Islam Ghunym

Sorry about that, but re-doing the OC was a better solution so it makes sense to mark my post as the solution and quoting his one as it was a possible solution.

That was a verified possible solution, but I installed the 23H2 again and I am re-doing the core OC. I must share here what I found so it can hopefully be useful. What caused the instability with the newer OS isn't a compatibility matter or being an engineering sample, but rather an updated way of how windows uses the CPU and the proper thing to blame here is my OC. the newer OS 23H2 could give lower CPU latency and higher memory bandwidth on Aida64 (about 1-7% improvements in each field) and even better single core performance (1-2% out of margin of error). being limited to 45W means the CPU won't boost enough to show off multi core instability. I used that to my advantage on older versions of windows to get higher performance on lighter workloads while staying stable on heavier workloads due to power limit. For why I am not increasing the power limit to 120W which should be fine for my motherboard is that this PC is running on battery power so efficiency matters a lot. The newer OS allowed the CPU to do better and boost better on the same power limit which in it's turn caused instability. This is the whole story I believe. It took some real time to verify and come up with all of that so I think I should share it to fill curiosities. Now I am just re-doing the core OC

I am on it, thx for the info. However I have disabled VBS and all these security stuff after installing windows immediately. Windows also seems to be able to see my bios settings (core ratio settings), but as you mentioned there is some weird behaviour regarding speed shift. I tried enabling it before and also disabling it, but it didn't change the clock behaviour as it should. The CPU was behaving the same. I will try to set speed shift value manually from throttlestop and see what happens. Just to mention I am ok with all kind of power saving settings (all set to on with me), but not the speed shift as it hurts system latency. I also don't enable ring down bin as I set uncore more than all core ratio -3, but I will see what happens and report here

PL1 is only 45W. there is no problem to mention here

Yes!, I got an Engineering Sample and I expect it to work correctly. I didn't buy a chip that doesn't work correctly... The chip was working correctly from years. I knew what I was buying when I did so. If I am having a problem now, it doesn't mean because I have an engineering sample. It is too late to label the issue this way.

The only thing that changed is the Windows. BIOS settings were my all time saved profile the same. I use many softwares that reports and monitor clock speeds. Do you want me to count them? It doesn't matter how.

The title of this topic is the best way to describe the problem. I am running a QTJ1 (coffe lake I9 ES) 8 P-cores no E-cores on a Gigabyte H310 Motherboard which allows for Overclocking. Stable OC on this motherboard was: 5.1 (1 core) 5.0 (2-3 cores) 4.9 (4-5 cores) 4.8 (6 cores) 4.7 (7 cores) 4.6 (8 cores), 4.6 ring/llc, vcore offset +0.1v, PL1 45W, PL2 56.25W and the CPU can reach max single core performance on any workload at these settings, DDR4-3300 (limited by the ES IMC), vddr 1.4v, tCL 16, tRP/RCD 22, tRAS 36, CR 1, tRFC 487, tFAW 16 tCWL 11.... etc I was on Windows 11 22H2 (speed shift was disabled), and CPU cores was clocking fine. Each core had a different clock speed, and during single core benchmarks 1 core could go 4.9-5.1 while others are clocking lower. at other multi core benchmarks the all core ratio goes about 3.2 GHz AVX2 limited by the PL1. My system was stable for about a year. Recently I reinstalled Windows 11 (23H2 version this time), and here I noticed my system being not fully stable. I checked what is going on, and noticed that the CPU is doing all core boost 5.1 GHz which is wild, and all cores clock speeds are tied together no matter what. My BIOS OC settings is completely the same as before. All core boost monitored in bios 4600 MHz which what should also be in windows and not 5100! like what it is right now. I tried updating drivers, but that didn't help. I don't really want to reinstall windows again and keep troubleshooting forever so I hope that someone here knows what controls the CPU boosting behaviour on Windows (driver or whatever) so that I can try reinstall it, or try playing around it. I tried installing easy tune (my mobo OC software) to play with core ratios a bit, but that didn't help. I also tried Intel XTU, but that also didn't help. I can make the system stable if I set all cores to 4.6 GHz, but that drops single core performance by quite a margin. I want the smart boosting of the CPU

What I understood about PLL overvoltages is that it allows for less voltage drops in realtime in adaptive voltage scenario. That should have no effect on the clock frequencies, but it can only increase the stability of your overclock (mostly won't even help stabilising your OC) They can reduce your chip's lifespan and barely do anything if at all. That's why it is better just to do the +offset instead. situations where PLL overvoltages can be helpful are extremely rare. For why you are having better frequencies when playing around with them is perhaps a BIOS bug. CPUs these days are smart chips and they have too much of an auto behaviours at certain situations. You in someway triggered that, but PLL overvoltage have nothing to do with Memory or CPU frequencies. At least not directly in your situation.

Thank you all for the information. I don't really know what answer I should be marking as the best for the question . Many answers were useful and informative. I guess the last one because it gives actual possible solutions for my case

Thank you all. First of all 6-7 SNR Margin isn't bad and the signal strength is very fine. I also mentioned that the issue is in my home line not from the outside box, but I was unable to determine it. Even tho I believe that my country telecom company is very negligence, they don't care since they are the only option in the entire country. The CRC count can be as low as 1 error per hour, a thousand at once, a continuous counting, burst of 200 followed by another 300 or 100....etc. Saturation isn't related to CRC errors in my case. However, I probably found the issue. The DSL line is going through an area near electricity wires + iron ,and sounds like when electricity runs through these wires, CRC starts to count. I verified this situation 3 times, and sounds like the CRC is random (may or may not happen), but in 3 situations the CRC initiated by electricity starting to flow through the nearby wires. the problem is that there is no way for me to let the wires move anywhere else to avoid this problem, but if there is anything I can do to fight this area interference, I may successfully fix the problem. I am thinking about replacing the part that goes through this area with a more proper wire. The problem is my country "Syria" have almost nothing in stock unless I travel to get it and there aren't so much options when it comes to telephone wires and everything is low quality... If I replaced the wire with 16 AWG copper wire which is quite thick, will that fight the interference? or the wires thickness have nothing to do with that? I can do some DIY if it takes to shape something because as I said I am living in a dead country with not so much options to work with.

I keep asking the same question everywhere and I never once had a satisfying answer. What causes CRC erroring to happen? This is my current DSL log. I have examined the wire from the local box to the end. I spotted no single sign of defect. The wire was pretty solid even tho it barely contains any copper in it. I have examined and cleaned the contacts also near the DSL modem and around the splitter. The SNR margin isn't great, but looks fine. The line attenuation is beyond outstanding. I have 2 phones connected with an ADSL splitter across the line (one near the modem and the other somewhere else [both of them on a splitter]). I get these CRC errors occasionally and sometimes even DSL interruptions. However I am still getting the same errors with/without phones connected and even without any splitter (just the modem connected and nothing else) Assuming that the line is connected properly from the start to the end and assuming that the local box have no issues, what could be causing CRC errors on my DSL line? CRC can be anything from 1 to thousands on upstream or downstream (mostly downstream) Another thing to mention is that I should be getting 2045 kbps upload, but the current low SNR on the downstream doesn't allow the ISP to activate Annex M modulation which would drop the downstream SNR in order to left the upstream SNR up

Lets be specific and avoid unnecessary conversation out of the topic. I asked a simple question. none of the written is the answer . If you don't have an idea about the answer please don't consider writing anything else. Thanks for taking time writing your reply by the way.

Ah, so the uncore ratio by itself doesn't increase power, but the extra power draw is there because of cores being loaded more and performing better when the uncore ratio increased. Is that what you mean? If it is like that then I should increase it to maximum and not be worried about it, right?

I got an 8 cores 16 threads coffee lake CPU in hand base 2.1 GHz boost 39-4.4 GHz. Obviously looks to be a mobile sample. The power budget is 45W. The main purpose is to get most out of this sample without exceeding the power limit (since it is a mobile CPU). I increased the vcore to 1.4v and pushed boosting to 4.6-5.1. that resulted in less multi core performance and more single threaded performance (Cr15 multi 1300>>1207, single 192>>216) now I am sure the CPU is going to perform better in single threaded applications aka: gaming, adobe photoshop... etc. The next step is tweaking the uncore ratio and here I got lost a bit and need help. If I increase the uncore ratio that would increase the power usage and because I am limited to 45W... I may get less performance in some cases? in single threaded applications OR...... the CPU would switch the core and uncore ratio automatically when power limited to achieve the maximum performance at the given power limit? I wanna know about coffee lake behaviour so I can guess better. Running benchmarks on different applications is gonna be very time consuming in my case as I am not prepared for that so a simple answer would save my time and be appreciated

To everyone, I replaced the Skyhawk HDD With Barracuda one and the whole issue about transfer rate being inconsistent is gone. It was a mistake buying and HDD designed to handle only a specific kind of writing (writing on parallel). Skyhawk is for DVR only and only used in monitoring cameras. It does not work properly for PC use case. The results is about over 10 times less performance...... Files that could be copied in 1 hour takes over 10 hours to accomplish. loading games takes from minutes to an hour. reading high bit rate videos smoothly is not possible. Windows OS does not write 64 files at the same time at 3Mb rate or less. This is a very specific kind of workload that does not happen on a daily use of PC... Windows itself avoid this kind of workload in order to avoid defragmentation. Skyhawk HDDs stay in a ready state in realtime to an order of writing 64 files at a time even while reading files from it, this ready state stops the HDD from performing any fast reading process in realtime. In other words the HDD does not perform at all..... In other words Skyhawk HDDs on a PC are a nightmare. They are completely unusable and they will be better in the trash instead of inside your PC chase. I am saying this for people to avoid buying these HDDs for PC by a mistake. It is not slightly worse or 2-3 times less performance.... It is over 10 times worse and completely unusable for PC or servers.

My Seagate Barracuda 2 T.B HDD uses SMR technology and I am more than happy with it's performance despite that it has only 64M cache. I filled it with huge files and crazy high bitrate videos. The whole discussion about SMR being not good and CMR is a lot better is just an exaggeration. The data transfer you will get in the end is the same mentioned in the data sheet whatever it uses SMR or CMR

It is already written in the specs both HDDs have 4 surfaces and 4 reading heads which means the 4 T.B is only as twice as dense and from there the disk have to spin less to read and write data across it so probably the more dense 5400 rpm here is faster than the 7200 rpm which has half the density. Anyway maximum possible sustained speeds for both HDDs are almost the same in specs so rpm probably does not mean a lot here, but what is the access time ? Is it the time needed for the HDD to respond to access a certain location on the disk and then reading and writing have nothing to do with that ? Or is it something else?

Windows is handling multiple writes better these days tho since Windows 11 release I noticed it. Doing multiple copying process at a time does not slow writing speed anymore. Technicals also talk about it. Writing throughput since Windows 11 release was greatly improved.

I was placing the HDD in a bad place near vibrations. That's why it was not performing well. I found it out. Unlike the other barracuda HDD, this one has SHM and can underperform to save itself from a possible failure. The Barracuda was doing well even at the same bad condition. I changed the HDD place a tightened it up with the chase. It sounds fine now . If yoy read the second post you would find why I was asking about differences. I noticed unexpected bad performance which made me wonder, but now it is cleared for me hopefully. I already know that HDD instead of an SSD shouldn't be a huge deal for me. The extra space is what I need in the end and no HDD can perform like SSD. This topic does not meant to compare SSDs for anything here.

@seagate_surfer you probably have something to say

The manufacturer does not mention anything about a difference between writes and reads in term of speed. Everything indicates that they are the same. However technologies are improving and what was in the past is not the same these days. Googling does not give the right information most of the time.

This is more like a one time process to move or copy files from 1 drive to another. Later the general use case will be recording, gaming, compression and decompression....

the things is numbers was all over the place.... barracuda one did 120 MB almost every time for first line of test for both read and write. Skyhawk sometimes made it 175 MB.. sometimes 120 other times only 60... there was no consistency at all.. so I am not sure. right now, I am filling the 4 T.B Skyhawk with data from the 2 T.B Barracuda and the process feels waaaaay slow for some reason so I am checking if there is something wrong in my PC or I only bought the wrong HDD after all. (The Skyhawk is the new one)

I already have 2 drives: ST2000DM006 and ST4000VX013. 3.5 HDD DATA SHEET (seagate.com) ST2000DM006 is ST2000DM008 but with only 64M cache 3.5 HARD DRIVE DATA SHEET (seagate.com) Is the Skyhawk one worse than the barracuda one or both of them is more like the same? in term of performance only Product Brand Seagate Model Number ST2000DM006 Part Number (PN) 2DM164-302 Marketing Name BARRACUDA35 Family BARRACUDA35 Interface SATA Encryption Type NO ENCRYPTION Capacity 2000 GB Form Factor 3.5 Product Type DRIVE Market Segment Personal Compute Sub-market Segment Desktop Storage Application Segment DS Mainstream Performance Cache Size (MB) 64 Spindle Speed 7200 Interface Transfer Rate 6 Access Time 9.9 Physical Sector Size 512E Number of Heads 4 Number of Disks 2 Height 26.1MM Weight .55 KG Zero G Sensor N Product Brand Seagate Model Number ST4000VX013 Part Number (PN) 2XG104-300 Marketing Name SKYHAWK Family SKYHAWK Interface SATA Encryption Type NO ENCRYPTION Capacity 4000 GB Form Factor 3.5 Product Type DRIVE-SRS Market Segment Consumer Electronics Sub-market Segment Video Application Segment Surveillance Performance Cache Size (MB) 256 Spindle Speed 5400 Interface Transfer Rate 6 Access Time 15 Physical Sector Size 512E Number of Heads 4 Number of Disks 2 Height 20MM Weight .55 KG Zero G Sensor N is the access time matters? and what is the actual difference in performance when we say an HDD is physically faster ex: 7200 rpm

Thanks for sharing your experience