Re: CPU Spike Usage/Lag

Printable View

11-07-2011, 11:00 PM
Icehunter

Re: CPU Spike Usage/Lag

I didn't see this posted after using search but I saw it in bug reports and mostly with people running Windows 7.

I have a i7 960/12GB RAM/6870 1GB GPU and I still got it. Until I went into my screen saver/power settings and changed the profile of my power savings to "High Performance".

If it's set to the other standard once (balanced and such) your cpu will power down itself from ~3ghz to ~1ghz.

If anyone is having that issue give that a try and see if you still have it :)
11-08-2011, 11:05 PM
Ilean

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icehunter

I didn't see this posted after using search but I saw it in bug reports and mostly with people running Windows 7.

I have a i7 960/12GB RAM/6870 1GB GPU and I still got it. Until I went into my screen saver/power settings and changed the profile of my power savings to "High Performance".

If it's set to the other standard once (balanced and such) your cpu will power down itself from ~3ghz to ~1ghz.

If anyone is having that issue give that a try and see if you still have it :)

And that's a bug because...?
11-08-2011, 11:21 PM
Dhalmel

FFXIV has nothing to do with this.... it's your hardware.
turn off speedstep from your BIOS and keep the power profile to balanced.

having a 960 on stock clock is just silly.
12GB of ram? What a waste the money, you could had used the money from that most likely unused extra memory to buy better GTX 560 TI or a Radeon 6950.
11-08-2011, 11:47 PM
Secret_Reeve

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dhalmel

FFXIV has nothing to do with this.... it's your hardware.
turn off speedstep from your BIOS and keep the power profile to balanced.

having a 960 on stock clock is just silly.
12GB of ram? What a waste the money, you could had used the money from that most likely unused extra memory to buy better GTX 560 TI or a Radeon 6950.

dude stop talking before you make yourself look like a idiot even more.

how do you know he doesnt run virtual machines on that box? and theres nothing wrong with stock.

i run a 920 on stock and when it starts slowing down i'll oc it to extend its life. hell my 920 wipes the floor with most SB chips so learn a little bout tech before speaking up. and also about how the rigs used
11-09-2011, 12:28 AM
Dhalmel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Secret_Reeve

dude stop talking before you make yourself look like a idiot even more.

how do you know he doesnt run virtual machines on that box? and theres nothing wrong with stock.

i run a 920 on stock and when it starts slowing down i'll oc it to extend its life. hell my 920 wipes the floor with most SB chips so learn a little bout tech before speaking up. and also about how the rigs used

If he was using virtualbox he would at least have the knowledge to turnoff speedstep if his cpu throttle was effecting performance. Wipe the floor my ass, the only advantage x58 has over SB is the PCI-E lanes and the triple channel memory with the latter only useful in server situations.
11-09-2011, 12:59 AM
Aenarion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dhalmel

the only advantage x86 has over SB is the PCI-E lanes and the triple channel memory with the latter only useful in server situations.

um, you realize that Sandybridge is very much a x86 cpu as well right?

...right?

that being said...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Secret_Reeve

hell my 920 wipes the floor with most SB chips so learn a little bout tech before speaking up. and also about how the rigs used

um, while Sandybridge isn't gonna knock anyone's socks off, it still compares favorably against Bloomfield. It runs cooler and faster clock-for-clock, and performs better in heavily multi-threaded apps.

It's not worth an upgrade to if you're already running X58 systems, but I'd hardly claim that bloomfields would "wipe the floor" with SB.
11-09-2011, 01:07 AM
Dhalmel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aenarion

.

meant to say x58, the chipset name always make me think of the compute assembly language
11-09-2011, 01:14 AM
Secret_Reeve

you would be very surprised.

my 920 is more stable than half of the SB chip based rigs out there. yeah SB is cooler, uses less power and clock for clock is "faster"

but lets see, i value stability over speed. and its extremely stable, my rigs watercooled so i dont care bout heat, barely touches 50*c.

i've pitted this rig against alot of SB rigs and they fail where mine keeps going.

so er, yeah, eat it n weep boys.

oh n just because someone uses virtual machines, doesnt mean they know bout changing the cpu config. could be he's just setting out learning over it.

my point is, slapping someone down over thier specs is pointless, if you dont know what they use it for, dont comment.

that much seems fair enough to say
11-09-2011, 01:34 AM
Aenarion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Secret_Reeve

my point is, slapping someone down over thier specs is pointless, if you dont know what they use it for, dont comment.

that much seems fair enough to say

yes, the rest your stuff, not so much

Quote:

Originally Posted by Secret_Reeve

you would be very surprised.

my 920 is more stable than half of the SB chip based rigs out there. yeah SB is cooler, uses less power and clock for clock is "faster"

but lets see, i value stability over speed. and its extremely stable, my rigs watercooled so i dont care bout heat, barely touches 50*c.

i've pitted this rig against alot of SB rigs and they fail where mine keeps going.

so er, yeah, eat it n weep boys.

to begin, I'd like to see you substantiate your claim that your 920 is more stable than "half of the SB out there".

oh wait, you can't, because you pulled it out of your you-know-what.

second, those statements of your ultimately says nothing - what speed is your cpu running at, what kind of OC, if any, are the system you're comparing against? stock v stock? stock v oc? oc v stock? oc v oc? If it involves OC, then you cross into areas where you have to consider not only the CPU, but also overall system configuration and parts selection. Also, what you do consider to be stable? how long have you stress-tested your system under prime95/linpack or other torture tests?

and that's without even going into the skill of the builder or the overhead of the particular chips - ie. luck of the draw.

but then anyone who's really dealt with system building/OC would already know that. The relative performance between Sandybridge and Bloomfield can no more be debated than the color of the sky, it's a fact, and frankly is something anyone with a working knowledge of google can figure out in a few seconds.

oh, and FYI, I too run a i7 920, @ 4.0ghz, watercooled, on stock voltage :P