66% CPU

[VirusType2]

The most I've seen my new i5-750 work is about 66% CPU saturation when viewing the Task manager. This was observed while unpacking archives using a decompression utility (Winrar, 7z, Izac; for example) that support multiple cores.

I've been thinking maybe that I'm undervolting my CPU in the BIOS. I left it at the default value, which seemed lower than most people have theirs set - even for those not overclocking.

I still haven't found anything that tells me what the default voltage is supposed to be.

Anyway, couldn't the voltage keep the CPU from achieving it's maximum potential? Or do you think maybe the multi-core zip utilities aren't intended to saturate the CPU. I know with my old CeleronD, I would hit 99 and 100% CPU when unpacking.


Could the unpacking really be limited by my HDD speed? - a Samsung F1?


I just installed CPU-Z ... hang on, BRB with results.

OK, CPU-Z is pretty damn cool.

The lowest voltage observed was .872
The highest voltage observed was 1.208

I believe these voltages are correct. Intel stepping is controlling the voltage as needed, for power and heat savings.

Pretty cool, you can observe the effects of Intel's Turbo feature. The core speed peaked at 3.20 GHz (nominally a 2.66GHz processor)

Just seems like I should be able to decompress archives much faster if it would use the potential of the CPU, instead of 20-66%.

What gives?

 

[No Limit]

I can't really comment how voltage affects the processor clock (if I had to guess I would guess that it doesn't, voltage will always vary based on various factors including temperature).

Keep in mind that windows has the ultimate say in how much processor power an application will be allowed to use. So windows could be deciding that your zip utility has all the power it needs and won't allow it to consume any more. Or there are other factors that play in, as you said your hard drive could be a bottle neck.

 

[VirusType2]

The other day I was researching this and I'm not sure, I think it may be a limitation of the compression algorithm. I read something about offloading tasks to different processors (cores) and assigning memory actually making it slower, so it just does what it can.

Just would like to decompress archives as fast as possible - after all, whats the point of a good CPU if you only use half of it.

I'm just - like - what the ****, but the CPU-Z did answer some questions.

I just haven't found anything to make full use of my CPU. I guess that's a good thing, but at the same time, kind of disappointing.

But yeah, the HDD is definitely the bottle neck when running windows, otherwise shit would happen instantly. Before I built this computer, I was just so frustrated - I mean, god damn, a computer should be able to keep up with a human right? Constantly waiting on the computer. It's so much better--pretty awesome in fact--but yeah, I'm still waiting on the HDD a little, depending on the request.

 

[No Limit]

If you wanted to install the LabVIEW run time engine I can write you a quick application that will consume 100% of the CPU. Not sure if that test is worth you installing the run time engine though which comes with a lot of start up modules.

 

[VirusType2]

Hmm, no, I plan to do a test today after I clear some more snow. You may already know my video card is severely lacking right now, so I'm going to play some HD video, and see if I can't saturate the CPU. I'm not sure if it will try to pick up the slack of the weak GPU.

Actually, let me check right now and so I'll have the results do consider...

Hmm, 33 % playing 720p. (looks to be using 1 core - just noticing that I might need a multi-core video player) Not smooth either. I guess this isn't really designed to be administered by the CPU.

I'm sure there's a benchmark utility that can 100% the CPU, I'll look into it later. Maybe there's a very small app.

 

[Viperidae]

You want 100%? Prime95.

No, you're not undervolting it. Like you said, Turbo is just lowering the voltage to save on power consumption while you're not doing anything intensive.

It's pretty ironic, considering how people usually complain of too much load. Again, why any individual would actually need i7 at this time is beyond me. It's like taking a 747 to the grocery store.

 

[VirusType2]

well, lol, I wasn't complaining, I was afraid I didn't set it up right. Confused.

Actually I got the i5. It's the entry level into the brand new socket. Supposedly, the core duo (I guess it is LGA 774 or whatever) is phasing out.

I was going to go with the core duo, but eventually ended up here. Best bang for the buck CPU. I figure in a few years, I'll upgrade to 'the best' i7 on the cheap.

It does seem to be overkill right now, but I did want headroom. I'm really looking forward to getting my video card in a few days and finally being able to play some games at full settings. I remember with the CeleronD, hacking game configs just to be able to play games at 640x480 @ 19 FPS. This will be such a nice change for me.

 

[Viperidae]

Oh, seems I misread. Maybe in the other read you were looking at the i7? Yeah i5's a bit more in the realm of mortals, but still overpriced imo.

Anyway.

One reason I didn't go with Intel right now are the grim prospects for the longevitiy of 1366, and the huge question mark around what they were going to do with 1156. So I went with AM3, which in almost every gaming test performs the same in games as the i7's... hence my comments about people wasting their money with i7.

But yeah, try Prime95. It has a torture test function.

 

[VirusType2]

Yeah, but from what I read, the direct competition for the i5 was the Phenom II x4, which cost $50 more and wasn't as good in most tests, though it wasn't a large margin. Power efficiency was another thing that pulled me.

But yeah, in the real world, its computational power is quite similar. As you may have noticed in the 'Windows 7 Experience Index' thread I created, the Phenoms - (Raz and Pi) scored identically to the i5.

 

[Viperidae]

$50 more? Huh?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...cm_re=phenom_ii_x4_955-_-19-103-674-_-Product

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115215&cm_re=i5_750-_-19-115-215-_-Product

Add in motherboard differences for 'exclusive' Intel chipsets and it gets worse. Price disparity is even bigger in Canada.

 

[VirusType2]

Oh OK, I was fooled by reading an older comparison benchmark of the two processors. I suppose when the i5 launched, the Phenom was ~$250. Or I could even be remembering that wrong. Maybe it was $230?

I can't be assed - I posted the link to it in my old thread, hang on.

I'll start this conclusion with what AMD must do in response to Lynnfield. The Core i5 750 is a great processor at $196, in fact, it's the best quad-core CPU you can buy at that price today. In nearly every case it's faster than AMD's Phenom II X4 965 BE, despite the AMD processor costing almost another $50. Granted you can probably save some money on an integrated 785G motherboard, but if you're comparing ~$120 motherboards the AMD CPU is simply overpriced.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3634&p=20

September 8th, 2009. :shrug:

Note, my motherboard was $115 + $10 off for the bundle.

 

[Viperidae]

Which I guess they did.

Had the prices remained the same, I probably would have went with the i5 as well. However, again the question of the future of these sockets comes into play.

 

[VirusType2]

I don't even see the Phenom II X4 965 BE at newegg. I'm assuming it's better than the 955? So that could explain the large price disparity.

well, he goes on to bad talk the 1366:

I'm having a hard time justifying the LGA-1366 platform at all. As I see it, LGA-1366 has a few advantages:

1) High-end multi-GPU Performance

2) Stock Voltage Overclocking

3) Future support for 6-core Gulftown CPUs

If that list doesn't make you flinch, then Lynnfield is perfect. You'll save a bunch on a motherboard and the CPUs start at $196 instead of $284

I've got the LGA 1156, so that suits me. No plans to overclock. Single GPU solution planned. I probably won't upgrade for 3-5 years, so I'm set. ~4 years from now, maybe I'll pick up the best CPU that can fit in my socket for like $70. (wild guess).

And if that's not a good option at the time, it's alright, I find it useful to have more than one computer. So if 6 core (or more) CPUs came on in a big way in the next several years, and I find myself wanting more processing power, I wouldn't have a problem, just buy a new motherboard to match, and delegate this computer - CPU and motherboard - to encoding video all day or something.

I also have plans to build a MAME cabinet and a PinMAME cabinet one day, so that's another option for this computer. I highly doubt there is any arcade emulation that this CPU can't handle - something I can't say for my CeleronD. Strider 2 comes to mind.

 

[Viperidae]

I also have plans to build a MAME cabinet and a PinMAME cabinet one day

Hah. Sounds fun. What would the input device(s) be?

 

[VirusType2]

In case you haven't seen one before, a pinball Mame cab looks sorta like this:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&um=1&sa=3&q=ultrapin&btnG=Search+images

Except for my backglass, instead of using that little monitor, I would use a large one. So the controls for this are very basic, two buttons on each side for the flippers (because some games use more than one for more than one sets of flippers). For the plunger and tilt mechanism, I'd probably get a special kit they sell, so that way I'd have a tilt sensor and a variable plunger.


So then next to it, I'd have a MAME cab.

Honestly, the Celeron seemed to do quite well with Pinball emulation, because unlike MAME, it relied more on GPU.

So I'd delegate the Celeron system to the PinMAME system.

And my i5-750 to MAME system. It's overkill, but yeah. (It will have a pull out keyboard/mouse drawer, so I could still use this computer to encode video or whatever )

For MAME, I'm going to build a custom control panel with 2 (6 button) joysticks (for 2 player fighting games - like SNK and Capcom), a trackball in between, and above the trackball, a spinner (like used in Tempest). Could also have a light gun...

I've actually already got a PC (and MAME) compatible 6 (plus) button arcade joystick, and parts from my brother's arcade available. Hell, I've even got an old Q-Bert cabinet he gave me, but I might just build my own, so it will be nice and new (I used to be a carpenter), plus then I can put a huge freaking monitor in it.

Yes, it's fun even thinking about it. You should consider it.