ASRock.com Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Technical Support > Intel Motherboards
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Core i5 6600T Cache Speed reduced when using SkyOC
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search Search  Events   Register Register  Login Login

Core i5 6600T Cache Speed reduced when using SkyOC
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
SteveRo View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Location: Warrenton, VA
Status: Offline
Points: 8 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SteveRo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jan 2016 at 10:54pm
From left to right - mobo default, skyoc block 101, skyoc bclock 103 - 


for comparison - skyoc bclock 177.9  - 
Back to Top
Xaltar View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 16 May 2015
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 23048 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Xaltar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jan 2016 at 11:44pm
That is very odd behavior, especially the write speeds on the 103 BCLK info. That has to be an error in Aida64. It seems as soon as you go over 102 BCLK the cache performance goes out the window. Thanks for posting up the results, I am sure they will be useful to Tech support when they try to get to the root of the issue.
Back to Top
MageTank View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 05 Jan 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 9 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MageTank Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2016 at 12:29am
My results are exactly the same as Steve's, at the exact same levels of BCLK. Nice to know it's not just the ITX board though. This means it can be 1 of 3 things.

Option 1: It's Aida64 being unable to properly read the cache after BCLK is adjusted.

Option 2: Something funky is going on in the bios, and touching BCLK too much changes cache speeds.

Option 3: Built in safety feature on the CPU's themselves, that is not present on Pentiums. 

I have someone with an MSI board that will be giving me results tonight with his Core i5 6400. If MSI boards have the exact same issue, then option 3 is probably the result. 
Back to Top
Xaltar View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 16 May 2015
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 23048 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Xaltar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2016 at 12:36am
Great stuff guys, the more we know the better. Hopefully ASRock and other manufacturers will be able to take this info and use it to fix the problem via a BIOS update, if it is a feature that is not present in the Pentium class CPUs then it may be possible to disable it via BIOS.
Back to Top
SteveRo View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Location: Warrenton, VA
Status: Offline
Points: 8 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SteveRo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2016 at 12:36am
^^ wasn't xtu also reading it wrong?
Back to Top
SteveRo View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Location: Warrenton, VA
Status: Offline
Points: 8 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SteveRo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2016 at 12:38am
^^ correction - xtu reading L1 cache speed low?
Back to Top
MageTank View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 05 Jan 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 9 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MageTank Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2016 at 12:42am
Originally posted by SteveRo SteveRo wrote:

^^ correction - xtu reading L1 cache speed low?

Mine was reading it at exactly the same speed as my core clock. HWinfo64 also showed the cache multiplier at x27, same as my core multiplier. So the programs see the cache speed as what it is supposed to be, but the aida64 bandwidth test claims it is going much slower than what it is supposed to be. Almost 75% slower in my case. 

There is still a possibility that the problem is with Aida. I will reach out with them and see if they can answer any questions. 
Back to Top
Xaltar View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 16 May 2015
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 23048 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Xaltar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2016 at 1:29am
Try running the built in benchmark on CPUz and see what difference it makes. You can compare the G4400 overclocked and stock performance and see if the percentage increase lines up with the i5.
Back to Top
MageTank View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 05 Jan 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 9 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MageTank Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2016 at 2:27am
Originally posted by Xaltar Xaltar wrote:

Try running the built in benchmark on CPUz and see what difference it makes. You can compare the G4400 overclocked and stock performance and see if the percentage increase lines up with the i5.

My 6600T goes from 1600 single thread, to 2000 single thread. It then goes from 6500 multi thread, to 8000 multi thread. This is from a 50% BCLK adjustment. Though to be fair, CPU was boosting to 3.5 on single thread test, and 3.3 on multi thread, so the difference between the two were only 500mhz and 700mhz respectively. 

It will take me some time to swap back to my pentium and test, as this is an ITX case and a little difficult to work in. I'll try to get the results for you though.


Edited by MageTank - 08 Jan 2016 at 2:28am
Back to Top
Xaltar View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 16 May 2015
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 23048 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Xaltar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2016 at 3:00am
No need, clearly there are performance gains and they look to be within the realms of what I would expect to see with an overclock of 500 - 700mhz. It would seem that only certain workloads would be effected by the lower cache performance. I guess so long as you are not performing any of those tasks the overclock is still well worth it.

Thanks for all the time you have put into this, I will PM tech support and point them to this thread Thumbs Up
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.04
Copyright ©2001-2021 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.195 seconds.