# CPU stays at 800MHz

## haarp

Greetings!

I recently upgraded my machine with a brand-spanking new Phenom2 955 CPU. 4 cores at 3.2GHz each, fully powering my 64-bit Gentoo. yummy.

All went well so far. Except for one big problem along the way. The CPU stays at 800MHz no matter what. Regardless of what load is present, even with all cores running at 100%, /proc/cpuinfo will still tell me they're at 800MHz. (for some strange reason, Bogomips are shown "correctly" as 6400 per core)

I tried unloading the powernow module (wasn't loaded and won't load anyway). I disabled all CPU frequency scaling in the kernel. I disabled Powernow in the BIOS, I even set a fixed multiplier for CPU. All to no avail, it just stays at 800. Benchmarks confirm that this is not simply a display error - it's slow as hell.

I ran out of ideas.

Here's dmesg containing some more info, such as kernel, etc.

http://pastebin.com/f490b818c

Thanks in advance for any possible help.

edit: oh, and move this into unsupported if you must, but I don't really think my .32-rc8 kernel is the problem here.

----------

## NeddySeagoon

haarp,

Does your BIOS support a Phenom2 955 CPU. 4 cores at 3.2GHz each?  in particular the 3.2GHz ?

If not, it may revert to 800MHz as being a safe core speed for an unknown CPU.

Your kernel calculated BOGOmips from the timer - not by testing the CPU, so the BOGOmips figure in dmesg is not related to the core CPU speed.

----------

## haarp

Thanks for answering.

No, the 955 isn't supported, but the 945 is. I suspected this was the case because my board manufacturer didn't think the board could deliver the 125W TDP the 955 needs (945 is at 95W). But now I suspect the multiplier itself being stored in a 5-bit variable somewhere. 5 bit go up to 31, considering there are half multis makes it 15.5. With the CPU's multi being at 16, the value probably wraps around into the negative, prompting the board to assign the lowest possible multi - which is 4.

So this isn't even Linux' fault. I'll try 15.5 next time I reboot.

----------

## DaggyStyle

 *haarp wrote:*   

> Thanks for answering.
> 
> No, the 955 isn't supported, but the 945 is. I suspected this was the case because my board manufacturer didn't think the board could deliver the 125W TDP the 955 needs (945 is at 95W). But now I suspect the multiplier itself being stored in a 5-bit variable somewhere. 5 bit go up to 31, considering there are half multis makes it 15.5. With the CPU's multi being at 16, the value probably wraps around into the negative, prompting the board to assign the lowest possible multi - which is 4.
> 
> So this isn't even Linux' fault. I'll try 15.5 next time I reboot.

 

it might be wise to check if the mb even supports that cpu and if so, verify that your bios is up to date.

O.T. from your dmesg, I deduce that your mb is nvidia based chipset, if so, it is wise to get a new mb because nvidia chipset based mb are crap.

----------

## haarp

Well, as it turns out, the board is really the problem here. The 800MHz bug isn't all that uncommon. Looks like I'll have to get a new one.

 *DaggyStyle wrote:*   

>  *haarp wrote:*   Thanks for answering.
> 
> No, the 955 isn't supported, but the 945 is. I suspected this was the case because my board manufacturer didn't think the board could deliver the 125W TDP the 955 needs (945 is at 95W). But now I suspect the multiplier itself being stored in a 5-bit variable somewhere. 5 bit go up to 31, considering there are half multis makes it 15.5. With the CPU's multi being at 16, the value probably wraps around into the negative, prompting the board to assign the lowest possible multi - which is 4.
> 
> So this isn't even Linux' fault. I'll try 15.5 next time I reboot. 
> ...

 

I never had problems whit nvidia chipsets.

----------

## DaggyStyle

 *haarp wrote:*   

> Well, as it turns out, the board is really the problem here. The 800MHz bug isn't all that uncommon. Looks like I'll have to get a new one.
> 
>  *DaggyStyle wrote:*    *haarp wrote:*   Thanks for answering.
> 
> No, the 955 isn't supported, but the 945 is. I suspected this was the case because my board manufacturer didn't think the board could deliver the 125W TDP the 955 needs (945 is at 95W). But now I suspect the multiplier itself being stored in a 5-bit variable somewhere. 5 bit go up to 31, considering there are half multis makes it 15.5. With the CPU's multi being at 16, the value probably wraps around into the negative, prompting the board to assign the lowest possible multi - which is 4.
> ...

 

ask around...

I had a hp laptop with a nvidia board, the board was replaced 5 times and at the end, the tech told my dad that the entire line was defuncted.

just go to tomshardware.com and ask, you'll get the same answer.

----------

## dtjohnst

I also have sworn off nvidia-based motherboards now as well. Nothing but bad luck. But then, I've also sworn off AMD so I generally buy Intel-made boards and Intel-made processors. Haven't had a single problem (with the motherboards and processors, RAM is another issue altogether) since.

----------

## DaggyStyle

 *dtjohnst wrote:*   

> I also have sworn off nvidia-based motherboards now as well. Nothing but bad luck. But then, I've also sworn off AMD so I generally buy Intel-made boards and Intel-made processors. Haven't had a single problem (with the motherboards and processors, RAM is another issue altogether) since.

 

I've never had any problems with amd cpus and mb, the urban legend in which amd cpu are crap and heat up like hell are right only for the first athlons and the first generation phenoms. other amd chips are good, some are excellent.

calling amd cpus crap is stupid like calling intel chips crap because the first pentium 4 chips where crap.

btw, intel mbs are considered on low quality.

----------

## duryodhana

Check your kernel config. Put the CPU freq governor on demand. Check this out!

```

# CPU Frequency scaling

#

CONFIG_CPU_FREQ=y

CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_TABLE=y

CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEBUG=y

# CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_STAT is not set

# CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_PERFORMANCE is not set

# CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_POWERSAVE is not set

# CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_USERSPACE is not set

CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_ONDEMAND=y

# CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_CONSERVATIVE is not set

CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_PERFORMANCE=y

# CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_POWERSAVE is not set

CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_USERSPACE=y

CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_ONDEMAND=y

# CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_CONSERVATIVE is not set
```

----------

## haarp

 *duryodhana wrote:*   

> Check your kernel config. Put the CPU freq governor on demand. Check this out!
> 
> ```
> 
> # CPU Frequency scaling
> ...

 

Sorry, that won't help me much. In my case, the BIOS doesn't even export proper P-States, so I can't do frequency scaling even if I tried real hard  :Wink: 

 *DaggyStyle wrote:*   

>  *dtjohnst wrote:*   I also have sworn off nvidia-based motherboards now as well. Nothing but bad luck. But then, I've also sworn off AMD so I generally buy Intel-made boards and Intel-made processors. Haven't had a single problem (with the motherboards and processors, RAM is another issue altogether) since. 
> 
> I've never had any problems with amd cpus and mb, the urban legend in which amd cpu are crap and heat up like hell are right only for the first athlons and the first generation phenoms. other amd chips are good, some are excellent.
> 
> calling amd cpus crap is stupid like calling intel chips crap because the first pentium 4 chips where crap.
> ...

 

I can't really say that I'm a fan of Intel, but I've used a lot of their boards and CPUs in the past. All problems I've had with them were always the manufacturers' (most often their BIOS programmers') fault.

AMD turned out to be the better solution for me though. Their whole product lineup and products seem more thought-out and nicer to me, not to mention the prices.

Regarding Nvidia: They're still the best solution for Wine gaming. One of the reasons I bought this board was so I'll be able to run SLI (the other was that it only has a southbridge, no northbridge, thus saving on power consumption and space). I have since abandonded the SLI idea and Nvidia in general. AMD's graphics drivers are slowly catching up with Nvidia, and my next card will be an AMD one.

But that's all offtopic  :Razz: 

I'm currently looking into modding my BIOS to include newer CPU support from another board. Wish me luck.

----------

## dtjohnst

 *DaggyStyle wrote:*   

>  *dtjohnst wrote:*   I also have sworn off nvidia-based motherboards now as well. Nothing but bad luck. But then, I've also sworn off AMD so I generally buy Intel-made boards and Intel-made processors. Haven't had a single problem (with the motherboards and processors, RAM is another issue altogether) since. 
> 
> I've never had any problems with amd cpus and mb, the urban legend in which amd cpu are crap and heat up like hell are right only for the first athlons and the first generation phenoms. other amd chips are good, some are excellent.
> 
> calling amd cpus crap is stupid like calling intel chips crap because the first pentium 4 chips where crap.
> ...

 

I never called AMD cpu's crap. But Intel chips are more stable and more robust on average. Intel MB's are considered low quality because Intel never uses high-end components. They stick with reliable components. If you want to play the latest games and overclock everything, Intel boards are worthless. If you're running a server that's rarely taxed but you want almost endless uptime, it's hard to beat an Intel chip with an Intel board.

----------

## DaggyStyle

 *dtjohnst wrote:*   

>  *DaggyStyle wrote:*    *dtjohnst wrote:*   I also have sworn off nvidia-based motherboards now as well. Nothing but bad luck. But then, I've also sworn off AMD so I generally buy Intel-made boards and Intel-made processors. Haven't had a single problem (with the motherboards and processors, RAM is another issue altogether) since. 
> 
> I've never had any problems with amd cpus and mb, the urban legend in which amd cpu are crap and heat up like hell are right only for the first athlons and the first generation phenoms. other amd chips are good, some are excellent.
> 
> calling amd cpus crap is stupid like calling intel chips crap because the first pentium 4 chips where crap.
> ...

 

intel chip and not more stable and rebust, I've never seen a fried a amd chip yet but I did saw a intel fried chip.

it may hard t beat a intel chip + mb on a server but that all depends on the money you are willing to spend, you can base a server on desktop amd or intel cpus, or on the xeon version of the i7/i9 or on the tuban x6 cpu. doesn't matter, it is all about money. in a lot of times the best value per money builds are amd based and not intel.

----------

## dtjohnst

 *haarp wrote:*   

> Regarding Nvidia: They're still the best solution for Wine gaming. One of the reasons I bought this board was so I'll be able to run SLI (the other was that it only has a southbridge, no northbridge, thus saving on power consumption and space). I have since abandonded the SLI idea and Nvidia in general. AMD's graphics drivers are slowly catching up with Nvidia, and my next card will be an AMD one.

 

I still like nvidia gfx cards, it's the nvidia chipset on MB's that's horrible. Particularly their onboard fakeraid.

 *DaggyStyle wrote:*   

> intel chip and not more stable and rebust, I've never seen a fried a amd chip yet but I did saw a intel fried chip.
> 
> it may hard t beat a intel chip + mb on a server but that all depends on the money you are willing to spend, you can base a server on desktop amd or intel cpus, or on the xeon version of the i7/i9 or on the tuban x6 cpu. doesn't matter, it is all about money. in a lot of times the best value per money builds are amd based and not intel.

 

I've seen many fried chips in my day: Intel and AMD. I don't think you're experiences are necessary indicative of the majority. And I disagree it's "all about money". Money is merely one factor to consider. If money drives everything, you just end up disappointed. Also, "value" is a vague term. Some of the things that I find of value are things that you might not care about. That makes your statement that "a lot of times the best value per money builds are amd based" invalid since it can't be evaluated on a global, unbiased basis. You're "best value" build for a given $ amount could be very different from mine because of our different set of values.

I spent 6 years of my life working in IT. I worked in an outsourced one-stop shop. We did everything from order parts, to fixing printers, to supporting desktops, to installing clustered blade servers with failovers. Trust me when I tell you Intel CPU's are DEFINATELY more robust and more stable. There is no doubt. That's an empirical fact.

Think about it seriously for a second. If AMD is just as good (or better) than Intel, how is Intel still in business? The chips cost more, meaning people could either get what they want for less, or get more for what they want to spend. One could argue consumer loyalty, but businesses (and lots of people) are smarter than that.

You like tomshardware, go check it out. Intel's almost constantly outperform a comparable AMD. As they should: they cost more. But what about a comparably-priced AMD cpu? The AMD might be able to crunch more than the Intel in a given time period, but the Intel will do it more reliably. The Intel instruction handling is much better from an engineering/scientific standpoint. My university degree in Computer Engineering where I specialized in processor architecture assures that I'm able to compare the two much more deeply than simply running a few benchmarks. If you understand the physical reasons why a 1.6GHz AMD was able to execute the same number of instructions per second as a 1.8GHz Intel despite the slower clock speed, send me a PM and I'll fill you in on why science tells us Intel is more robust and stable in that sense. If you don't know why, don't bother. Without a sound understanding of digital logic you'd have no idea what I'm talking about.

Otherwise, consider this general rule: the cooler something runs, the more stable it is. Intels have always run cooler than AMD's. Also, the type of Cache used by Intel is also faster (and generally bigger), which for something like gaming doesn't mean too much, but for running a server that is dealing with larger amounts data in smaller chunks can make a big difference.

If you're goal is to build a rig that can pump out the most data possible and you don't mind a lot of noise from cooling it, then get AMD and overclock it. If you're goal is to have a quiet server that sits in the corner and hosts a website, an SQL database, maybe shares out some files, etc, then get Intel and turn down all your fans. If you want a desktop for work, get AMD if you're on the cheap and don't mind fans, or get Intel if you find them on sale and would like a quieter rig.

In conclusion, I disagree with you completely. Intels ARE more robust and more stable, AMD's are not comparable. That doesn't mean AMD CPUs aren't great, it just means I don't overclock or play video games and my priorities are likely different than yours. I said I swore off AMDs, I never said anyone else should (as opposed to nvidia chipset-based motherboard, which are like a plague).

----------

## NeddySeagoon

dtjohnst,

Care to quantify the terms "robust" and "stable" in your phrase  *dtjohnst wrote:*   

> Intels ARE more robust and more stable, AMD's are not comparable

  I don't see any numerical evidence in your discussion.

I would like to know how you defined and  measured those qualities.

----------

## DaggyStyle

 *dtjohnst wrote:*   

>  *haarp wrote:*   Regarding Nvidia: They're still the best solution for Wine gaming. One of the reasons I bought this board was so I'll be able to run SLI (the other was that it only has a southbridge, no northbridge, thus saving on power consumption and space). I have since abandonded the SLI idea and Nvidia in general. AMD's graphics drivers are slowly catching up with Nvidia, and my next card will be an AMD one. 
> 
> I still like nvidia gfx cards, it's the nvidia chipset on MB's that's horrible. Particularly their onboard fakeraid.
> 
>  *DaggyStyle wrote:*   intel chip and not more stable and rebust, I've never seen a fried a amd chip yet but I did saw a intel fried chip.
> ...

 

funny, on one side you tell me that my experience doesn't makes any indication on the world but on the other hand, you tell me that yours does? don't you think that's a little arrogant of you? you know nothing about me.

I've never said that AMD is better then intel, on the contrary, intel's current line of cpus is better than what AMD has to offer in regards to performance, but when looking at "value for the buck" AMD is better in most places.

one of the only reasons that intel is leading in the cpu business (face it, like intel can't make AMD go away because of monopoly issues, it can't happen vice versa) is because of illegal marketing.

up until 4 years ago, you could not find a amd based laptop. where I live, it was only intel, my father begged to get a desktop based on amd.

don't get my wrong, the E8XXX line is great but anyone that recommends a E8XXX based computer as a long range computer is wrong.

that computer has no future.

the original P4 computers run cooler then the Athlon XP but the XP was a way better cpu, that cpu almost buried intel.

I'm not talking about servers, but if you recommend a quad of someone that wants to surf the net and write docs, then you are overshooting it needs, what will reflect in the cost of the system.

I have no will to continue with this discussion, granted you know more then my on the issue, but dismissing me like that and assuming that I have no idea what your talking about is a complete arrogance out of you and it seems that it will be hard to get you to even consider aspects other then yours.

I wish you a best of luck.

----------

## dtjohnst

 *DaggyStyle wrote:*   

> funny, on one side you tell me that my experience doesn't makes any indication on the world but on the other hand, you tell me that yours does? don't you think that's a little arrogant of you? you know nothing about me.

 

I never said my experience was the proof. You said you'd never seen a fried AMD. I have. It was a counterpoint to your statement. Simply having seen fried AMD's isn't why I feel Intel chips are more stable.

 *DaggyStyle wrote:*   

> I've never said that AMD is better then intel, on the contrary, intel's current line of cpus is better than what AMD has to offer in regards to performance, but when looking at "value for the buck" AMD is better in most places.
> 
> one of the only reasons that intel is leading in the cpu business (face it, like intel can't make AMD go away because of monopoly issues, it can't happen vice versa) is because of illegal marketing.

 

No you didn't. And I never said you did. And since there are many CPU manufacturers out there, Intel or AMD could, if one produced a superior product at the same price point, put the other out of business legally. I was speaking of not being able to sell any CPU's because your competition sells them all. If no one wants to buy from a company, anti-monopoly laws won't keep them alive. Anti-monopoly laws only prevent shady activities like undercutting new companies, taking a loss yourself, until they can't afford to compete.

 *DaggyStyle wrote:*   

> up until 4 years ago, you could not find a amd based laptop. where I live, it was only intel, my father begged to get a desktop based on amd.
> 
> don't get my wrong, the E8XXX line is great but anyone that recommends a E8XXX based computer as a long range computer is wrong.
> 
> that computer has no future.
> ...

 

Define better. And I said cooler made something more stable, didn't make it "better".

 *DaggyStyle wrote:*   

> I have no will to continue with this discussion, granted you know more then my on the issue, but dismissing me like that and assuming that I have no idea what your talking about is a complete arrogance out of you and it seems that it will be hard to get you to even consider aspects other then yours.
> 
> I wish you a best of luck.

 

When you're statement was, "intel chip and not more stable and rebust, I've never seen a fried a amd chip yet but I did saw a intel fried chip," it'll be hard to get me to consider your opinion. Your evidence was 1 CPU. I once saw a 3-legged dog but never a 3-legged cat. If I were to make the statement that dogs therefore cannot be more robust than cats, would you not find that worthy of making counter-arguments? At no point where you dismissed. You made a statement based on a limited experience. I stated my experience was counter to yours and then gave my reasons why I believe Intel's are, as I have been stating, "more robust and stable".

[quote=NeddySeagoon]dtjohnst,

Care to quantify the terms "robust" and "stable" in your phrase

dtjohnst wrote:

Intels ARE more robust and more stable, AMD's are not comparable

I don't see any numerical evidence in your discussion.

I would like to know how you defined and measured those qualities.[/quote]

Robust : strong, sturdy.

Stable : dependable, resistant to fluctuation.

I just grabbed those from the dictionary. Not to be insulting, but because I wanted to show I'm not playing word games.

I believe neither of these are in doubt. Benchmarks are measurable evidence of robustness and Intel almost always outperforms a comparable AMD cpu. As for stability (and the "sturdiness" of that power), that requires a more in depth discussion.

Heat, as I said, can be a killer. There was a time when the Intel's were running hotter. One of AMD's major arguments in favour of their CPU was that heat reduces processor life and system stability. AMD themselves have admitted that all other factors being equal, the hotter system will be less stable. Now they run hotter, hence by their own argument, they're less stable.

To many people that's not enough (myself included), but it IS a big factor to consider. I'm not sure what your background is, but mine is in digital logic. Specifically, processor logic design. There are some very complex reasons why Intel chips can be proven to be more stable from a purely mathmatical, theoretical standpoint. But if you don't know processor architecture, it's virtually impossible to explain.

I'm not trying to be evasive or insulting, but it inovlves complex math that would take me hours to type out based on concepts that, if you haven't studied them, you would just end up having to take my word for anyways. The way Intel handles x86-based instructions has greater redundancy. This is why they require more machine cycles to do the same thing as AMD. In most cases with hardware, "less is more". Less generates less heat, it has less room to make a mistake. But, as already stated, Intels generally run cooler despite it, because they push their processors less. And the reason it takes longer is because of added redundancy, which actually increases it's stability despite having more room to screw up.

Consider a RAID array. Your single drive has a mean-time before failure of X. The more of these drives you stick in an array, the more you increase your chance of any single one of them failing. Generally speaking, this reduces your stability. However, if you have them in any RAID other than 0, you've actually increased the overall stability of the system by adding redundancy. So despite the fact that you introducted more places for error, because you did it to add redundancy you've actually increased stability of the overall system. You likely already know this, but I repeat for the benefit of those who may not.

Intel has essentially done that. If you want some hard evidence, take an Intel chip and a comparable AMD chip. Then order the errata from the manufacturers. You will find that generally the AMD contains more errata. It has more "flaws" in it's design that need to be worked around because it's instruction handling is built for speed, not stability.

The problem is that despite that, they generally come out less powerful, in comparable chips. Which is why they have to sell cheaper, enabling the user to purchase a higher-end AMD chip for the same cost as a lower-end Intel chip. But as I've stated, if your goal is stability, the Intel is still the better choice.

I still haven't included numbers, but I trust you forgive me for that. There are plenty of benchmarks on the net if your goal is empirical evidence. Stability really can't be explained in benchmarks, hence why I never posted any. You can compare heat output, you can compare errata, and if you can find a test done over several years examining CPU errors and CPU errors only with the rest of the system being isolated, you may find empirical evidence there. I am not aware of any such test having ever been done however.

Intel's objective has always been stability. They are geared for businesses. Their chips are less friendly when it comes to overclocking and don't generally handle it as well. Again, that's a factor of the way they handle the instructions. AMD have always geared themselves to the consumer, they have always wanted to produced a lower-priced processor that allows greater flexibility to the user. Generally I'm all for flexibility. And if I was building a gaming rig, I'd get an AMD and overclock it until it was more powerful than anything Intel had on the market, knowing that in doing so I was sacrificing stability. But I'm not. If a build a computer today, I almost always build a server. So I am less concerned with that power and more concerned with constant up-time. One can achieve that with AMD, but doing so requires selecting specific processors and pairing them with specific hardware. Whereas almost any Intel chip can be slapped into a board with an Intel chipset and give you that near-limitless uptime.

Finally, consider that for a standard desktop (or even small server), CPU's are the most stable peice of hardware in the machine. I doubt anyone would argue that point either. They are very rarely the cause of failure unless some other component has failed first (like heat-disappating components). For most users, and therefore most benchmarks, this means that the stability of the processors is not a factor. And that's why one must resort to, in my opinion, the technical and mathmatical proofs that only those who have studied them can understand.

I know nothing about mechanical engineering and spaceflight. When I look at a Space Shuttle, it looks like something I would be willing to fly in. When I look at a tiny capsule stuck on the end of a rocket, I want to run away in the other direction. And yet the experts tell us that mathmatically the rocket method is superior. And I trust them, because they have studied it and know the math behind it despite the fact that the inferior method looks more technologically advanced. I believe CPU architecture is the same way. Maybe I'm biased because I spent 4 years in school studying them and only started to be able to analyze them in the last 8 months of my education. Perhaps you're all smarter than me (I'm certainly not always the sharpest knife in the drawer) and can figure it out much quicker. Nonetheless, I'm not reproducing the complex math or comparing instruction handling here. I'll leave that to the individual to do. I suspect most people will feel I already wrote an entire novel, yet this is a pittance compared to how much it would take to explain the basis behind the numbers used in the formulas that are crunched to provide weighted values to "stability".

Really, you can either take my word for it, or you can chose to ignore me. In either case, it's not likely that going with an AMD will cause you any problems because of lower robustness or stability. I stated I don't use them, I never stated no one else should either.

----------

