Saturday, September 23, 2006

How to really enable AMD cool & quiet

I installed AMD's Cool and Quiet driver and thought the PCes were running cool. But after checking the clockspeed, I noticed it was always running at full speed. What did I do wrong?

I found that you actually need to change Windows XP's Power scheme to "Minimal Power Management" for C&Q to kick in. After making that change, the CPU is now running at half the speed most of the time.

AMD should make this clear on their driver installation program -- or maybe I didn't pay attention?

With C&Q enabled, most of the noise now comes from the hard drives.

BTW, IBM and SUN will use Socket F for their next gen processors.

19 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unless you're using Extreme/FX/SFF, you really shouldn't worry about throttling your PC:)
http://www.intel.com/idf/us/fall2006/index.htm
Speaking of coolnes, Fall 2006 IDF Focuses on Energy-Efficient Performance

7:20 PM, September 23, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe your hard drive was made by Intel or maybe the components were made by Intel.

Maybe Windows XP power scheme was designed by those stupid Intel engineers.

You probably need to upgrade to a 64-bit OS so anything made by Intel in your system would crash.

Gee, I can't think of anything else to blame on Intel.

Maybe the war in Afgannistan and Iraq was orchestrated by Intel so that that Dell can sell those exploding laptops to terrorist.

7:36 PM, September 23, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wha.aw.wat...you actually wrote something almost a tiny bit bad about AMD. The freaking end is near. I think that intel has zombie computers on the net that attack amd computers and disable the cool and quite settings. :)

8:01 PM, September 23, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

anything made by Intel in your system would crash.


Fortunately, none of the parts in my PC is made by Intel. Only brave people who are not afraid explosions buy Intel. Core 2 Duo and Core Duo users are all brave dudes, bang, bang, two explosions...

8:03 PM, September 23, 2006  
Blogger Sharikou, Ph. D said...

I think that intel has zombie computers on the net that attack amd computers and disable the cool and quite settings.

AMD64 CPU has a hidden feature called CFI (Counter Frag Intel), when an Intel chip tries to disable AMD64 C&Q over the net, the CFI delivers a payload which will disable Intel's thermal throttle, and the Intel chip will explode...

8:08 PM, September 23, 2006  
Anonymous Wirmish said...

Something strange in my rig...

AMD Athlon X2 3800+ (2GHz, 95w, 1.35V)
Standard heatsink.

1. CnQ off, 2 GHz, 1.35v -> 38°C
2. CnQ off, 2 GHz, 1.175v -> 38°C
3. CnQ off, 2.4 GHz, 1.2v -> 38°C
4. CnQ off, 2.6 GHz, 1.25v -> 39°C
5. CnQ on, 1 GHz, 1.0v -> 38°C

WTF ?

9:23 PM, September 23, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You should pay attention to the instructions. Everybody knows you have to change the power profile to minimum.

12:06 AM, September 24, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fall 2006 IDF Focuses on Energy-Efficient Performance

And thats why AMD is not there

1:13 AM, September 24, 2006  
Anonymous Edward said...

"Gee, I can't think of anything else to blame on Intel."

Except he wasn't blaming Intel at all, you moron.

BTW, Sharikou, for Turion64 X2, setting to "Minimal Power Management" do not throttle CPU clock rate, either. I have to set the power sheme to "Portable/Laptop" to allow the clockrate throttled properly.

(This is not the case for Athlon64 X2 nor Turion64, both of which will be throttled under "minimal power management" setting.)

Yet from my first-hand experience Turin64 X2 has much superior power management than its predecessors, probably because its HT links can also be throttled. The battery life of an Acer T64 X2 Aspire 5100 easily exceeds 5 hours, which not many notebooks with 15" screen can do.

3:03 AM, September 24, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wirmish said...

Something strange in my rig...

AMD Athlon X2 3800+ (2GHz, 95w, 1.35V)
Standard heatsink.

1. CnQ off, 2 GHz, 1.35v -> 38°C
2. CnQ off, 2 GHz, 1.175v -> 38°C
3. CnQ off, 2.4 GHz, 1.2v -> 38°C
4. CnQ off, 2.6 GHz, 1.25v -> 39°C
5. CnQ on, 1 GHz, 1.0v -> 38°C


And? Does running cool and quiet automatically mean you do not need to remove heat from your cpu? Has not your fan speed gone down for stage 5? At stage 3 and 4, was the fan working harder?

6:45 AM, September 24, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your fan slows down ,so it's Cool 'n QUIET.

7:23 AM, September 24, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I found that you actually need to change Windows XP's Power scheme to "Minimal Power Management" for C&Q to kick in. After making that change, the CPU is now running at half the speed most of the time.

You know that is fairly common knowledge that you have to configure Windows to get CnQ to work properly. It's the same with EIST.

3:09 PM, September 24, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very slick feature, now that I can see it work. I wondered what the Athlon 64 x2 driver was with my mobo...

I used nTune (a brainless overclock utility) and bumped the 3800 x2 to 2.3ghz.

With the driver loaded, and the proper power settings, it runs at 1.15 ghz - I can see that the multipier is switched to 5x from 10x, and the core voltage is dropped.

Setting up an audio encode, the clock went back to 2.3 and the voltage bumped back to 1.3v.

I agree, AMD should do a better job of stating exactly what to do to make it work.

Nice blog entry, certainly in the top 5.

4:18 PM, September 24, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is boring. Lets get back to blaming intel for the holocaust, aids , paris hilton, or something.

4:23 PM, September 24, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re:Noise, I recently installed a Thermalright (not thermaltake) HR-01-K8 passive heatsink when I upgraded to a 4600 X2. Cool and silent, regardless of whether one is enabling C&Q or not.

C&Q certainly helps reduce energy consumption, but if you want silent, this one of the best ways to go.

www.thermalright.com

10:43 PM, September 24, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can't believe you didn't know this :-)

I use crystal cpuid which means I can configure the voltage and multiplier settings manually so my oc'd opteron 165 goes from 1v at 1ghz to 1.3v at 2.4ghz - yes chaps, that performance is equivalent of an EE X2 4400 and I've had it since November 2005.

:-)

11:59 PM, September 24, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another way to enable cool and quiet...buy a Core 2 duo!

12:48 AM, September 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And that's coming from 40/65/80 Woodcrests"

You have to add the 40%.
So it’s really 56/91/112.
And since Amd are max, you have to lower it. So 68W is really 55W or so.

And Toms already said 120W for the Intel Quad at just 2.66Ghz, are you sure there is much room like you said?

Temperatures: Clearly Hotter Than Core 2 Duo/Extreme
The peak core temperature recorded during the test was 66 degrees Celsius in conjunction with an Intel retail cooler. In contrast, the maximum temperature of the Core 2 Extreme was 43 degrees Celsius.


If the Core is so good (OC so well), why do you think their line start at:

E6100 n/a
E6200 n/a
E6300 2 MB L2 1.86 GHz 1066 MHz
E6400 2 MB L2 2.13 GHz 1066 MHz
E6500 n/a
E6600 4 MB L2 2.40 GHz 1066 MHz
E6700 4 MB L2 2.66 GHz 1066 MHz
X6800 4 MB L2 2.93 GHz 1066 MHz
E(X)6900 n/a

So Intel can go down in two models and go up in one. The free middle one is to be decided, if they have more 4MB good dies or 2MB.

As far as I know Intel will release new lower end models.
I haven’t heard of them saying they will have 4.0Ghz models, or that they will release a new 7xxx or 8xxx line.

When AMD goes .65nm next year, where they will really compete with Core 2 Duo (this year is more P4 and Celeron) they will very easily match Intel.

2:47 AM, September 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You have to add the 40%.
So it’s really 56/91/112.
And since Amd are max, you have to lower it. So 68W is really 55W or so."
Wait, so why would you compare Intel's max vs AMD's average? That makes no sense. And tests show that Intel's numbers are understated around 10%. Try GOOGLE.

"And Toms already said 120W for the Intel Quad at just 2.66Ghz, are you sure there is much room like you said?"

?Where are you getting these quotes? Sharikou deleted them? 65W 2.66GHZ to 120W 2.66GHZ, yep, that 55W difference allowed Intel to have high clocked and multicores. As compared to AMD, who is already at 125W for 2.8GHZ dual core.


o.o Please clarify on Intel's naming of the Core 2 6XXX series because I don't understand you.
http://tweakers.net/nieuws/44504/AMD-4x4-platform-gebaseerd-op-Socket-1207.html
AMD has a 400 difference between 5000-5400, and 5600-6000. The gap between 6400/6600 is to distinguish mainstream and performance.

Intel plans on a new process every odd year, new core every even year. They'll have 45nm when AMD has mass 65nm.
And Intel planned on a 3.2GHZ X6900(and I'm sure they'll ramp the clock a bit, but the trend is more cores not clock), but is 4 Core 2s ahead of FX62 necessary?

11:58 AM, September 25, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home