S.Tindall wrote on Mon, 4 Aug 2008 13:08:03 -0400:
> http://products.amd.com/en-us/DesktopCPUFilter.aspx
Thanks, nice tool!
> Checking the cpuinfo on systems using a 4850e (G2) and a 4600+ EE
> (F2) both give "cpu family: 15", so they have included the Gs in
> the excluded group, too.
Yeah. T
On Monday, August 04, 2008 at 5:08 AM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
...The older one is a 3800+ EE and the newer one is a 4850e
which I bought right after it became available. Unless rev. G
and up are only quad core CPUs at least the latter 45nm one
should be rev G or up, too. But I can't find a definiti
Ned Slider wrote on Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:51:41 +0100:
> Were you able to observe any drops in VCore voltage between load, idle
> (2500MHz) and 1000MHz with lm_sensors?
I can't get any other sensor data than the core temperatures.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive In
Kai Schaetzl wrote on Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:08:55 +0200:
> Hm, it occurs to me now that the older cpu where the time warning doesn't
> appear runs already on Xen 3.2.1 which may already have some patch to
> avoid this bug. Or it simply doesn't report it anymore :-)
The warning is gone after upgra
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Kai Schaetzl wrote on Sun, 03 Aug 2008 16:57:20 +0200:
I disagree about the reason. I think they are actually not so efficient. At
least not if I compare to a low-voltage CPU.
Just checked how much that AMD 4850e CPU drains under various conditions.
There are *huge* diffe
Kai Schaetzl wrote on Sun, 03 Aug 2008 16:57:20 +0200:
> I disagree about the reason. I think they are actually not so efficient. At
> least not if I compare to a low-voltage CPU.
Just checked how much that AMD 4850e CPU drains under various conditions.
There are *huge* differences. I checked w
Ned Slider wrote on Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:34:57 +0100:
> quote
> # Frequency scaling on AMD rev F CPUs under Xen can result in
> # timekeeping problems for fully virtualized guests, so we disable
> # it by default.
> if [ -d /proc/xen ] && [ "$cpu_vendor" == AuthenticAMD ] \
>
S.Tindall wrote on Sun, 3 Aug 2008 21:47:06 -0400:
> The cpuspeed changelog may be relevant:
>
> [quote]
> * Thu Mar 06 2008 Jarod Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> - Disable freq scaling by default on AMD rev F and earlier cpus
> when running xen, due to clock instability (#435321)
> [/quote]
Tha
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
S.Tindall wrote on Sun, 3 Aug 2008 21:47:06 -0400:
The cpuspeed changelog may be relevant:
[quote]
* Thu Mar 06 2008 Jarod Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Disable freq scaling by default on AMD rev F and earlier cpus
when running xen, due to clock instability (#435321)
[/quot
On Sunday, August 03, 2008 at 8:31 AM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
...I have an older low-voltage AMD CPU (probably about 2 years
on the market) that is recognized as X2 3800+ but frequency
scaling fails because it miscalculates the current speed to
800 MHz as well. Is there anything I can do about that
Kai Schaetzl wrote on Sun, 03 Aug 2008 17:59:49 +0200:
> 5 minutes later: oh, yes, it does! Now I got it to 0% idle and current
> frequency jumped to 2333000 (although current scaling frequency was still
> shown at 200, on AMDs both figures rise).Looks like a clear bug in the
> centrino ker
Kai Schaetzl wrote on Sun, 03 Aug 2008 16:31:19 +0200:
> Actually, not the latest kernel. The CentOS xen boot (hypervisor) kernel
> /xen.gz-2.6.18-92.1.6.el5 (and maybe earlier) ones calculates the frequency
> correct, the Xen 3.2 boot kernel (xen.gz-3.2) from the Xen 3.2 package
> offered at x
Ned Slider wrote on Sun, 03 Aug 2008 16:16:25 +0100:
> acpi-cpufreq was
> autoloaded in response to enabling C1E and EIST features in the BIOS
> (which one is responsible I don't know as I enabled both together).
Ah, it must have been enabled by C1E. I don't know if I have that or can
enable i
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Ned Slider wrote on Sun, 03 Aug 2008 15:09:39 +0100:
http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=15484&forum=37
Thanks for the URL, see below!
Bottom line - the power saving between having frequency scaling enabled
or not was surprisingly small (only 2-3W)
Ned Slider wrote on Sun, 03 Aug 2008 15:09:39 +0100:
> http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=15484&forum=37
Thanks for the URL, see below!
>
> Bottom line - the power saving between having frequency scaling enabled
> or not was surprisingly small (only 2-3W). It would appe
Kai Schaetzl wrote on Sun, 03 Aug 2008 14:31:19 +0200:
> I have a somewhat related question. That very new AMD CPU mentioned above
> was not recognized by CentOS 5.2 and the current frequency was shown as
> 80 (instead of 250), although it was running in full speed. The
> latest kernel
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
I've been playing and comparing frequency scaling between AMD and Intel
CPUs yesterday and there seem to be great differences between AMD and
Intel and some gotchas. This is all on CentOS 5.2 with latest Xen kernels
(which are supposed to be powersaving-enabled since 5.2).
I've been playing and comparing frequency scaling between AMD and Intel
CPUs yesterday and there seem to be great differences between AMD and
Intel and some gotchas. This is all on CentOS 5.2 with latest Xen kernels
(which are supposed to be powersaving-enabled since 5.2).
AMD:
It seems once I
18 matches
Mail list logo
