Why the lack of talk on Haswell undervolting

All about them.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

Post Reply
wwenze
Posts: 274
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 12:04 am

Why the lack of talk on Haswell undervolting

Post by wwenze » Mon Aug 11, 2014 9:11 pm

One year passed and nobody's talking about owning and tweaking them...

My G3220 has been running at 0.800V at 3GHz without any CPU-caused errors since day one, workload including overnight x264 and overnight gaming, surely that is worth something.

0.8 because that is the minimum my motherboard allows. Has anybody gone 3GHz and higher at lower voltages?

HFat
Posts: 1753
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:27 am
Location: Switzerland

Re: Why the lack of talk on Haswell undervolting

Post by HFat » Tue Aug 12, 2014 10:54 am

wwenze wrote:surely that is worth something
Not necessarily. Have you measured the effect?

wwenze
Posts: 274
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 12:04 am

Re: Why the lack of talk on Haswell undervolting

Post by wwenze » Tue Aug 12, 2014 8:13 pm

HFat wrote:
wwenze wrote:surely that is worth something
Not necessarily. Have you measured the effect?
In terms of? At this stage in technological development it is mostly enthusiasm that creates market for over price and minimal power saving.

HFat
Posts: 1753
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:27 am
Location: Switzerland

Re: Why the lack of talk on Haswell undervolting

Post by HFat » Wed Aug 13, 2014 3:57 am

Whatever you like. Do you actually save a significant amount of power for instance?
What actually happens with the CPU voltage isn't as simple or transparent as it used to be...

And for what it's worth, I disagree with your assessment of the market.

CA_Steve
Moderator
Posts: 7449
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:36 am
Location: Monterey Bay, CA

Re: Why the lack of talk on Haswell undervolting

Post by CA_Steve » Wed Aug 13, 2014 7:17 am

There's not a lot of data out there on Haswell undervolting and motherboard mfgrs don't bother to state whether or not their UEFI will allow for negative core voltage offsets. The few data points I've seen show it's fairly easy to get -0.1V at stock speeds (Roughly .98V vs 1.08V) and YMMV vary lower than that. Hardwareluxx got to 0.9V on a i7-4770K sample unit.

The 0.1V drop is ~18% power savings. So, if your particular CPU uses 70W or so running Handbrake, undervolting to 0.1V drops it to ~58W. Not a lot on the power bill, but it does provide significant thermal benefit making silent CPU cooling an easier chore.
1080p Gaming build: i5-4670K, Mugen 4, Asrock Z97 Anniversary, MSI GTX 1660 Gaming X, 8GB 1866 RAM, Samsung 860 Evo 500GB, Crucial MX100 256GB, WD Red 2TB, Samsung DVD burner, Fractal Define R4, Antec True Quiet 140 (2 front + rear) case fans, Seasonic SSR-550FX. 35W idle, 45-55W video streaming, 170-200W WoW, 318W stress test (Prime95 + Furmark)

HFat
Posts: 1753
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:27 am
Location: Switzerland

Re: Why the lack of talk on Haswell undervolting

Post by HFat » Wed Aug 13, 2014 8:26 am

It's not that simple anymore (for one thing, the autonomous voltage management may disregard your settings). Measurements are required to assess any actual power savings.
And no task will ever cause that CPU to burn 70W. Likely not even half unless you torture-test the GPU. Obviously there's more potential for gains with quad-cores.

(edit: I recalled wrong. SPCR didn't undervolt or underclock a dual-core in that test.)

CA_Steve
Moderator
Posts: 7449
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:36 am
Location: Monterey Bay, CA

Re: Why the lack of talk on Haswell undervolting

Post by CA_Steve » Wed Aug 13, 2014 9:43 am

HFat wrote:It's not that simple anymore (for one thing, the autonomous voltage management may disregard your settings). Measurements are required to assess any actual power savings.
And no task will ever cause that CPU to burn 70W. Likely not even half unless you torture-test the GPU. Obviously there's more potential for gains with quad-cores.

(edit: I recalled wrong. SPCR didn't undervolt or underclock a dual-core in that test.)
I refer to quad core Haswell, like the one referred to in my post. 84W TDP can see 70W with high load application. Second, Voltage Offset Mode in UEFI specifically refers to offsetting the core voltage at load and works in hand with dynamically changing load voltage.
1080p Gaming build: i5-4670K, Mugen 4, Asrock Z97 Anniversary, MSI GTX 1660 Gaming X, 8GB 1866 RAM, Samsung 860 Evo 500GB, Crucial MX100 256GB, WD Red 2TB, Samsung DVD burner, Fractal Define R4, Antec True Quiet 140 (2 front + rear) case fans, Seasonic SSR-550FX. 35W idle, 45-55W video streaming, 170-200W WoW, 318W stress test (Prime95 + Furmark)

wwenze
Posts: 274
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 12:04 am

Re: Why the lack of talk on Haswell undervolting

Post by wwenze » Thu Aug 14, 2014 4:23 pm

My asrock has voltage override alongside voltage offset. If using override according to cpuz (and bios) it stays at that 0.8V regardless of frequency.

I would reckon while VR is integrated much of the control would still remain external, otherwise overclockers would either have a high chance of destroying the CPU via auto voltage increments or the platform would be terrible for over clocking with auto voltage limits.

And going 0.785V using a combination of 0.8V override plus -0.015 offset causes freeze up after sone duration of stress. 0.775 bsods at logon screen iirc. So I was already near the limits.

Disregard voltage control, at near threshold voltages the common electrical relationships aren't reliable anymore either. Not that they have been since leakage came into the equation circa 2002.

wwenze
Posts: 274
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 12:04 am

Re: Why the lack of talk on Haswell undervolting

Post by wwenze » Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:21 pm

Dug out my power meter, measured values are from wall

System is Antec TP-550 (Bronze) and GTX 460 (hence the high idle power)

Prime 95 Large FFT
1.0V (stock) @ 3GHz: ~78W
0.8V @ 3GHz: ~68W

Idle
0.8V @ 800MHz (same value whether undervolting or not): ~52.5W

Worth it? Yea my stock heatsink seems to think so.

HFat
Posts: 1753
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:27 am
Location: Switzerland

Re: Why the lack of talk on Haswell undervolting

Post by HFat » Tue Aug 19, 2014 9:12 am

wwenze wrote:Prime 95 Large FFT
1.0V (stock) @ 3GHz: ~78W
0.8V @ 3GHz: ~68W

Idle
0.8V @ 800MHz (same value whether undervolting or not): ~52.5W

Worth it? Yea my stock heatsink seems to think so.
Only worth it if you crunch a lot of numbers and basically useless when idling. That's generally been people's experience with undervolting modern Intel CPU but it's the first time I see Haswell measurements. If you wanted to do a lot of number crunching, would you use that CPU though? That's part of why I think it's a waste of time on dual-cores.
What I have yet to see is serious stability testing. My own stability testing with older CPUs when undervolting mattered enough that I cared strongly suggested that the testing procedures suggested on consumer forums are inadequate.

It makes sense the CPU would automatically set the voltage low when idling anyway but did you try to use no other voltage control than underclocking and the offset? If offsetting doesn't make a significant difference while crunching numbers at 800 Mhz, it would suggest the CPU may ignore the offset not only in turbo mode or when overclocking but also when it underclocks itself autonomously.

xan_user
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:09 am
Location: Northern California.

Re: Why the lack of talk on Haswell undervolting

Post by xan_user » Tue Aug 19, 2014 9:29 am

exactly. the only real savings is when you run the cpu full on 24-7. -and if you are doing that kind of work, you probably require a truly stable and reliable system. I don't see any real world benefits in undervolting anymore.
Help SPCR keep the lights on, use these links when you buy: NCIX, Amazon and Newegg

gaidal
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2014 7:24 am

Re: Why the lack of talk on Haswell undervolting

Post by gaidal » Sat Aug 23, 2014 7:26 am

Useful or not, I can say that the Asus Z97I supports undervolting, without a lower limit as far as I can tell. There is auto, manual, adaptive and offset mode.

It is more complicated since both the CPU and stuff on the motherboards adjust voltages automatically. Hard to predict how these things will affect each other...
Even so - with all power saving features enabled my "Haswell Refresh" CPU (4690K) does run 3-4°C cooler if I set a negative offset of 80 mV.

After stress-testing all cores for at least 30 minutes:
* Stock settings, all cores at 3.9 GHz (turbo mode) - max 67°C.
* Limit cores to 3.5 GHz (makes fans much quieter!) - max 61°C.
* Limit cores to 3.5 GHz + 80mV negative offset - max 57°C.
Limiting cores to 3.5 GHz + 100mV negative offset causes kernel panic within minutes.

Seems to me like undervolting is still working just like with Core 2 Duo...?
Last edited by gaidal on Sun Aug 24, 2014 12:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

CA_Steve
Moderator
Posts: 7449
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:36 am
Location: Monterey Bay, CA

Re: Why the lack of talk on Haswell undervolting

Post by CA_Steve » Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:12 am

Thanks for the data.
1080p Gaming build: i5-4670K, Mugen 4, Asrock Z97 Anniversary, MSI GTX 1660 Gaming X, 8GB 1866 RAM, Samsung 860 Evo 500GB, Crucial MX100 256GB, WD Red 2TB, Samsung DVD burner, Fractal Define R4, Antec True Quiet 140 (2 front + rear) case fans, Seasonic SSR-550FX. 35W idle, 45-55W video streaming, 170-200W WoW, 318W stress test (Prime95 + Furmark)

davidh44
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 8:51 pm
Location: USA

Re: Why the lack of talk on Haswell undervolting

Post by davidh44 » Tue Aug 26, 2014 12:04 am

I'm coming from AMD Phenom II territory, where undervolting during idle made a big difference. I've moved to Haswell G3258, and it's been a whole 'nother world for me to learn.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but with the C3/C6/C7 C-states, there is no point anymore in enabling dynamic frequency, C1E, or EIST? I just set it to be pegged at my desired voltage and frequency, and let C6/C7 do its job?

And I still haven't figured out what the difference is between Core C-state and Package C-state.

If anyone has a link to a guide explaining all of this, that would be awesome. My interest over the years has been getting the best of both worlds between overclocking and undervolting by dynamically undervolting/underclocking the chip at idle. So I can get better performance from the overclock at load, and energy savings at idle from the undervolt/underclock. Seems all the rules have changed though from the AMD land I'm coming from.

gaidal
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2014 7:24 am

Re: Why the lack of talk on Haswell undervolting

Post by gaidal » Tue Aug 26, 2014 12:58 am

davidh44 wrote:If anyone has a link to a guide explaining all of this, that would be awesome.
I don't think there's ever been a lot of info on undervolting, and it's even less with Haswell. If you find such a guide, please share it here.
davidh44 wrote:My interest over the years has been getting the best of both worlds between overclocking and undervolting by dynamically undervolting/underclocking the chip at idle. So I can get better performance from the overclock at load, and energy savings at idle from the undervolt/underclock.
Trying to save energy in idle doesn't make much sense to me as the CPU handles that very well with the technologies you mention. For me it's much more interesting to shave off a few degrees at peak performance, where cooling matters most.

Also you can now (?) undervolt using offset mode, which I believe reduces voltage across all states. See my last post.

Tephras
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 11:03 am
Location: Europe

Re: Why the lack of talk on Haswell undervolting

Post by Tephras » Tue Aug 26, 2014 2:42 am

davidh44 wrote:And I still haven't figured out what the difference is between Core C-state and Package C-state.

If anyone has a link to a guide explaining all of this, that would be awesome.
Not exactly a guide but this Wikipedia article might be useful, especially if you follow the links/references at the bottom of the page.

Post Reply