Any way to disable Turbo Boost in Core i5? (T410)

Even though it's a feature supported by the manufacturer, I'm still not comfortable with the processor overclocking itself. I don't use Lenovo power manager any more, and there's no BIOS option to disable it. Any ideas how I can turn it off? The default clock speed of 2.53GHz is more than enough for my needs.

 

This thread (quoted below) explains it pretty well. For the first two these settings, you may need to do both CPU and Fan/Thermal settings, but just doing one might work, I haven't tested. The last one I have set to Passive, and Turbo still works with my setting. The BIOS settings are nearly one-for-one with the PM settings, mostly just different names.

"Maximum CPU speed: "Highest" and "Adaptive" enable turbo boost, "Low" and "Lowest" disable turbo boost.

Optimize Fan control: Only Maximum performance enables turbo boost. "Balanced" and "Reduce noise dynamically" disables turbo boost.
The reason is, turbo boost generates extra heat, thus the fan will be more noisy.

System cooling policy: you have to set it to "Active" not "Passive" to enable turbo boost. "

 

Thanks a lot! I'll look into those.

 

I'm curious what it is that makes you uncomfortable about it? Turbo Boost is one of the main advantages of the newer Core i7/5/3 processors vs the old Core2's.

 

Overclocking is overclocking. I've never overclocked any of my systems, and as I said, though it's supported by the manufacturer, it makes me uncomfortable. Whether you might agree or not, overclocking has been shown to shorten the lifespan of chips. Read about electron migration if you're interested. I'd like to just make my system last as long as possible. I just ran some 3dmark06 benchmarks, and the results are very interesting. It shows I don't need the CPU turbo mode, but GPU turbo mode is far more useful. Link to my thread here.

 

i3 doesn't have the turbo boost function... it has the hyperthreading function.

Intel Core i3 Performance Specifications

-------------------

According to Intel the turbo boost function is enabled through bios.

http://www.intel.com/support/processors/sb/cs-029908.htm

 

Yes, but it's not a feature in my T410's BIOS, it just isn't there. I have to use Lenovo's power manager to disable it.

 

Then just use the power manager function to disable it, it is all the same.

 

That's exactly what I'm doing. Although it would be nice if Intel would release a utility that did the same thing.

 

it is more of a case whether bios menu has this option.

 

Interesting point of view. I think you're being overly-paranoid to be honest. The chip was designed for this from the beginning. All it's doing is throttling down one of the cores and using the power to run the other core a bit faster. There are strict limits on the TDP which limit the amount of heat that can be generated as a result, so the risk of damage to the chip from this should be very very low. This is a very different situation from hardware tweakers that overclock their systems beyond what they were designed to do. The chip was designed for this.

 

I wasn't talking about heat, I'm talking about the damage from electron migration (from overclocking).

 

What do you mean by electron migration? That by having more power the band structure is going to be distorted and electrons enter extended states unintentionally? Or do you mean, by having different frequency/energy, they would tunnel through to where it shouldn't belong? (for this I am pretty sure the CPU clock frequency does not have a simple and direct relationships with the electrons' energy states.)

Electrons do migrate in electronics, like in all electric currents. I am a little uninformed about the physics inside a CPU and the inherited design of the chip to understand what sorts of migration are happening when or if any would become harmful. I believe we end-users should not need to worry about this kind of 'low-level' matters.

The way I think of TurboBoost is that, for example, the i7 chip core(s) is designed to run max at ~3.06GHz but is throttled down to 2.67GHz to save power until it is needed on the particular core; so it's more like a smart under-clock until the extra computing power is really needed? If I take this perspective, no overclocking is involved, although I don't have data backing up this view.

 

Electromigration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Thanks lead_org! That's a good read. I have an impression from that article that a significant damage caused by electromigration is altering the position of ionized atoms and thus lattice structure of the material. If overclocking has a track record of increasing such damage, did Intel say anything about TurboBoost on this front?

 

Every CPU has a design life, and the minor increase in the CPU speed is not going to significantly decrease the useful life of the CPU. Most people is not going to use their laptop continously for more than 10 years, very few people even use their CPU till they actually burn out, so i don't think Intel will really be worried about that.

Also, the CPU switches the frequency accordingly, so the time it stays in the turboboost mode is going to be relatively short.

So don't worry about the CPU longevity, unless you plan to keep using your laptop for more than 10 years running them at full speed 24/7.

 

Electromigration will occur more with higher clock speeds, no matter if it's through Turbo Boost, a higher base clock speed, or manual overclocking. If you turn the Turbo Boost on an i7-620M off, it's still likely to die earlier than an i5-430M with Turbo Boost on.

In any case, even at relatively high clock speeds, a CPU is still likely to last long enough to become essentially worthless.

 

I don't worry about this at all. I am most happy with it especially when I see the CPU was occasionally throttled to 114% of its specified frequency even when I was running all 4 threads in parallel with my code - it does speed things up significantly.

It's more about the OP's concern about damage caused by this alleged overclocking. I think, as you said, the performance gain by leaving it on is worth it unless the CPU is to run 24/7 for 10 years.

 

Dynamic clocking is a good thing, Turbo Boost included. The 2.26GHz Core i5-430M, which boosts up to 2.53GHz, is no different from a CPU with a default frequency of 2.53GHz that can clock down to 2.26GHz (and lower, of course).

@OP: If you wanted your CPU to last as long as possible, you should've gone for CULV.

 

I have overclocked every system I have built (for me), and I agree with you. Most system components are taxed. There's usually alot more heat, which tends to shorten the lifespan of parts.

The Core i5 architecture implements a nice dynamic power/performance balance that has few drawbacks (other than, maybe, the whining noise people are experiencing, and shortened battery life ...while more work is being done). I thought it was slick, so I bought one. The GPU overclocking is included within that architecture.

I do not often see my CPU Turbo mode kick in. According to Intel, there's a variety of factors and settings involved, including core/thread usage, CPU load, GPU load, and TDP headroom.

If your goal is improved graphics performance, according to anandtech, they had great results overclocking it, with little-to-no downside. The older 4500 chip owner have access to "GMA Booster" and the like; at some point, there should be software for the 5700HD. I don't need it, but I will probably try it out, this is one of my hobbies.

And once the 5700HD is overclocked, it would only be fair to overclock the CPU. Generate more heat. Repeat process. I'll only want my T510 for max 3 years, so it should be ok. But I totally understand why people wouldn't. I never do it for machines I build for others.

 

So yeah, the upshot of all this is that these CPUs are designed and built with Turbo Boost in mind. I still think you're being paranoid if you want to disable it due to longevity of the CPU. I could see disabling it (while away from power outlets) to maximize battery runtime, mind you. Anyway, I know you weren't asking for opinions, you were asking how to disable it. So I apologize if I've come off as critical or argumentative. In the end, of course, it's your choice! It just seems a shame to me when the hardware is built with this usage in mind.

 

Agreed. Technically speaking, because Intel designed the chips to run at those speeds, it isn't "overclocking" at all.

Intel has the same 32nm architecture running as fast as 3.6GHz in Clarkdale, with single-core turbo up to 3.866GHz! That's a higher clock speed than the fastest P4, though obviously performance is miles better. Worrying about Arrandale at only 2.53GHz seems silly compared to that. Granted, notebook CPUs have poorer cooling and higher temperatures to deal with, but if anything's going to suffer severely from electromigration it's going to be the desktop CPUs.

 

Does anyone know the specific clock speeds that setting CPU speeds to 'low' or 'lowest' reduces it to?

Will these settings significantly affect performance for day to day multitasking?

 

For my i5-520M, rated at 2.4Ghz, setting to Low or Lowest means max 2.4Ghz. For the i5-540M, it's max 2.53Ghz.

With these settings, the CPU speed will not ramp up on-demand. If you are web surfing, you will probably not notice any difference. If you are doing CPU intensive tasks, you will probably notice a difference.

 

Will probably notice a difference, key word probably. From 2.53 to 2.79 or even 3.066GHz I'd venture to guess there wouldn't be a heck of a lot of difference. Note that 3.066GHz is the upper limit when only one core is active. If both cores are active it's 2.79GHz. If you're doing any CPU intensive task, it would most likely utilize both cores anyway, then an increase of 0.26GHz wouldn't be much.

 

True. For additional perspective, the 0.26Ghz / 266Mhz is another 2 steps on the multiplier, which is twice the difference between the base speeds of the i5-520M and the i5-540M. Many people spent an extra 50+ bucks for that upgrade, probably with the belief it would run faster. Just a perspective...