Incorrecly Detecting My Cpu Speed

Running a processor without stepping enabled is a waste IMHO. The speed steps happen transparent to the end user. Why would anybody want to run with it disabled is beyond my understanding and common sense. Disabling it is just generating more heat, shortening the processor life, consuming more energy and increases noise because the fans are now spinning faster. To disable it just so you can see your core reporting full throttle speeds is just silly when all those extra cpu cycles are just being wasted doing nothing. When the processor needs the speed it will ramp it up automatically and nearly instant.

@drko -

Check dmesg, you may find cpufreq has not been turned on by the kernel. It will not if your cpu doesn't support throttling (as my last Athlon did not) or if Cool'n'Quiet has been disabled in the BIOS.

@Crashoverride -

The reason why, is in order to overclock. I have an x64 dual-core 1.9Ghz overclocked close to 3Ghz, and o'clocked RAM. But I must disable AMD's Cool'n'Quiet to do this, which in turn disables cpufreq in the kernel. With your approach, I would be capped at 1.9Ghz & DDR 800. With this 65w processor, I can get a very high clock at still less power/heat than the higher watt processors with stock clocks ~3Ghz. What matters is the watt/clock ratio. And btw, my cpu temp under avg load is the same as the ambient temp in this room - in short, consuming no more power nor generating any more heat than stock at this clock (and saved a good bit of $ as well).

@Crashoverride -

The reason why, is in order to overclock. I have an x64 dual-core 1.9Ghz overclocked close to 3Ghz, and o'clocked RAM. But I must disable AMD's Cool'n'Quiet to do this, which in turn disables cpufreq in the kernel. With your approach, I would be capped at 1.9Ghz & DDR 800. With this 65w processor, I can get a very high clock at still less power/heat than the higher watt processors with stock clocks ~3Ghz. What matters is the watt/clock ratio. And btw, my cpu temp under avg load is the same as the ambient temp in this room - in short, consuming no more power nor generating any more heat than stock at this clock (and saved a good bit of $ as well).
[/b]

Are you utilizing every clock cycle 100% of the time? More then likely not. With C'n'Q enabled your processor consumes ~20 watts so unless your running at full load your consuming 2/3's more power with your processor for processes it can easily handle at lower clocks. Unless the laws of thermal dynamics do not apply to you, your power consumption is higher and you do not save money at all but wasting it for nothing.

Are you utilizing every clock cycle 100% of the time? More then likely not. With C'n'Q enabled your processor consumes ~20 watts so unless your running at full load your consuming 2/3's more power with your processor for processes it can easily handle at lower clocks. Unless the laws of thermal dynamics do not apply to you, your power consumption is higher and you do not save money at all but wasting it for nothing.
[/b]

Now, now, let's be nice. I understand that. Yes, the processor is consuming more power; that is the price paid in order to overclock. Alternatively, I could buy a processor that gives me this clock but it is 125w; it uses C'n'Q, but of course it consumes more power because it runs at much higher wattage by comparison, whatever it is doing. I've never done the analysis to make a net power/heat/usage comparison. But I can say I'm not using the power "for nothing"; I'm using it to achieve the same performance of a much more powerful processor. I did compare the $, and my o'clocked rig cost me much less for the performance I get - that's why I did it. And, it's life is not being shortened; my idle socket temp = ambient and under load it is only slightly higher than the 125w at idle (I have a heatsink the size of Kansas). I also have no additional noise or fan use, which I would have were I using the 125w at stock. Let me suggest we leave it here.

Now, now, let's be nice. I understand that. Yes, the processor is consuming more power; that is the price paid in order to overclock. Alternatively, I could buy a processor that gives me this clock but it is 125w; it uses C'n'Q, but of course it consumes more power because it runs at much higher wattage by comparison, whatever it is doing. I've never done the analysis to make a net power/heat/usage comparison. But I can say I'm not using the power "for nothing"; I'm using it to achieve the same performance of a much more powerful processor. I did compare the $, and my o'clocked rig cost me much less for the performance I get - that's why I did it. And, it's life is not being shortened; my idle socket temp = ambient and under load it is only slightly higher than the 125w at idle (I have a heatsink the size of Kansas). I also have no additional noise or fan use, which I would have were I using the 125w at stock. Let me suggest we leave it here.
[/b]

Ahhh but if you had the 125 Watt processor you would again be consuming < what your 65 watt processor is consuming as it would still be able to utilize C'n'Q.

Ahhh but if you had the 125 Watt processor you would again be consuming < what your 65 watt processor is consuming as it would still be able to utilize C'n'Q.
[/b]

Yep, so e.g., how much power would the 125w consume at say 2Ghz as opposed to the overclocked 65w. But the power/clock ratio is not linear. This could be deduced from the spec sheets applied to a usage model and taking the measurements - but what a pain. Heat is a symptomatic indicator, and there I do know that the 65w core's temps at constant o'clock avg load are less than the 125w is at idle, which makes sense because the ratio on the 65w is so much better. It is remarkable that this 65w clocked ~3Ghz under avg load is only a few degrees above ambient. Now, when there is a 65w 3Ghz processor that throttles, and there will be, obviously that will be superior. It will also probably cost a good deal more. But if I could afford it, that would be better because I wouldn't overclock it. The chip I replaced was an Athlon XP-M, made for laptops but I put it in my desktop and o'clocked it - it is lower watt than the desktop Athlon (so more headroom) and has built-in throttling. Interestingly, at about 2.6Ghz its temp at idle, with throttling, ran ~15 degrees higher than what I have now. The ratio again. C'n'Q may use a different method, don't know. So I agree with you in principle, but there are a other factors to consider, incl the other system components. End of the day, I have a moderately hi-perf rig that as a total system is low power and very low heat, and which I could afford - I'm just a poor old retiree, ya gotta give me a break.

I do know that the 65w core's temps at constant o'clock avg load are less than the 125w is at idle, which makes sense because the ratio on the 65w is so much better.
[/b]

Um actually 125 Watt processor in idle state consumes far less power then a 65 watt processor running at top speed let alone overclocked. The 125W processors consume 30 Watts @ idle state while your 65 watt processor runs @ 51.7 running at Max p-state ( and that's not including the extra wattage being consumed that it consumes when it is overclocked). It's not until a p-state of 4 that the 125 watt processor starts consuming more power which happens to be at 2.2 times its idle clock speed.

Your overclocked processor is consuming 21.7 more watts when it's not being fully utilized then a 125 watt processor in idle state.

Um actually 125 Watt processor in idle state consumes far less power then a 65 watt processor running at top speed let alone overclocked. The 125W processors consume 30 Watts @ idle state while your 65 watt processor runs @ 51.7 running at Max p-state ( and that's not including the extra wattage being consumed that it consumes when it is overclocked). It's not until a p-state of 4 that the 125 watt processor starts consuming more power which happens to be at 2.2 times its idle clock speed.

Your overclocked processor is consuming 21.7 more watts when it's not being fully utilized then a 125 watt processor in idle state.
[/b]

I'll take your word for it. I do know that users frequently report that their X2 6000+ runs 5-10 degrees hotter at idle than my overclocked 3600+. But this is all (painfully) academic. Your original point was that overclocking 'generates more heat, shortens the processor life, consumes more energy, and increases noise.' We're comparing a hi-perf stock setup to a lower-perf system overclocked in order to reach the same level, and modified to more than compensate for that. While obviously setups and skills vary, it is clear that for those of us who know how to do this, there is not only less heat but also less noise, so these two points are incorrect. As for processor life, as long as the cpu is not being foolishly run all the time at max load/heat, any lifecycle difference is irrelevant; technology changes will result in the cpu along with other components being replaced long before the processor expires. That leaves power consumption, and while I take your numbers to be accurate in absolute terms, this is again academic because it totally overlooks what was the main point in the first place, which is price/performance: For a few cents more for the electricity, I spend hundreds less for what is overall a better performing *system* which was over my budget otherwise, plus I get a lot of fun out of building it and using it. *That's* the point. It's like when I was a kid, I couldn't afford that new 440 Hemi like the rich guys, but my "overclocked" '57 Chevy sure gave'm stiff competition, at a cost I could afford, and with the additional satisfaction of having built the rig myself. That's called being an "enthusiast", and it applies to a gazillion different interests. So . . . let it go.