The ThrottleStop Guide

Careful about using TS and XTU at the same time. They write to the same registers, and the combination is likely to result in confusion. Also, XTU can be "sticky". If you are not using it, be sure it is completely uninstalled. I favor TS, but I understand that there are those who prefer XTU for some indications.

 

I never told him to use XTU and TS at the same time and also never told him to use XTU. You didn't understand what I wrote.
Enabling XTU Interface in BIOS is a different thing than using INTEL XTU SOFTWARE in windows.

Some manufacturers disable UV within the bios and you need to enable BIOS option like aformentioned option XTU Interface to be able to use UV even in TS. This is done to prevent pludervolt atacks, but you need to enable xtu interface in bios and you can UV, and your cpu will react to UV,

 

Sorry - none of my laptops had that switch in bios, so I misunderstood. Sounds like enabling that interface is necessary for either XTU or TS to function. Thanks for the clarification.

 

I had been using throttlestop quite effectively to limit my laptop max temp during long term gaming, without having to set max fans, using the feature to set lower turbo boost power levels.
This together with a repaste has worked well. CPU is H10750 on omen 15 2020.

Just posting to share (if not already known) that HP have just recently opened up the 10th gen CPUs to be undervolted, so can now actually do the under-volts in throttlestop.
(They have their own new app, omen gaming hub, which just has setting for core voltage offset, and no power controls)

And finally, just yesterday I was sitting at work bemoaning a new (old) work laptop with loud fans, checked the temps, too high for office work. Not possible to get at them for cleaning without a torqx screwdriver. Remembered your program, downloaded and set a quick -50mv undervolt. problem solved, temperature wayyyy down,this was zenon E-2176M

So thanks again

 

Always great to hear about an undervolting success story.

Kind of funny that a year ago, Plundervolt was discovered, everyone overreacted and changing the voltage was considered pure evil. A year later, manufacturers have learned that their laptops are miserable when locked to the default Intel voltage curve. Surprise, surprise. Anyone in this forum has known that for years.

Great to see that many MSI laptops have an option in the BIOS to enable CPU voltage control and great to see HP getting with the program too by releasing their own CPU voltage control tool. It does not allow you to adjust the CPU core and cache voltages individually but having a voltage control tool released by a major manufacturer is a big step in the right direction.

 

I'm a long time Throttlestop user and currently own a core i5 7300HQ. I'm not exactly sure when or why, but I recently lost all control of FIVR functionality. The values are editable, but nothing sticks now. Corresponding settings in XTU and QuickCPU are similarly affected which is a relief because I much prefer Throttlestop. Honestly, I've never actually experienced throttling via FIVR channels, but I still don't like it. I'm hoping someone else can shed some light on this.

 

Have a look at the top middle of the FIVR window. Does it say FIVR Control - Locked



Either a recent BIOS update or a Windows update is probably preventing CPU voltage control on your computer. This has been a common issue in 2020.

Sometimes you can install a previous BIOS version to restore voltage control or maybe go into your C:\Windows\System32 folder and try deleting this file.

mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll

This update contains the microcode update file. It might have recently changed after a recent Windows update. Remember to make a backup copy of this file before deleting it.

Depending on the laptop, you might also be able to edit some UEFI variables to get things working again.

 

Just a data point: upgraded my spectre x360 with 8705G to the latest BIOS. The included microcode is the latest one according to Intel Github page and undervolt and overclock are still allowed. Nice to see HP not locking things up. Wish they also unlock TDP and add battery limit function.

 

First of all thank you unclewebb for this awesome program.

I have a tongfang laptop with i7-8750h. I have been using -140 on core and -135 on cache for about a year. After checking this thread I thought to further improve it. Now I'm doing -250 on core -120 on cache. Can I push more? Should I try -300 on core? Or should I try to push cache? Cache seems more fragile so I would prefer to push the core if I can.

I get 3099 on on r20 when I enforce 3.9ghz so there isn't a problem of performance loss.

 

That is correct. The cache undervolt is always the limiting factor. With the 8750H, somewhere around -125 mV for the cache is typical.

You can try -300 mV or -500 mV or -1000 mV. It is all the same. You usually do not crash but there is nothing to be gained by setting the core too high. Going beyond approximately -225 mV makes zero difference to performance or temperatures. The excess request seems to be ignored.

If your 8750H can maintain 3.9 GHz for an entire Cinebench R20 run, that is maximum performance. There is no point in trying to find the perfect voltages if you are already running stable and fast.

You can always try going further but you are already getting about all there is to get out of that CPU.

That is a top 5 score at HWBot for the 8750H and only 7 points away from third place.
https://hwbot.org/submission/4604950_t0bimaru_cinebench___r20_core_i7_8750h_3172_marks/

Run Cinebench at a higher Windows priority and maybe you can scrounge up a few more points so you can grab yourself a bronze medal.

 

Thanks for your response. My only aim was to lower the temps as much as I can. Thats why I wanted to try -300 mV.
Generally I limit my cpu to 3.2ghz for gaming since my gtx1060 is the bottleneck factor. I dont like the fan sound above 80 degrees thus I rarely use 3.9ghz. Applying Undervolt and 3.2ghz limit my temps hover around 70-75 degrees for both Cpu and Gpu in AAA games with a better fan noise.
Btw i plan to give my laptop to service for cleaning and repasting(this model sucks to open so i don't bother myself). While in service they can also update my bios to latest available. Do you know if tongfang also patches the undervolting like dell and msi did?

 

I would give my first born away before I would give my laptop to a service center to do a BIOS update. Is there something wrong with your computer that it needs a BIOS update? In 2020, this procedure is definitely not worth the risk.

Your laptop is running great and you have complete control over how it runs. Why would you want to chance a BIOS update? You should also learn to clean and re-paste your own laptop. It is not rocket science. No one cares more about your laptop than you.

 

I wouldn't bother with bios update than. Not work the risk indeed.

As for cleaning I did repaste my old laptop which was just remove bottom cover and be done with it. This one however open from top to bottom with a lot of cables to disconnect. Only disassembly video I found takes 1 hour(ofc he is just a regular user but still its tedious). Here's the link

 

Did some research on the cache/core voltage link/sync after seeing some folks actually believing that they are running a negative core voltage offset of up to 1000mV on KBL-R and later chips (where Intel began syncing cache and core voltage domains by default).

I found that setting a lower Core vs. Cache voltage did in fact not change the core voltage domain at all. It always used the cache voltage as the actual limit for both domains.

But, what it actually did was reducing the automatically (by most microcodes) and additionally applied overvoltage during AVX2 instruction set workloads.

While this exact voltage depends on each ASIC, the average automatic AVX2 overvoltage is around +100mV on top of the regular instruction set voltage.
By setting up to a negative -1000mV (TS max) on core, the effective AVX2 overvoltage has been reduced by up to -75mV effectively bringing it down to only +25mV above the regular workload voltage.

Makes sense as AVX2 ratio clipping was introduced alongside the 8th gen that began linking the voltage domains.

Intel must have either planned to be able to regulate the AVX2 overvoltage offset separately from regular Cache and Core voltage and then left it hidden under the hood or we are loopholing into the AVX2 ratio clipping and forcing the core to drop a couple of voltage domains without the intended core clock drop.

Maybe that helps some people to understand that, no we are not undervolting the core higher than the cache (as it used to be ≤ 7th gen), we are reducing, though not eliminating, the additional AVX2 overvoltage.

Just my 2c

 

I don't know if this is a reliable test in any way, but the screenshot below shows CPU-Z AVX TEST with core and cache linked:


and another one with core at -1000mV



As you can see there is a frequency difference for a -1000mV setting from a start of the cpu-z test. Of course the clock are droping down with the rising temp but with -1000mV the clocks are higher.

So it means that every app/game and so on that uses avx instructions will benefit form it, that is way some of us were seeing drops in temps.
Although for some reason my 8th gen refresh U CPU cannot maintain full all core boost with avx instructions in this test while on non avx there is no problem to reach max all core 4.1GHz boost.

So if around -1000 in TS gave us -75mV on AVX as @Prema said my question is to @unclewebb if we can rise the -1000mV limit to fully remove avx overvoltage?

I will retest this on my 10875H when I will be at home.

Best regards

 

Setting the core offset request higher than the cache offset has been recommended for a while. The @Prema explanation above makes sense. Requesting different voltages tricks the CPU so it reduces the amount of overvoltage it uses when it encounters AVX2 instructions. I have been recommending running CInebench R20 to prove this to users. It heavily uses the AVX2 instructions so one should see better temps or better performance after setting the voltages to different values.

If CPU-Z heavily uses AVX2 instructions then this should be another convenient way to prove that using different voltage offsets for core and cache is a good thing to be doing.

I am not yet sure if the 8th, 9th and 10th Gen CPUs all use the same amount of AVX2 overvoltage (+100 mV) and if it is only possible to remove +75 mV of that. Some 8750H owners have reported their best results with the offset voltages set close to these values.

cache offset = -125 mV
core offset = -225 mV

Maybe the 8th Gen can completely remove all of the +100 mV AVX2 overvolt when set like this. Hopefully CPU-Z proves to be a useful test and users do some hands on testing with different CPUs to try and prove this.

A setting of -1000 mV is not necessary. As long as the core is set at least -100 mV more than the cache, any AVX2 overvoltage should be eliminated. Setting the core offset to -200 mV more or -500 mV or -1000 mV more than the cache makes no difference.

@Krzyslaw - Your first test shows a consistent 36 multiplier. When 4 cores are active, the 8565U can use a 41 multiplier. Try opening up Limit Reasons while testing to see if there is any reason for the throttling that is in progress. Your CPU is well below the 99°C thermal throttling temperature that your laptop is set to. Make sure HWiNFO in not running in the background when using Limit Reasons. Is Speed Shift Max set to at least 46?

 

I finally have access to a 10th Gen Core i9-10850K. This should allow me to add a few more features to TS to better support these 10 core beasts. Let the testing begin.

For all tests, I am running 50X on all cores, 46X on the cache, Speed Shift EPP = 0 for max CPU speed when idle. I will be using Cinebench R20 and the TS screenshots will be taken after Cinebench completes.

Core 0 mV, Cache 0 mV
279.0 W, 94°C


Yikes!!! These things really do put out a lot of heat. The default voltage is always a little on the high side so time to use ThrottleStop to do some undervolting. There is an ongoing debate about whether the core and cache should be adjusted equally. Proper science involves forgetting about everything that one knows or thinks they know and go into any testing blind.

Core -50 mV, Cache 0 mV
249.7 W, 86°C


After adjusting only the core offset, there is already a big drop in reported power consumption and the peak CPU package temperature confirms this.

Core -100 mV, Cache 0 mV
223.9 W, 80°C


More of the same. Dropping only the core voltage another -50 mV resulted in a drop in power consumption and temperatures.

Core -150 mV, Cache 0 mV
200.1 W, 74°C


Another -50 mV less voltage for the core and a similar drop in power consumption and temperatures. At a core offset of -150 mV, this CPU has dropped 79W and 20°C.

Core -150 mV, Cache -100 mV
201.4 W, 74°C


For the final test I finally decided to increase the cache offset voltage to -100 mV. The results? Offsetting the cache made no difference to the CPU temperature and power consumption was basically the same. It went up 1 W which is within the margin of error.

At first I thought that maybe something was broken. To test for this, I adjusted only the cache voltage. I kept bumping the cache until finally the computer froze so the adjuster in ThrottleStop must be working.

My conclusion. For this 10th Gen CPU on this motherboard, the core and cache voltages seem to be 100% independent of each other. There is no need to adjust both voltages equally. Adjusting the cache offset makes no different in power consumption so for stability, best to leave it alone at +0.0000.

I did some more digging and it seems that on this board, the core and cache are being fed by 2 separate voltage regulators. I am not 100% sure about this so do not quote me on this. On my previous desktop board, the core and cache voltage regulators had the same ID number. Not so on this board. I think I might add a new window to TS that shows this information. It might be important info for people trying to figure out what they should be doing with the core and cache voltage so they can determine what works best on their board.

There was not power limit or temperature throttling during testing the Cinebench scores were fairly consistent.
Not that bad considering this is the 10900K's weak sister.

 

Hello, I'm trying to maximize power saving with my laptop, a Dell Precision 5550 with a i7-10850H.
I already disabled CFG Lock and enabled Overclock to make undervolt possibile.
Also about this I would like to report a suggestion. Newer Windows build enforce the use of Hyper-V and it could happen that TrottleStop works (opens) but doesn't really apply any offset. To fix this some features are required to be uninstalled or just disable hyper-v temporally (to test the undervolt and then set it permanent in the bios) using this command in the prompt with admin.

Code:

bcdedit /set hypervisorlaunchtype off

Could be useful to add a check since users can think that the tool doesn't work cause Intel locked it (even if you disabled the bios lock).

Anyway, I'm here to ask. How should I operate to find the right undervolt for the intel gpu and the system agent? Also does the new discoveries about the AVX voltage also applies to the 10th gen?
For now I have the following offset
CPU: -205
Cache: -110
iGPU and Uncore: -85
System Agent: -70
Tested with some game, 3-4 run with Cinebench and no error with the TS Bench.

Using a lower Cache immediately cause errors in TS Bench
With -100 System Agent cause system freeze (no blue screen just freeze)

Now with a quick search I can't really find any new info about iGPU and System Agent undervolt. Everybody say that they are not needed but the main goal here is lower cosumation as much as possibile so everything matters.

Does some one can confirm or better explain this and if this still applies to the 10th gen CPUs? Or some advice on how to test and improve the undervolt?

Thanks in advice for any help.

 

Cinebench R20 uses the AVX instructions. For some non-AVX testing, I decided to use the TS Bench test. It is limited to a maximum of 16 threads but that is good enough to create some heat and do some more voltage testing. Everything else was the same as above.

Core 0 mV, Cache 0 mV
212.7 W, 84°C


Core -50 mV, Cache 0 mV
191.1 W, 78°C


Core -100 mV, Cache 0 mV
171.9 W, 71°C


Pretty much the same as Cinebench AVX testing. Each step resulted in drops in power consumption and temperatures. When I tried running the TS Bench at a core offset of -150 mV, I ended up with a BSOD. A voltage setting that seemed stable during Cinebench R20 was not stable in the TS Bench test.

Core -125 mV, Cache 0 mV
163.5 W, 69°C


A core offset of -125 mV was stable. It shows a small improvement compared to -100 mV.

Core -130 mV, Cache 0 mV
162.0 W, 69°C


At -130 mV, the TS Bench was able to complete but there were 4 errors. This is the edge of stability. One might be game stable or Cinebench stable at -150 mV but long term, if the TS Bench is showing errors, you will probably end up corrupting Windows or some other files on your computer.

@Ansuel - Most people with a high performance gaming laptop have a dedicated GPU. The Intel GPU is not used or it is only lightly used. Undervolting the Intel GPU does not make a significant difference in power consumption. One user told me that undervolting his Intel GPU resulted in less stability and he was forced to reduce his CPU undervolt. It was not worth it so he set his Intel GPU back to zero.

Same thing applies to the System Agent. Does undervolting the System Agent decrease power consumption any significant amount? Most have decided to leave the Intel GPU, the iGPU Unslice and the System Agent at +0.0000. Have you found any tests that show an improvement when undervolting any of these three voltages?

Thanks for your bcdedit info.

 

Congrats on the new platform and thanks for the great testing (and thinking behind it) @unclewebb!

Can't wait to see what v10+ of ThrottleStop looks like and the capabilities it will have.

A question, can TS work on an MBP? I know the answer is no, but hopefully, I'm remembering wrong!

Thank you again for this great utility.

 

Don't know if it's OT (and sorry if it is)
I'm trying to set the undervolt in the bios (already extracted the offset and values) but for some reason they don't stick (the offset is zero after a reboot)
Using TrottleStop the offset are correctly displayed in HwMonitor.
I enabled the XTU Interface in the bios and I notice that by using the Intel XTU program, the offset are saved across reboot.
Now I'm confused. I already did these changes with a 7th gen cpu and these offset correctly applied from the bios to the system. And if I remember correctly Intel XTU didn't saved the settings across reboot.
Does Intel added this feature with the XTU Interface in the bios? (The intel utility permanently set the overclock settings?) Or i'm missing a hidden service that run at startup and load the profile?

 

The name of this program is ThrottleStop.

XTU doesn't play nicely with it. You should uninstall it.

 

I know that XTU is really bad and should not be used. In fact I'm just asking if new cpu have this feature that save changes across reboot (xtu change bios settings).
Wonder if this can be useful for ThrottleStop.
I'm also asking if anybody tried to stick the undervolt settings to the bios using 'setup_var' on an Intel 10th gen cpu.

 

After booting up at 5000 MHz, ThrottleStop was used for all further tweaking. When I saw PROCHOT light up in red, I knew I had to keep lowering the voltage. I might have to wait until winter to beat that run. The silent fans were holding me back. Being able to adjust everything while sitting in Windows made life easy.

I had a shot at #1 on HWBot until ivanov showed up with LN2 and kicked everyone's butt by overclocking his 10850K to 6503 MHz.
https://hwbot.org/submission/4620203_ivanov_cinebench___r20_core_i9_10850k_8520_marks/

Being second best is not so bad.

 

Regarding AVX2 loads.

I did quick test on 10875H and with core and cache linked power consuption in CPU-Z avx 2 test was around 92W and with core at -1000 it was around 85W.

@unclewebb if you will be making any changes in TS regarding 10th gen CPUs, please send me any new beta version for testings and write what specific test you want to be made or what you want to be checked.

I have very little time now but I think any help and feedback for you would be good.

Best regards

 

I would like to see a 10th Gen H series tested with the cache at +0.0000 offset. Adjust only the core in steps of -50 mV and see if it makes any difference. It was not necessary to adjust the cache voltage on my desktop CPU. The core and cache voltages did not seem to be linked.

Definitely.

I appreciate your offer to help. ThrottleStop already gives me full control of the CPU core and cache speeds and voltages. I can boot up at one speed and overclock the core and cache higher or lower without any issues or limitations.

For the 10 core CPUs, I need to add two more cores of monitoring data to the main table and to the C states table. I might also add a 10 and 20 thread option to the TS Bench test. This is minor stuff.

Edit - A 10 core / 20 thread, 5000 MHz computing monster yet still environmentally friendly, when lightly loaded. This thing runs so cool and quiet that I can use it as a home theatre PC.

 

Here is a new TS feature for users with K series CPUs. The ability to run the core and cache at the same frequency. It took some extra voltage to get this TS Bench stable but it might be useful when benching.

 

@unclewebb
Sorry to bother you again.
Is there any chance you still remember which register enables SLFM6? Google search doesn't return any info about it. I guess that's normal since it's an undocumented feature.
Also how do you enable dual IDA? I found the following script from http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...-on-both-cores-of-a-core-2-duo.477704/page-48 but it doesn't enable dual IDA for me. Single IDA works fine and dual IDA with throttlestop in Windows works too. Can you give any hint for this problem?

Code:

# wrmsr 0x1a0 0x1364862489
# echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
# rdmsr -p0 0x198
6150a2406000615
# wrmsr 0x199 0xa24
# wrmsr 0x1a0 0x5364872489; wrmsr 0x1a0 0x1364862489
# rdmsr -p0 0x198
6150a2406000a24
# echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online
# rdmsr -p0 0x198; rdmsr -p1 0x198
615091906000a24
615091906000a24

Thanks a lot.

 

You need to disable SpeedStep when the CPU is idle to enable Dual IDA. This is MSR 0x1A0 bit[16].

I think MSR 0x1A0 - bit[20] is the lock bit. If this is set, you will not be able to toggle SpeedStep on or off so you will not be able to use Dual IDA. What CPU are you using? I think the C states will need to be enabled. I think one core has to be completely idle in one of the C states like C3 or Dual IDA will not engage.

The SLFM6 bit is hidden in some obscure register. I will try to find it later today.

This was a useless feature. There is no need to slow the CPU down this much when idle. A slow CPU is inefficient. It will end up consuming more power, not less. Enabling the C states is the best way to save power.

 

As for my laptop with 10th gen cpu, adjusting only core have no impact on reported power consumption during TS bench
I need to move cache slider to see lower consumption.
I can post you some screenshots with only core adjustments later but there are no magic here.
On MSI lap with hm470 chipset you need to use cache slider, and later if you want lower avx2 overvoltage as @Prema said just set core to minimum 2x cache, then when you use avx2 instruction you will see lower power than witam both equal.

If you have some new features in ts like core cache frequncy setting rom your second post please send me it with pm for testing.

As for 10th gen there there are few things you can also consider working on.
First are things related to making some adjustments on Thermal Velocity Boost.
Second there is new thing related to 10th gen cpu Voltage- frequncy curve adjustments and curve scaning. Should be avalible on z490 motherboards but I have also ability in my laptop bios with hm470, to change the VF curve from Legacy option which is default, to selection but xtu doesnt show up new VF curve editor but maybe it can be ported to TS. In legacy mode we are setting global offset for all curve and in new selction mode we can set voltage per frequncy, similar to nVidia curve editor in afterburner

Also what is fun is that even after enabling xtu interface in bios xtu are not allowing voltage changes as those are still greyed but TS does its magic.

 

Hello,
I would like first to thanks the author for this great piece of software.

I went from this:



to this:



I own an HP Omen Laptop with 8750h and a GTX 1070 and I had thermal throttling issues since day 1.
I bought a laptop cooler which didnt help at all then I repasted the CPU, that didnt help either.

So I finally used ThrottleStop, here are my settings:


I would like to ask if there is anything more I can do in order to further improve thermals/performance
and if repasting would help minimize the temperature difference between my hottest and coolest core, which
is about 10 celcius.

 

10 celcius difference is bad. At Best you should have max 1-3.
If you have 10, then it could be uneaven heatsink, bad pressure of heatsink to die, bad repaste and lot of bloat in background.

If the heatsink is uneven and giving you bad pressure you can lap it with wet/dry sandpaper. If you are not familiar with diy on laps i suggest using TG carbonaut (which works like around 8W/mK thermal paste without mirror finish laping) It should give you much better difference betwean cores.or you can use some high end thermal paste, If the heatsink is uneven i suggest Phobya Nanogrease Extreme or Alphacool Subzero (both 16W/mK and thick so both works well with bad heatsinks).Best you can do is lap, scotch 33+ or nail polish then foam dam and LM.

 

Your laptop is not reaching the thermal throttling temperature anymore so I would set the turbo ratios back to their default values of 41, 41, 40, 40, 39, 39. I hate seeing performance being sacrificed when you do not need to.

The Intel spec for thermal throttling is 100°C. Your laptop manufacturer has reduced this down to 97°C so your CPU is already extra safe. You want to avoid constant thermal throttling but a little bit is OK.

What type of thermal paste did you use? Some pastes that have a good reputation in desktop computers might not last very long in a laptop. I will vote for Noctua NT-H2 which has a good reputation for long term use in laptops.

I agree that a real difference of 10°C is not great. The problem is that the last time Intel documented their core temperature sensors, they said they were only accurate to +/- 5°C. If you have two cores at 90°C, if one reads 5°C low and the other one reads 5°C high, there might be a 10°C difference even though the actual core temps are equal. The microscopic core temperature sensors that Intel uses have never been 100% accurate temperature monitoring devices. They do not have to be perfect to control thermal throttling so they are not.

I think I know how to set the individual offset voltages but I do not yet know how to read what the default voltages are. I only have enough info to create half a feature.

@Kers - SLFM is controlled by MSR 0xEE - bit[28]

 

Thanks for the register. I know it's meaningless to put CPU at low frequency. The problem I faced in linux is some kind of voltage floor. I'm using a T9500 and testing with Prime95, I can do 0.8-2.0 GHz with 0.925 V by writing 0x11 to the VID register in 0x199. Anything lower like 10 or 0f doesn't get accepted by the CPU. According to this link https://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_2/Intel-Core 2 Duo Mobile T9500 FF80576GG0646M.html, 0.8 GHz is in SLFM range so I don't know why the cpu isn't allowing me to undervolt more. That's why I want to enable SLFM6 and see if that helps or not. Or maybe SLFM mode is not enabled by default but that doesn't match with 0.925 V.

Dual IDA sounds complicated to me. Leaving that alone for now.

Perhaps this just shows how nice it is to have throttlestop .

 

10 Core Progress Report
It has been a while since I have written some code so I wanted to start with the easy stuff.

 

When I set turbo ratios to default I get a performance boost but also thermal throttling on core 0.
This are the results from cold boot and one run of CB20:



As you can see the temperature difference under load its 26 Celcius.
Core 0 at 95 - Core 5 at 69.

The paste I used is Arctic MX-4.

 

No way Mx-4 will be able to keep the 8750h at peak performance. Look to better pastes like GC Extreme or Mastergel maker

 

I frequently hear in forums that MX-4 does not work great in laptops. It might work OK day 1 but for long term use at high laptop temperatures, it is not great. You need to try using a different paste that can run long term at higher temperatures.

 

That is way I suggested phobya nanogrease extreme. Or lap and Carbonaut or LM

 

Have you ensured the heatsink is not warped? 26C variance between cores seems very out of spec. Even the generic factory paste that came with my Clevo did not allow such a variance. I would open it back up and ensure all thermal pads are correct and all heatsink screws are snugged down.

 

I will reapply mx4 and see if it will make a difference. Do you think from the photos I applied too much? It is still wet, I repasted 2 months ago.

If I don't get better temperatures I'll try a different paste. Thanks everyone for your suggestions.

Sent from my IN2010 using Tapatalk

 

For my preference that is too much. I'm a little surprised it is so liquid even after 2 months. For direct die application I typically squeeze a small bead/dot in the center of the die and use a small plastic to spread the paste across the die. Some people don't spread at all. It almost appears you have more paste off the die than on it which would indicate pump out or overapplication.

 

Way. Too. Much.

 

Wow that was unexpected, I can push for more now!!!

 

A 10 core update for the TS Bench is complete.

Thanks for posting your pics. Now we know what not to do.

If you see your temps start to go up in a week or two, come back and share. At the moment your temps are great so increase your power limits and go do some Cinebench testing. If the power limits are not locked, you should be able to see 3000+ in R20 now.

 

Used to use MX-4 and the longevity isn't good since it's a pretty wet paste. Using thermalright TF X right now and it's so dry I don't even bother to spread the paste by hand. I would drop a dot for small die like cpu or a few dots for large die like gpu and bolt on the heatsink. Stress test to warm up the paste and apply little pressure on the heatsink by hand to spread the paste because laptop heatsink most likely doesn't have enough mounting pressure.

 

Sir I am using throttlestop for a while my old laptop msi ge72 2qe (4720hq gtx 965m 16gb ram) has trouble playing 4k videos even though it is still a good laptop because the hardware acceleration does not support 10 bit HEVC cpu is pegged at 100 percent and turbo drops because msi has set the PROCHOT to 88 degrees. I want to change that value but the option is greyed out. I know msi has advanced bios on this but i couldnt directly found prochot reletad things. there are some actually more than some options. Is there a way to enable greyed out PROCHOT offset.

I know cpu can handle more and msi always used 95 as the value for some reason this is set at 88.

Why is the option greyed out is it possible to change it somehow.

And just a question about the lock prochot offset what does it do since f1 doesn't open help menu in throttlestop and all the guides don't mention this.
Thanks.

Spoiler: Img

 

I tried to change PROCHOT Offset on a 4th Gen CPU but it would not work for me or another user that tested this. This feature only works correctly on 6th Gen and newer CPUs.

On 4th and 5th Gen CPUs, I think this setting can only be changed in the BIOS before you boot up. Changing this setting after you have booted up into Windows does not change anything. Your CPU will still thermal throttle at 88°C.

 

Thanks for reply.
Will try to search on msi forums.

on my 8750h options are available but even if i change it it never applies throttlestop still says PROCHOT 95 on it and throttles at 95 C so is there something else i use throttlestop 9.2.2

 

I think you still need to change the size info in selection list. Near the threads you have 120 but on the list still 96