into consideration, here is another image just showing the percentages in gains of having Speedstep Off compared to having it left on:

http://i892.photobucket.com/albums/ac124/dark_energy_technology/i5-750Speedstepoffpercentages.jpg

Reply to seabreeze
paranoidmage   09-06-2009 at 02:17:46 AM
- 0 +

seabreeze wrote :

Speedstep (EIST) enabled in BIOS and Portable/Laptop selected in Power Options for Speedstep On.
Speedstep (EIST) disabled in BIOS and Destop selected in Power Options for Speedstep Off.



I think the power options would be the reason for differing performance results, not Speedstep.

------------------------------ Pentium D 930 :: 2x1GB DDR2-667 OCZ RAM :: XFX 7600GT at 580MHz Core, 1600Mhz Memory :: Western Digital 1TB HDD :: OCZ 600W PSU :: Asus 945P mobo :: Antec aluminum case :: Samsung 24 inch monitor
 Reply to paranoidmage
paperfox   09-06-2009 at 02:33:57 AM
- 0 +

^^ ya i was thinking the same, with the power options being different you now have 2 variables to account for not just 1.

Reply to paperfox
seabreeze   09-06-2009 at 08:21:17 AM
- 0 +

It's not the power options. On this board, with speedstep enabled and power options set to Desktop, it runs just as it would with speedstep disabled.

Without enabling speedstep and selecting power options to Portable/Laptop, the systems will run permanently on the highest multiplier, no changes.

I've already done the benchmarks as follows:

Speedstep On power options to Desktop
Speedstep Off power options to Dektop

There is no difference in results. The both produce outcomes as if speedstep is off.

If I had posted those benchmarks, I would have receive replies of "but the power options are the same".

Apparently, even when sharing some findings, you can't win.


Message edited by seabreeze on 09-06-2009 at 08:22:27 AM
Reply to seabreeze
randoMIZER   09-06-2009 at 01:40:36 PM
- 0 +

sminlal wrote :

The Y axis of those graphs is not zero, so the differences are exaggerated. It looks to me like the difference is about 2.5% - so I guess it depends on what you mean by "major".


I realised that it was non-zero on the Y-axis. I consider 2.5% to be a pretty major performance drop for simply enabling a power-saving feature. When I tested the effects of C1E on my E6600 it finished a SuperPi 1M run in almost exactly the same time whether on or off. I don't think I tested EIST though.

Reply to randoMIZER
cjl   09-06-2009 at 01:51:23 PM
- 0 +

Note that there was a windows power mode change too though. I've tested it on my system before, and I don't think there was a measurable difference. I may get around to trying it again sometime though.

Reply to cjl
randoMIZER   09-06-2009 at 01:53:31 PM
- 0 +

That might be the cause. I was under the impression that EIST and C1E re-evaluate multipliers and voltages quite regularly, meaning that there shouldn't be a measurable difference in performance, let alone a consistent difference.

Reply to randoMIZER
Mousemonkey   02-03-2012 at 10:28:26 PM
- 0 +

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey

------------------------------ http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/3995/bl11.gif
 Reply to Mousemonkey
Register or log in to remove.
See all topics related to "Intel Speedstep - On or Off? What's best?"
Tom's Hardware > Forum > CPU & Components > CPUs > Intel Speedstep - On or Off? What's best?
Go to:

There are 802 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Bestofmedia Forum ©
2000-2009 Bestofmedia Group
Page generated in 0.977 seconds
  • Ask the community now
  • Publish
Ad
Latest best answer
Battery Compatibility issues in Windows XP on Gateway
By hang-the-9, 60 days ago:

If this is a 3rd party battery, issues like this are pretty much to be expected. If it's...

They won a badge
Join us in greeting them
How do I win badges?
Partners