The "Undervolting" Guide

Will reformatting the computer change these specs back to their original settings?

 

Yes, because reformatting will remove the program. However, you can take a screen shot to refer back to or write them on a paper or just memorize the settings.
EDIT: then you just need to reinstall the program and re-input your settings.

 

Go to the RMclock folder and run RMwipeout.reg . This will flush the registry of any settings RMclock put in. Everything will go back to default. You may delete RMclock if you like.

It doesnt recognise it properly because of your BIOS. Its not providing RMclock with the correct information. A large amount of Dell users which had "unknown cores" have undervolted fine with no complications whatsoever.

IDA only engages during very rare occasions thus not showing 11x. Alot of people have noted that it is buggy and caused crashes, thats why i recommended to keep it off. It really isnt much of a performance boost, it at all. Read the definitions and article near the bottom of my guide.

 

Thanks for the info about IDA and the "unknown core" thing, all makes sense.

This still worries me a little - is there any chance of damage to my system if something goes awry? Even if it's a small chance, I'd rather not continue to underclock.

 

Heres something from the RMclock read me file:

Out of the hundreds or even thousands thats used this guide. No one has ever complained of hardware damage. Undervolting has been around for years.

Even search google, you will barely (if at all) find any results on undervolting causing cpu damage. Even if you do, chances are the CPU was defective or damage was caused by the users actions.

 

^ Thanks Flip, feel much better about it now. Was nervous as it's brand new.

On my HP8510p T8100, everything is down to 0.9250v, except 9x at 0.9375v and 10x at 0.9500v (originally 1.1375v). Avg temp is ~26c while browsing & coding in Visual Studio, fan is almost always on low (virtually silent), occasionally on the gentle second notch for a few seconds if it gets to 30 deg, usually while loading up apps or Photoshop is working hard. No BSOD's so far. Very cool!

[ed] I should add, if I'm encoding video or playing a game, it does go up to ~40 deg, but that's a big improvement from 57!

 

Indeed it is.
That`s why I requested that this thread should become a sticky.

 

I'm confused at the moment. I'm in RMClock, adjusting the Voltage multipliers. But do I ONLY modify the highest one, x12 for me? Should I not be modifying the smaller ones? It doesn't specify in the guide.

 

The highest one is the most important - it will undervolt your processor when you're running maxed out. You can then do your intermediate ones later (or click "Automatically adjust intermediate VID's" to ... well, automatically do the middle ones.

You can try the lowest as well, but few people can successfully undervolt the idle setting.

Basically, your processor steps through those various multipliers as needed by CPU load. The real performance gains are to be had at max usage, because your processor will spend most of it's time either at idle or max. Autoadjusting the middle ones seems to work fine - fine tuning in there can be done, but has far less impact on battery life/system temperature.

 

Is it possible to undervolt the GPU as well?

 

I ticked "Auto adjust", to make sure I got the most out of it. RMClock doesn't seem to let me drop .25 at a time though which is weird, I can only select large steps.

 

Help, doing this made my battery life much worse! The CPU doesn't seem to be clocking down when I select "power saver" now.

How do I fix this :|

 

This was a real waste of time -_- I was hoping I'd get more battery life, not less.

 

Don't select power saver.

Select, in RMClock, Performance on Demand. Leave it there.

The whole point is that your processor will drop down to idle when, well, idling. If you change to Power Saver, you tell your OS to stop using RMClocks power management, and use it's own. RMClock's is better.

My notebook, undervolted now to [email protected] multiplier (13x in rmclock) in Performance on Demand, with brightness at 70%, gains about an hour of battery life as compared to stock settings in power saving mode.

Quite simply, if set up correctly, you will get more battery life when running at a lower voltage. Your processor is drawing less power, thus your battery lasts longer. Performance on demand with full pstate transitions - particularly if you have SLFM and set it to 6x instead of 8x - saves a ton of battery power to compared to the generic downclock through normal power saving modes.

 

Is there a guide to usng RMCLock to improve battery lif ein general?

When I unplug my laptop, I oly get aout 2 hours battery life remaing, and 2 hours 10 minutes without RMclock. I don't see how RMClock is dropping anything when I disconnect and use the battery.

How do I find SFLM?

I currently have my highest multiplie, 12, set ot 1.225. I'm usng an Acer Gemstone blue with a T5750. Does this sound right? Should try lowering it further? I can't lower it in steps of .025 like the guide says.

 

Do you have Performance on Demand set for Battery as well as AC power on the profiles screen? Did you check the checkboxes for P-State transformations under Profiles>Performance on Demand as well for both AC and battery and the indexes beneath them?

Further, don't rely on the estimated battery time remaining - particularly not on a quick glance. That calculates your battery time remaining based on current power consumption, and that amount will change. You'd need to actually run your battery down with and without to get a more accurate picture.

You can probably go a lot lower than 1.225v, too. Keep lowering it one step at a time, then run Othos (or another dual core stress tester) for around 10-15 minutes, then lower it again until you crash.




All those indexes should be checked. Note that Index 8 is IDA, not normal. IDA is an oddball processor state that won't normally be used, so don't work on undervolting that one, do the highest "Normal" index.

When you're working on it, have "Startup" set to "No Management" instead of "Performance on Demand" as well - you want current set to PoD as shown, though; only set Startup to Performance on Demand when you've got a good final voltage.


Just to confirm:



Note that "use p-state transformations" is ticked for both battery and ac; and that all the indexes in there are checked as well (even scrolling down in the two list boxes).

 

Great guide! I think I've only managed to knock off about 9 degrees at full load, can't complain though.

I've got a T7200 and my 12x multiplier is running at 1.05V (previously 1.25V). My 6x is running at 0.95V (which is the default and lowest). Haven't really tested the others as yet as it's taking quite a while.

Apart from running Orthos for a few hours, are there any other stability tests I could try? (maybe some FIFA 2008?)

 

Ah, I see what I did wrong here - I onl lowered it by .025. I added the numbers up in my head wrong. Currently testing 1.1125V, going okay.

 

Run whatever cpu/gpu intensive programs you can. Aslong as you stress the CPU out. If it doesnt BSOD in a week, then it must be stable.

Gaming is a good real life test, ORTHOS is just a simulated test. Run all your programs throughout the week.

 

The definition of "stable" is being able to run any program you want to without crashing.. so just run the most demanding software you have. Modern 3D games are pretty demanding.

 

Ok, I just ran into a major (well, not really) problem. My last voltage test (1.05V, 12x) was fine after about 20 minutes or so. I decided to run a 3-hour test but it crashed after about 45 minutes.

Is it strange that it would take that long before crashing? Anyway, I just boosted it back up to 1.1V and will probably have to do some proper testing now.

 

If it was stable for 45mins on 1.050v then it should be stable with 1-2steps up the voltage list. Usually if the voltage is unstable, it will crash within 15mins.

 

I did try it at 1.025V and it crashed within a few seconds (!), then I upped it to 1.0375V and it crashed pretty quickly as well (maybe a few more seconds to a minute, not too sure).

I guess I'll leave it at 1.1V then. Why would take so long (45 minutes) before crashing though?

 

Not to brag, but my T8100 is running well on 0.9250v. Woo!

 

I'm still not sure about power saving on this. The CPU keeps jumping up to 2ghz all the same. Shouldn't it be capped at 1 ghz when it's on battery? If not, how do I manage this? I need battery life more than performance when not plugged in. I'm down to 1.0125V for the highest multiplier.

 

So, I seem to be unale to get undervolting to work on my m57RU.

I followed the guide completely and precisely, used the signed 64-bit driver, and modified the profile and all my multiplier VIDs. Things seemed just fine, but...

Under RMclock's CPU information section, it is reporting higher VIDs than are set in the profile. So it seems that the profile is not controlling the voltage. Rebooting doesn't make any difference.

Any tips?

 

No, no battery increase :| Really depressed. Only took 32 minutes to go down to 75 % power...

I really needed the extra battery life too. I don't know if an 8 cell will fit a Gemstone blue though.

 

Try setting windows powerscheme to high performance or whatever results in the cpu remaining at 100%. At least for me it allowed RMClock to completely control the CPU. If I didn't do this sometimes the voltages would correspond to RMclock, and other times to the default settings.

 

Well, if you want an upward cap on how high your processor will go while under battery power, go to this screen:



then under the Battery section - with p-state transitions checked - uncheck the higher FID's. If you uncheck say, 10x, 11x, and 12x, then your processor will run at minimum on idle, and go up to the 9x multiplier while under load. Thus, your maximum power draw(and performance) will be capped while under battery power; and uncapped under ac power.

 

Would you recommend doing this? How much battery life could I preserve?

 

Do I recommend it? Well, if battery run time is more important to you than system performance, then yes. How much will it save you? I couldn't begin to say, as it depends entirely on your on usage, hardware, etc.

Every part will save you some battery life, though: Undervolting, enabling pstate transitions, limiting the max frequency (and thus running at an even lower voltage) - all will help.

Of course, once you decide on a multiplier to run at, be sure to undervolt it directly - drop it one level, run orthos for 15 minutes to check for stability, and if it doesn't crash/report an error, drop the voltage another level and try again. Once it crashes, bring it back up a level or and run Orthos for a while just to be safe.

That's really the key: You want to keep going down until you crash/get errors in orthos, then step up just enough to stay stable under load. While "Autoadjust intermediate states" works pretty well, you want to do a good job finding the best voltage for the frequencies your processor will run at the most (ie: the highest available frequency for AC and the highest you'll allow for battery).

 

Thought I might post the results of Undervolting my T8300 Penryn (XPS M1530)

Before Undervolt: Around 66 degrees under a full CPU Load (12x)
After Undervolt: Around 52-54 degrees under a full CPU Load (12x)

The Values:

(The SuperLFM is under Battery only)

Also, my idle temp after undervolts

 

Thanks cacto, I'm going to use that as a reference. So far I've only done 12x and it came out the same as yours. I tried to make 11x one step lower than yours so I'm hoping it'll match yours as well.

 

I think it's impossible to predict - too many differences between particular notebooks and their components. Remember we're just talking about CPU voltage, not power used by say CD burning, 3D graphics, USB devices or anything else you may be doing with the machine that draws power.

If you're watching movies with RMClock on, but just web browsing with it off, then chances are you'll use up the battery quicker when RMClock is on, making you think it's not working properly. To really compare, you need to use it the same way in both cases. As in the guide, you may get 15 or 30 mins more, but each notebook & usage pattern is different.

 

Someone has done a detailed benchmark before on battery life and consumption, read this

Discharge rate on the battery fell by *20% when on cpu load

 

Posting results is a good idea.. here's mine for my T8100 in a HP 8510p.
Full load before u/volt ~57, after ~45. Idle temp before 35-45, after 25-30.

Question - how come I've set 0.9750 for my 10x voltage, but in the bottom image you'll see under "Maximal" it says 10x = 1.1375" ?

 

# Current FID, VID - indicates current CPU FSB clock multiplier (FID) and requested voltage level (VID).
# Startup FID, VID - indicates FID and VID values the CPU starts with at power-on.
# Minimal FID, VID - indicates the minimal FID and VID values the CPU can possibly handle.
# Maximal FID, VID - indicates the maximal FID and VID values the CPU can possibly handle.

 

^ Ah thanks, thought it might be that.
It seems perfectly stable on the absolute minimum values, which is craaaazy!

 

Hi all,

first time posting.

I thought I would post my results, I have an Alienware M15x with a X9000 cpu.

With a full CPU load Ithe temp went to 70 Celsius after 5 mins of stress testing, I stopped it then as it was still climping. Did not want to push the temp of the chip too high.

Anyway, I have attached my settings for the voltage config.

After undervolting my idle temp is around 29 degress. Under full stress testing it stays stable at about 54 degress.

A successful undervolting I think.

I am tempted to push the lowest voltage below the 1.0V default on my chip, any thoughts on this?

Neil

 

Weird... I got the same as you for 11x and 12x but for 10x and under I was able to run a 45 minute orthos with .9500v. Is it possible that our chips are that much different or am I doing something wrong? Will running Orthos for 3 hours test all of the multipliers or just the max?

 

No, Danja, there is nothing wrong, I just set up my voltage on the intermediate multipliers a litter higher than I should have, so I get no blue screens during certain applications that require those multipliers. They aren't used that often anyways, so to me, it makes very little difference.

EDIT* Running orthos for 3 hours will test the highest multiplier checked, just like your 45 minute tests.

 

Danja, to check the lower multipliers, just uncheck the higher ones. So, if you uncheck 11 and 12, 10 becomes your new max multiplier. Run orthos for a while, and you'll be testing 10x.

Don't forget to turn them back on afterwards!

 

My lowest multiplier is 6x (I have T5550) and in the guide it says not to touch the voltage of the lowest multiplier since it should have a stable voltage; however, all my multipliers were default the same voltage (1.2500V). I undervolted successfully the max multiplier (11x) to 1.1000V, can I just change every lower multiplier to 1.1000V before I further attempt to undervolt each specific multiplier?

 

yes you can

 

Alright, I seem to have undervolted successfully; I now have some questions about the implementation of the undervolt. Is RMclock linked in any way to the power profile? When I change the profile to high performance, will RMclock change as well or I need to manually change settings? Also, in RMclock's power saving profile, it only allows me to tick one box. Is this the box of the highest multiplier it uses?

Thanks for all of your help.

 

Your default voltages were not detected correctly. Do the following in order:

-Set your 6x to the lowest voltage possible
-Tick "Auto-adjust Intermidiate multipliers" box
-Choose 1.1000v for your highest multiplier
-Click Apply

This will automatically set up all the middle multipliers and save you time

Yes power saving profile is used to lock the cpu to a certain speed, usually the lowest cpu speed for best power savings.

RMclock only takes over Vistas CPU power management but there are settings so RMclock completely takes over the whole power management. You can choose RMclock Power Management as one of the additional power profiles in Vista.

 

Thanks flipfire. I tried what you suggested and after applying the voltages, there was no change in the intermediate voltages... the lowest multiplier was set to 0.9500V. For power management, my laptop is set to balanced power. Do I need to change this to utilize RMclock's power saving features?

 

Can i see your profile page?

I suggest setting it to Max performance, you will have to close RMclock first before making any changes to the Vista power plans or else the settings wont stick.

RMclock only takes over the cpu management which means the brightness, sleep settings, hibernate etc will still be controlled by Vista. Though you can choose 'RMclock' as a Vista Power profile and have full control of all the settings within RMclock

 

Ok so I was testing my undervolt and I BSODed lol. Shouldn't have been too aggressive and had tried max multiplier at 0.9500V. I started again and it worked. My T5550 has min 6x multiplier at 0.9500V and max 11x multiplier at 1.0000V. The max multiplier has been tested and is stable for 45+ min and the middle multipliers have been auto-adjusted. I have set the current and start up profile to be performance on demand. The load temperature difference (from 1.2500V) is astounding! HWmonitor used to show loads of 44 and 50 degrees Celcius, respectively. Now, they are at 31 and 37 degrees.

Acer has set up its own ePower Management software in lieu of Vista's power management. I just realized that it automatically created a RMclock profile which I am now using.

edit: question, when I'm running my laptop RMclock changes the multiplier depending on my CPU usage; however, when checking the CPU info page, the current multiplier sometimes uses more voltage than what I specified in the performance on demand mode under profile. Why is that?

 

I have another question. My lowest "actual" multiplier is 6x, which I run at .95 volts. My SuperFLM is an 8x multiplier and is also at .9500 volts. Right now I have my cpu capped at 6x, giving it a total of 1.2 gHz per core. Would it consume any less power to cap the cpu at SuperFLM?