XXHighEnd

I always wanted to ask something and don´t know why I never did (or I did it?  :scratching:):

How can the cpu be lowered to around 0.45 Ghz?. Maybe someone with an ASUS mb could give me some help because although I´ve tried I can´t find the way.

Regards,
Juan

 Hi Juan,

there must be an overclocking section in the mobo bios - you can use it for underclocking too. But it's necessary to address the CPU clock directly. In some BIOS versions you can change the DRAM speed and CPU clocking is changed accordingly, but that's untransparent. I'm using a 4 core AMD cpu and the bios has got a very detailed overclocking section. I don't know how to do it with Intel based boards but I remember that there was a thread about that in the forum.

Georg 

P.S.: Before experimenting save your actual BIOS settings on disk or write them down. In some cases the whole system cannot startup again because of wrong settings. It's possible to reset the BIOS setting via jumper on the mobo. You have to disassemble the PC partly to reach that location. So you have to exercise patience  ;)

Hi Georg,

Thanks for your help. In the overclocking section in the bios of my Asus Sabertooth I can change the DRAM speed and the CPU clocking but I only can get 1.200GHz as minimal speed, no way to go as low as around 0.45GHz. I tried 1.200Ghz some time ago but never found a noticeable improvement in SQ. Have you found a better SQ with your 0,45GHz?

Best regards,
Juan

Hi Juan,

I always found that lowering the power consumption or CPU frequencies helps a lot - the noise level is reduced. It's a combination of measures and mostly empirical  ...

Georg

It's possible in my Mobo BIOS to set a basic clock reference (150 MHz for example) and define for every core a multiple of that clock. I dont't know if there is a trick for the Intel CPU in your BIOS.  Here I am at one's wits' end ...

Georg

Hi Juan and Georg,

I _think_ that Peters reported 0.45GHz is in part a function of Hyperthreading where the core is effectively split and runs at half-speed.  For example, I have setup my Xeon processor to run at 1.2GHz in the BIOS, which is the lowest that I can clock it without messing with voltages (I think).  When I turn on hyperthreading this 1.2GHz becomes 0.6GHz or 600MHz, which is somewhere close to Peters number of 0.45MHz.

From there I _think_ that Peter plays with voltages to further underclock his cpu, but I am not sure, and I also think that Peter is unlikely to comment too much here because as soon as he tells people how he has completed that last step of underclocking we will all be doing it, messing it up (because that is very easy to do) and then asking him for help with our computers that won't boot...a potential snake pit of problems.

Anthony

Anthony,

So this means that when I see 1.2ghz with hyuperthread on, that means that each core is beating at 600mhz ?

If that is the trick, I will then say "Ah ! Peter !!!!"  :evil:

Alain

Hi Alain,

I don't _really_ know if that is what it means, but that is my educated guess after looking a little into hyper-threading.  I may be wrong, and if so I hope Peter corrects me!!

Regards,

Anthony

Hahaha. Ok, in that case my number must be 215MHz (0.215Ghz). Sorry ...

Let me tell you this :

Three weeks ago I mangled somewhat to get a PCI card in and it reset my BIOS. 10 minutes later it was up and running with my "by the top of my head" BIOS settings. Couldn't imagine what was so difficult about it, BUT, I also didn't apply my special C state combination; this is not listed (on paper I mean) because that (too) went very strange to get there. Something like change A to X and B to Y and then A *back* to where it was and then it worked.
Uhm, all IOW, I use settings of which I see what they do (like the 0.43GHz) but I STILL don't know what makes it happen.

All right. Yesterday I thought to put a screw in a PCI bracket to fixate it, and the screw dropped. Gone were my BIOS settings again. This time it took me more than an hour to obtain that 0.43GHz because this time I *also* tried to get in my special C states again. So I changed more now, and couldn't get the 0.43GHz anymore - until after an hour and maybe 10 reboots.

I *think* I now know how to do it, and the first thing I thought yesterday was to make photos of it all for a. the next time and b. you. Of course I did not do that yet. But also : I have to test it from cratch first, because it really looks like that it needs subsequent settings changes. Something like : Reboot into setting XYZ and only when that happened, the change of setting ABC can work.

Chances are close to 100% that this can only work with my ASRock; it is all too strange, and as posed before, depends on a combination of BIOS and OS bugs.

Also, I am fairly sure I can get it even lower, but I don't know when things collapse (and whether it ever can for electrical or even OS reasons). But with this speed at least I can still do an SFS of 0.03 (but this is the limit - 0.02 won't work anymore), so for playback I'm sure it can be 10 times slower easily.
Back to XT times !

Peter

Sorry to have "demonized" you Peter ;)

I have tried, tried and tried with the Sabertooth. The lowest I could come with was around 960mhz, but the computer would refuse to start... At least there is an automatic recovery that allows me to go again in Bios after I press the power button at least once, but I must say that after a couple of hours, I was less and less motivated... Finally I managed for the good old 1.2ghz, with the memory at 1333mhz... I am beginning to think there is something special about the Asrock that allows these very low values, or I would need to find the right combination... Or should I say, the right place on the net for underclocking. There are lots of overclocking tips, but the reverse situation ? Not that much...

OK, so I put you back in the St-Peter status ;)

Alain

It gives the feeling that we are treading on difficult terrain, if we can not keep a guide reasonably safe and suitable for all we have the risk that ultimately only two or three people can enjoy the best sound. We have mentioned here the problem that every time a new Windows OS shows, we should go to XX to adapt it to sound in the best possible way. This way XX is subject to the vagaries of Windows. The solution would be to create a new OS specific to XX, tough work I guess.
We are seeing also the hardware problem. We are trying to build a linear power supply (well, Anthony is trying) and constantly we are fighting with mother boards that have not been created for what we pursue but for gaming, graphic design, etc..
As I have no idea of electronic design let me imagine a solution and forgive me if it is too naive.The same way that in the world of high end audio there are components that were created specifically why not also create a motherboard only for audio?, Should be versatile enough to use sound cards or able to adapt to the requirements of certain software like XXHE . If the audio world evolves in the direction of using the computer as a source, and I think it will, leaving other sources obsolete, will emerge hardware manufacturers that will create high end components. Probably prices will skyrocket because the high end is only for an elite. The only possible solution would be that we build  this hardware. If Peter could do that with XXHE and the NOS1 Phasure, why would not to try to create from the base a new and specific OS and a specific hardware for our computer (motherboard, linear power supply, etc)?

Dreaming is free ...

Best regards,
Juan

Hi juan,

my kind of thinking! The problem is that an OS has to do so many complex tasks for allmost any hardware that it is impossible to develop your own. However, what can be done is splitting tasks over different OSses/PCs and for a limited hardware setup, reducing the need for one that can do all.

This all boils down imho to a two (functional) pc setup. One for filemanagement internet connectivity maybe numbercrunching etc and one just for XX memory playback. The latter doesn't even need a user interface let alone a Graphical one. With selected hardware interfacing with dedicated hardware (like the NOS1) this can be a relatively "simple" OS. The other route would be stripping down a commercial os in order to be able to support a greater variety of hardware.

If this is all simple than you could make the point of integrating the (parameterised) memory playback part in the NOS1 (NOS2?). For the more generic tasks not directly assiciated with playback you can use any os.

Anyway it would be nice or maybe even necessary in the end to have more control over our playback environment. For now Peter has "solved" all windows versions for us so no real need emerged. Maybe 8.1 will be the trigger (or Peter's next challenge!).

This really deserves a topic of its own. More OT i really agree that sq should not be optimal because of a bug in a certain motherboards BIOS  :).

Regards, Coen