BLACK LIST. Adjustable voltage control/turbo ratio limits are locked out due latest Win Update/Bios

Interesting. I think I can test this. I will run CB at various UV levels (or even without UV) while cooling the laptop using a portable A/C unit. Should hold the thermals below throttle point. We expect to see improved performance as voltage rises. Stay tuned, will probably wait until the current heat wave passes.

Still, would be good to understand the underlying mechanism behind the proposed phenomenon.

Also wonder what @unclewebb would say about this.

 

Unless you are limited by a CPU with a capped clock ratio, in which case the goal is holding turbo clock indefinitely. Increasing voltage beyond what is needed to accomplish that is futile.

---

The turdbook jockeys just don't get it. They have been brainwashed by the facade of increasing performance by avoiding malfunction by means of intentionally induced malfunction in another area, LOL.

https://community.intel.com/t5/Proc...ed-by-intel/m-p/1300488/highlight/true#M52708

 

I'm not missing any point, I believe you are. Again, voltage has nothing to do with performance outside of improving stability at higher clocks. I gain nothing and I lose nothing when I undervolt my desktop that is underwater. If I undervolt too far I lose performance, but that's because it's not totally stable. Lowering the voltage and maintaining stability (while ensuring it's not too low so it drops clocks) does NOT decrease performance. If that were the case, we would be overvolting our desktops to get more performance, without touching the clocks.

I understand the difference between VID and core voltage, as well as LLC. Again, yes you need voltage to help open voltage gated channels and allow CPUs to work at higher speeds. If you are losing performance with undervolting then you are either too aggressive with it (not allowing the CPU to hit the requested speed) or you are not stable. I'm confused how you are saying anything that counters my points there.

 

Yeah, not missing the point at all, (once again).

Having a CPU that is 'underwater' is the epitome of proper cooling.

 

I think we are getting off track and missing the point. The point of this thread is consumers getting locked out of making voltage changes to circumvent defective engineering.

Voltage is like the fuel mixture on your car. If you set it too lean it will malfunction and performance will degrade. If you set it too rich the same thing will occur. To say "undervolting improves performance" is wrong and misleading unless you understand that "undervolting" means setting the correct voltage because the losers that built it didn't care if it functioned correctly. In the context of the voltage being incorrect to begin with, undervolting does improve performance. But, what you are doing is tuning and applying the correct voltage. If the correct voltage is applied, further undervolting will degrade performance and stability. Being blocked from doing that is a sin and a crime, and it should not be tolerated.

A secondary problem occurs when the turdbook's thermal solution does not allow setting the correct voltage because overheating will occur due to the fact it was poorly engineered. Undervolting to accommodate a poorly engineered product should not be viewed as a good solution. The good solution is to not purchase defective garbage in the first place. If you did, there will be consequences and compromises due to poor judgment. Having an outsider arbitrarily intervene with an OS update without permission and break your ability to apply workarounds is totally unacceptable

 

I mean if you want to think of not getting the point as a different thing than not missing the point, then ok you didn't miss it. Undervolting does NOT decrease performance unless it's done incorrectly. Quite the contrary when you factor in the big performance gains on laptops because of non-optimal cooling/TDP limitations. Mr. Fox and I agree there.

I do love the fuel mixture analogy, plus rep for that. That's exactly correct, and exactly my point as previously stated. I mentioned that in the case of laptops undervolting will increase performance because you have to lean out the mixture (although when it comes to cars lean = hot) to help it run better within the confines of the cooling. Yes it's a shame that the black list for Intel's fix for the security loop hole exists, but thankfully there are some ways around it. We agree on all of those points.

 

You can't disagree with me and agree with @Mr. Fox. Ego much?

 

No, I think you and Mr Fox don't actually agree like you think you do. If you read what he wrote in the very last reply you'll see that undervolting can be good and doesn't degrade performance on its own (again unless done incorrectly). Overvolting would be a similar thing, in some areas (overclocking with good cooling) it is the right thing to do, in others it would degrade performance (too hot, degrade silicon). A simple statement like you made "Undervolting does decrease the performance" is incorrect. Undervolting when it comes to most laptops will increase performance. If my desktop were on stock air, undervolting would likely increase performance there as well. I also have my server undervolted because it does save a few watts on something that runs 24/7, it's a mute point because that just allowed me to throw in more hard drives and "feel better" about it. Again, no loss of performance there (I've ran the benchmarks).

 

I too enjoyed the analogy between internal combustion engines and semiconductors. Obviously, you wouldn't have to go so far as to start discussing tunneling effects to break it down, but it does seem to hold up reasonably well at this level.

Look, just like you can boost an engine using nitrous oxide, you can boost a CPU using liquid nitrogen!

The split screen mental image of Vin Diesel slamming the NOX button and ripping up the tarmac on the left, joined by a towering figure representing @Mr. Fox (necessarily on the right lol), engulfed in fumes caused by decompressing nitrogen, benching furiously will stay with me for a while.

 

@custom90gt, you're hopeless.

You're bias is showing once more.

 

It is all relative because default voltage isn't a fixed value. I think the more accurate terminology would be voltage tuning. The goal should be to find out what the ideal voltage is. It carries a sense of effort and demands an investment of time and attention to determine. Most of the kiddos are not interested in that. They want to brag about how huge their negative offset is, which is idiotic and ignorant.

If it means setting an arbitrary negative offset to copy what your friends on Facepoot are doing, that is just a noob being a dumb-dumb. Well, by golly, he is undervolting... so, why isn't it working right? Why is Bobby getting higher benchmarks? 'cause he lucky. Why is Suzy's system unstable? 'cause she dumb. Why is Jimmy's system still running hot? 'cause he dumb. They all copied Ricky's settings. That's not fair. Ricky's laptop is better. They're all stupid.

 

Please tell me where I am wrong, with some actual proof.

 

There's no point when you can't see your own bias against me. We've walked down this path before, I'm tired of this with you. Have a great day.

 

I hope you have a great day as well, sorry that you aren't able to persuade me without facts to your opinion.

 

And here is actual testing data to back up that statement. This chart is from the Jarrod's Tech review of the MSI GE76. Note the increased clock speeds in a CPU stress test with the undervolt applied versus not.

 

Anyone who reads this sees your bias.

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...-win-update-bios.831450/page-35#post-11108146

There is your proof. Twist it around until you poke your eyes out again.

Try reading for comprehension, this is a conversation, not a lawyer-approved statement of facts presented to a judge (yourself).

I'm not stating half the things you're assuming or declaring I have. If you don't have any valuable input, stop.

As for the MSI GE76? Yeah, another example of an insufficient chassis and cooling system. Don't just simply jump on the trash-talk 'tiller train. Read the 'ing thread!

 

Lol ok, cool so your proof is the agreement between Mr Fox and I that undervolting a laptop can result in increased performance. Appreciate it.

Again, if you really want I would be happy to run just about any benchmark or whatever you would like on any of my systems in both stock and undervolted configurations to show that there is either 1. no loss of performance or 2. a gain in performance. Hit me up if you're interested.

 

Can't help digging your hole deeper and deeper huh? The above are the first two things from that post I linked for you and your entirely, blinders on, reading skills.

The above is what you refuse to read and proves my point. You're a waste of everyone's time for any logical communication.

 

You must have linked the wrong post first then. Mr. Fox clarified (in the later post that you linked to) that undervolting is helpful with laptops that are restricted by power/temp throttling and choosing the wrong voltage is what decreases the performance of the platform (aka undervolting too far, but Mr. Fox please correct me if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying). Undervolting done correctly does not decrease performance (voltage has nothing to do with performance and everything to do with stability, otherwise we would be adding voltage to make our systems faster and not adding it to increase stability at higher clocks). Again, please name a few benchmarks or something and I'll run them on the desktop/server/laptop with stock settings and a proper undervolt if that helps you.

Just digging around, here is a comparison to stock and undervolted with a few benchmarks on my old XPS 9570. For someone that likes to tout real world performance instead of benchmarks (or whatever intel says is real world performance), you may like the encoding results:

 

Still on the misunderstanding train huh? That link is correct, and you should really stop wasting everyone's time and energy on your 'misunderstandings'.

I can state what others say in my own words, your issue is that you don't take that as a continuation of the conversation, rather, you take it as an opportunity to attack and single out a statement that you try to make look 'wrong' out of context.

Read the threads, but please stop derailing them for your doltish, biased, and immature analysis.

Bombarding me with long-winded posts of irrelevant information of the point I made doesn't fool me or anyone else about your intentions or biases. You're not trying to create understanding here, you're simply disruptive, distracting, and an annoyance each time you 'participate' with my inputs.

 

Nurse!

 

My only "issue" with you is that you don't ever back anything up. Your link that you re-linked to agrees with what I'm saying, I've read it multiple times. If I'm wrong then I hope @Mr. Fox tries to clarify it, but again I've posted proof and you've posted nothing. You do this time and time again, post an opinion and then tell me I am wrong without actually providing any proof. I've been overclocking systems since the AMD K6-2 days (circa 1998), I know a thing or two because I've seen a thing or two lol.

Want a little more evidence?

Here is some of my testing with the Dell XPS 9575:
"Video Encoding
Doing some encoding tests now.
I have a 4k HEVC file of Deadpool. I am using handbrake and the "Super HQ 1080p30 surround" preset and only encoding the first chapter of the movie since I don't have all day to watch it.

Stock - able to power throttle the cpu - 11 minutes and 57 seconds
-150mv - no power throttling of the cpu - 11 mins and 16 seconds"

Some stuff from my Dell XPS 9560:
Realbench scores went up 10% with an undervolt, PC Mark scores up 5%...

Results from my Lenovo X1 Extreme:


So I'll stop derailing this thread with evidence that undervolting improves performance...

 

I can't help your 'blinders on' way of seeing. I also can't help convince you when you've already convinced yourself otherwise. No 'proof' I've ever shown you is good enough, so why bother?

Even now, you refuse to see what's under your nose the links I provided are exactly what I explicitly posted, but you refuse to acknowledge them. I'm not worried about being proven wrong (means I learn something), but you sure have a huge issue with it. I've met people like you many times. I usually fire them, if they don't get themselves fired first.

Once again, undervolting improves performance when the chassis/cooling system is inadequate for the heat the platform generates. Otherwise, undervolting isn't needed and doesn't give more performance (ever). Less heat? Sure, I'll give you that. But if that is followed by more 'performance', see the first sentence in this paragraph, and think before you reply.

 

Cool so you agree with me in the end. Undervolting can improve performance if done correctly in the right circumstances (particularly with laptops, and this is a laptop forum).

Long live undervolting and shame on the manufacturers that try to prohibit it.

 

I'm not agreeing with you. You're only reading what you want. Live the delusion.

 

Girls, just wait 'til your dad gets home...

raaayyyyrrre... ffffttt, ffffttt, fffttt

 

Hey guys a little help here once your stopped your bickering daddy's home....

I have managed to downgrade my bios on 17 r5 to 1.8.1 but still undervolt is locked and I have tried to get back into bios recovery menu to load defaults but keep getting the invalid ROM shiet.... What am I doing wrong...

 

Hah, yes I derailed this thread to get a point across (well attempt to), but I am still a moderator.

I would recommend doing a Dell bios recovery or NVRAM reset, if you don't know how then I can google the steps for you since I don't recall the exact steps.

 

Intel have finally removed/abandoned the cancer from their newer processors. Better late than never. But this won't help the screwed one with older processors.

New Intel chips won't play Blu-ray disks due to SGX deprecation blepingcomputers.com | Jan 14, 2022

Intel has removed support for SGX (software guard extension) in 12th Generation Intel Core 11000 and 12000 processors, rendering modern PCs unable to playback Blu-ray disks in 4K resolution.

Why did Intel abandon SGX?
As a secure enclave technology, SGX was commonly targeted by security researchers who discovered numerous vulnerabilities and attack methods.

Examples of attacks targeting Intel SGX include:

• the Prime+Probe attack discovered in 2017,
• a Spectre-like attack disclosed in 2018,
• an Enclave attack discovered by researchers in 2019,
• a MicroScope replay attack,
• the so-called "Plundervolt" injection attack,
• a Load Value Injection (LVI), and
• the SGAxe attack on the CPU cache resulting in the leak of the enclave's content.

In summary, Intel had more to gain from SGX's deprecation from the perspective of security.

Considering that most users don't care about Blu-ray playback on the PC, taking that decision must have been straightforward.

 

I'd dare to say that all "workstation" and "ultra-portable high-end" notebooks are thermally limited and any decrease in thermal demand will directly result in increased performance.

Why?

A) Observation - in the last 10 years or so, my working notebooks were: Sony Vaio Z (various models, including quad-core 35W one); Apple MacBook Pro Retina 15" (various generations); Lenovo W541, Lenovo P50, Dell Precision 5750 (WS version of XPS 17).

B) Laws of physics: today's "thin and light" packaging simply cannot evacuate what modern CPU and GPU components could produce. If you have high-end or WS-grade CPU and GPU, it can do more than what a typical 100-120W thermal solution can pull out of the system.

Therefore, as observed by numerous tests, if your CPU lives in such an environment, reducing voltage during high load will directly translate in higher performance, since CPU will either spend less time throttling - or could switch to higher P-state without throttling.

Now, what about the safety of UV and "if this is so, why didn't Intel UV it in the first place" - the answer for this is actually very simple: Intel sells a generic CPU that must, under absolutely no circumstance, be unstable, no matter what it runs and where. However, you might have a reduced set of usage scenarios that do not require such voltages + you might not need a large buffer to be safe, since some part of that safety margin is not technical but legal/commercial.

Intel, also, is a for-profit company - so their operations management teams have a challenging time optimizing and meeting all demands (high quality, lower price, quick ship). Sure, you might find lower voltage for your particular CPU with several days of intense testing - but chip vendor's interest is that chips go out of the factory ASAP, so they might be trading off some voltage for shorter testing cycles. This is a hypothesis, not a fact - but it would certainly be the first thing I'd consider.

So, yes, with some testing, some luck (CPU lottery), and any typical "high performance - thin and light" notebook pretty much anyone would gain some performance due to the reasons above.

Is it for everyone? Absolutely not. In fact, I'd stay clear of undervolting unless I know what I am doing - chances of making the system unstable are too high. Still, it is definitely on the menu and something that brings tangible results.

 

You are ignoring what I stated (join the club).

Short answer: At some point, undervolting will give less performance. Fact.

Long answer: See all my posts in this thread. I don't have time to repeat myself.

P.S. Note that I'm not (by default) disagreeing with everything you wrote above. It's just your comments are not on the same train as my original statements, (and which you're mistakenly quoting and arguing against - again, join the club).

 

I really do not think I am ignoring your statements. I apologize if it looks that way.

I am just emphasizing that for the most widely used class of notebooks (and this is a notebook forum, after all), undervolting is highly likely going to lead to performance gains, as the system is thermally constrained in the first place (and that constraint is way more acute than power constraints of the platform).

Ideally, I'd wish I do not even know what "CPU undervolting" is. In that imaginary world, a device would be shipped to me without any need to tweak or optimize it. It should... "just work"

But the reality is different, just some months ago I literally had to fix OEM's inability to configure power management properly in their own product (a story for another day) - in a >very< expensive notebook, from one of the top 5 OEMs. Out of the factory, the damn thing was not even able to stay in "modern standby" in backpacks for too long; it was failing platform and OS vendor's own recommended tests for S0ix etcetera.

After fixing sleep issues, undervolting led to a significant gain in performance since, without it, the system was hopelessly entering a thermal throttling regime when doing anything of significance. Further, the (proper) configuration of PL1/2 limits to match my usage led to additional gains. And, yes, everything measurable (measuring itself was used to guide parameter optimization in the first place anyway).

So, yes.. within the context of this forum and products being discussed, sadly - there are gains to be had if one invest in educating themselves in this subject. Not ideal (in fact, wrong - but who cares, right?) - but it works.

 

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...-win-update-bios.831450/page-35#post-11108146

The OEM system you 'fixed' would have been returned pronto by me. I don't reward garbage design and implementation.

Undervolting is a tool to fix inadequacies. The 'proper' implementation of it depends on the specific chip, workload, and platform/chassis it's in. At a certain point, undervolting will give less performance. It's not a miracle cure. It is merely a method to further limit the performance of the CPU for a poorly designed chassis/power supply. Even if overall, the performance of the system over time is better than without it (undervolting).

Note: I am not against undervolting. The point here is that undervolting puts the system/chassis/platform at a disadvantage (performance, stability, reliability) vs. a chassis/power supply design that is better suited to the components within.

That is why all the notebooks on the list (and more) are not fit for purchase, IMO. Buying these horrid examples and 'fixing' them is just giving the manufacturers the green light to continue to produce similar future $ hit.

In (my 'torture tests') done within 24 to 48 hours of receiving a new model to consider adding to my workflows, I know if they're staying or going back. Nothing that fails my tests stays. And on the ones, I do use undervolting on, it is for extra benefits (mainly battery life), not performance sustainability that I do so with. The performance delivered by the component hardware has to be what that hardware is capable of, and nothing less. Out of the box.

Know the power of your wallet and use it wisely. Dump garbage platforms immediately, regardless of the bells and whistles (and pretty RGB lights) that they may otherwise taunt you with.

Performance, for me, has always been based over the lifetime of the platform. A system is bought for my use and workflows (and not for unnecessary maintenance), and if not fit for purpose, I do not allow myself the timewasting of attempting to fix in software what is a hardware/design (cooling) problem.

When I could buy a notebook cooler 20 years ago and see immediate benefits (for a one-time fix), I did. Today, there are many more models to choose from if the one I happened to pick turns out to be a dud. And most of those today do not require a notebook cooler either.