Islam Ghunym

11 hours ago, Bagzie said:

Not very nice qouting your solution and then giving himself the solution tick but atleast it's fixed.

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.

17 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

easy fix: install previous windows version.  you cant expect software being optimized for "engineering samples", especially not forever.

 

(i think rufus can do this, good luck )

 

 

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

2 hours ago, unclewebb said:

Your CPU supports Speed Shift Technology. Windows 11 23H2 seems to assume that if Speed Shift is available then the BIOS must have enabled it whether it is enabled or not. Try enabling Speed Shift in the BIOS and see if that makes any difference. 

 

I would disable Windows 11 core isolation memory integrity and anything else VBS related. These features prevent software, including Windows 11, from reading information from your CPU. This might be why your CPU is not being setup correctly. If Windows 11 cannot read the turbo ratios that the BIOS has set then it might just set all turbo ratios to 51. 

 

https://beebom.com/how-disable-virtualization-based-security-vbs-windows-11/

 

After VBS is disabled, reboot and try running,

ThrottleStop 9.6

https://www.techpowerup.com/download/techpowerup-throttlestop/

 

Post screenshots of the FIVR and TPL windows. The FIVR window will likely show that the staggered turbo ratios you set in the BIOS are not being used. If VBS is disabled, you should be able to use ThrottleStop to set the turbo ratios however you like. I am not sure if you can also do the same thing with Intel XTU. I do not know if XTU will properly support your ES processor. ThrottleStop should work OK. 

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

56 minutes ago, Needfuldoer said:

Motherboards with entry level chipsets are generally designed to a price point, and one of the first places they cut corners value engineer is CPU power delivery. 

 

What happens if you set the BIOS back to defaults?

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

4 hours ago, ki8aras said:

to be fair, you are using an ES cpu and complaining it's not working correctly

 

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.

5 hours ago, leclod said:

Which mode are you in in power management ? (I've got Normal)

Some relevant Bios pictures might be useful.

"I checked  what is going on" How ?

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

23 minutes ago, unclewebb said:

You can increase the power limits even if it is a mobile CPU. 

 

Increasing the voltage will increase power consumption which will make the CPU throttle more to stay under the 45W power limit. Most people with mobile CPUs do the opposite. Lower voltage to lower power consumption so the CPU can run faster. 

 

Are you using a laptop computer or did you install this mobile CPU into a desktop board? Post a CPU-Z screenshot. If there are no settings in the BIOS to control the power limits then use Intel XTU or use ThrottleStop.

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.

6 hours ago, RONOTHAN## said:

Uncore is the frequency at which the CPU can access the cache and other cores, it in itself shouldn't really affect power draw much, if at all. You can do a bit of testing, but unless you're raising voltages like the System Agent (what the Uncore runs on) the only power consumption increases will be from the CPU running more efficiently per clock which should be well under a watt at most. 

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.

On 11/11/2022 at 2:56 AM, Snail Jerky said:

Is SMR vs CMR relevant to this conversation?

 

 

This was something I found out about after I had purchased my drive...  Still don't understand it all that well, other than there are things you should not use SMR drives for. 

 

Budget was something preventing me from going all SSDs, and looking at my local store the difference between a 2TB SMR vs CMR drive would've been around $30CAD. Which is too much, when taken into account a new PC build and other things already made me overbudget. 

 

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

4 hours ago, mariushm said:

In theory, being a "surveillance" series drive, the Skyhawk should have a firmware optimized for writing multiple files/streams in parallel and lower response times (well.. not really response, but it's hard to explain)

The basic idea is that you may have 8-16 security cameras and the software records each camera at 5-10mbps (~ 1MB/s) and writes 8-16 files at 1 MB/s the drive is supposed to handle this much better than a regular drive and report to the software that the data was written much faster and therefore the software won't miss video frames because it's waiting for the drive to complete writing previous frames.

In general such optimizations means you lose peak read/write speeds, drive won't be as fast as other drives with same rpm and platter density, but it's better suited for writing multiple things in parallel.

Also in theory, some such series of surveillance/security drives (ex wd purple) claim they can tolerate higher temperature better - because those security camera recorders can often be locked in metal boxes with poor ventilation so the drives often run 24/7 writing stuff and also get much hotter.

In practice I don't how much is true.

 

Otherwise the rpm is not the only thing that matters. Drives can be made with different platters, which have different densities.

For example, your 2 TB could have platters that an store 500 GB on one surface, so the drive is made with 2 plattes, using all four surfaces.

The 4 TB could be made with newer platters that store data much densely, so for example they could do 800 GB per side ... so the 4 TB can be packed in 3 platters, using 5 surfaces.

Because there's 3 platters, the access time may be higher (because you have more heads, more weight, so it takes a bit more to seek a track and move the whole assembly) but once the reading starts, in one rotation the drive reads more bytes from the disk, because the data is packed more densely.

 

It also matters where a file is read from or written to. If you want exact numbers, use tools like HD Tune - HD Tune website - that reads drive surface from the first sector to the last and draws nice graph with the speed

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?

3 hours ago, ewitte said:

For large files it is ok.  If you try to do lots of random writes it will crash down to just a few MB/s sometimes even less than 1MB/s.

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.

1 hour ago, podkall said:

That depends, how fast the data needs to travel,

 

for example, all games basicaly benefit from SSD when it comes to launchign the game,

 

but as far as loading goes that depends on games,

 

Singleplayer story games, some take few seconds to load on HDD, some take little bit longer.

 

HDDs are good for majority of programs and games,

 

SSDs are for OS, games that take too much time loading next scene on HDD or for people who have buckets of money and can just afford having SSDs for everything.

 

General question like is HDD good enough isn't very easy to answer, even if you say for gaming streaming recording.

 

What games, does a 10 second recording already become a 1GB file or not?

 

Most things HDDs should handle.

 

You can make a new thread saying what you do and asking of using SSD instead of HDD has benefit.

 

Or which apps/games benefit from SSD. Or ask both questions.

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

2 hours ago, podkall said:

Yeah that's what HDDs are, they are decently fast but slow at writing usually,

try googling how does HDD write and read data.

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.

3 hours ago, Ottoman420 said:

Well in the scenario that you transferring data between the two drives then it dsent matter which is faster because you are limited by the slowest drive, if you got a sata ssd you would see a big difference in everything. old spinning drives are great for occasional access or storage but i would try and get a a couple ssds and use the hdds for longer term storage

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....

1 minute ago, Ottoman420 said:

the faster spinning drive (7200) will be faster but if you have both these drives why not plug them in and bench them in crystal disk or something?

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

is the access time matters? and what is the actual difference in performance when we say an HDD is physically faster ex: 7200 rpm

17 minutes ago, Somerandomtechyboi said:

I use over decade old boards without llc since its either full llc or no llc which is pretty terrible

 

No llc even with 0.08v vdroop is still better at oc from my experience vs llc, but this is decade old stuff, i think the standard for new stuff is to have some llc but not just full llc to the point that theres no vdroop, something to do with vrms but i forgot what, so vdroop to a volt is better than llcing to a volt

 

awhile ago i was screwing around with my good sample pentium e5400 it can do 4.5g bench stable at 1.52v but when i enabled llc and set 1.52v yea didnt work and it just crashed as soon as i loaded the cpu, and this is on an asus p5q and asus are appaently known to have pretty good llc profile even on the older boards

Thanks for sharing your experience