Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-14900K #514

Open
valentin-barbotin opened this issue Nov 3, 2024 · 10 comments
Open

Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-14900K #514

valentin-barbotin opened this issue Nov 3, 2024 · 10 comments

Comments

@valentin-barbotin
Copy link

Microcode 0x129
Z790 Aorus Elite AX (rev 1.1) with FJh BIOS version
https://www.aorus.com/motherboards/Z790-AORUS-ELITE-AX-rev-1x/Support
BIOS Pictures : https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1QK8Sr8AuSifU_IauHk4uHpnr5zDtK9JB?usp=sharing

allturbo
turborandom
atomicburn
events
memory
power2
power1
PC
pm2
pm1
tech2
tech1
ISA
feature6
feature5
feature4
feature3
feature2
features1
topology
idle4
idle3
@cyring
Copy link
Owner

cyring commented Nov 3, 2024 •
edited
Loading

CoreFreq looks great with your processor.

Thank you

  • You should try enabling CC6 and MC6 for further C-States and less consumed energy

  • HWP Highest ratio of 73 has not been computed into a frequency.

    Which CoreFreq version are you using ?
    If not greater than 1.98.4, can you update CoreFreq and check again for this issue ?
    Also try to output in text using corefreq-cli -z to see if HWP frequencies are all printed or not ?

  • Flex Ratio of 32 (BIOS) could be shown in develop branch 1.98.5
    Or perhaps, it needs to be toggle in BIOS from Auto to Enable

@cyring
Copy link
Owner

cyring commented Nov 4, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Can you start or change for Experimental in Settings ?
Once enabled please find option ODCM, On Demand Clock Modulation, in "Power" window.
Activate this option and set the percent in the DutyCycle
The processor frequency, when stressed, should reduce as much as the percent set in the duty cycle.
Just deactivate ODCM to restore frequency to its nominal.

If the ODCM test succeed then I will mark it as permanent for Raptor Lake in next CoreFreq version.

@cyring
Copy link
Owner

cyring commented Nov 9, 2024

  • HWP Highest ratio of 73 has not been computed into a frequency.
    Which CoreFreq version are you using ?
    If not greater than 1.98.4, can you update CoreFreq and check again for this issue ?
    Also try to output in text using corefreq-cli -z to see if HWP frequencies are all printed or not ?

This UI issue is now fixed in commit cb55c1b

@valentin-barbotin
Copy link
Author

Corefreq version was 1.98.0, now using 1.98.4

corefreq-cli -z output :

|- Hardware-Controlled Performance States                        HWP       < ON>
   |- Capabilities     Lowest      Efficient     Guaranteed        Highest      
   |- CPU #0      99.60 (  1)  1792.73 ( 18)  4083.45 ( 41)     0.00 ( 73)      
   |- CPU #1      99.60 (  1)  1792.73 ( 18)  4083.45 ( 41)     0.00 ( 73)      
   |- CPU #2      99.59 (  1)  1792.58 ( 18)  4083.09 ( 41)     0.00 ( 73)      
   |- CPU #3      99.59 (  1)  1792.63 ( 18)  4083.20 ( 41)     0.00 ( 73)      
   |- CPU #4      99.59 (  1)  1792.60 ( 18)  4083.14 ( 41)     0.00 ( 73)      
   |- CPU #5      99.59 (  1)  1792.62 ( 18)  4083.20 ( 41)     0.00 ( 73)      
   |- CPU #6      99.59 (  1)  1792.63 ( 18)  4083.20 ( 41)     0.00 ( 73)      
   |- CPU #7      99.59 (  1)  1792.67 ( 18)  4083.30 ( 41)     0.00 ( 73)      
   |- CPU #8      99.60 (  1)  1792.73 ( 18)  4083.45 ( 41)     0.00 ( 77)      
   |- CPU #9      99.59 (  1)  1792.69 ( 18)  4083.36 ( 41)     0.00 ( 77)      
   |- CPU #10     99.60 (  1)  1792.73 ( 18)  4083.45 ( 41)     0.00 ( 77)      
   |- CPU #11     99.60 (  1)  1792.73 ( 18)  4083.45 ( 41)     0.00 ( 77)      
   |- CPU #12     99.60 (  1)  1792.84 ( 18)  4083.68 ( 41)     0.00 ( 73)      
   |- CPU #13     99.60 (  1)  1792.81 ( 18)  4083.62 ( 41)     0.00 ( 73)      
   |- CPU #14     99.60 (  1)  1792.73 ( 18)  4083.45 ( 41)     0.00 ( 73)      
   |- CPU #15     99.60 (  1)  1792.73 ( 18)  4083.45 ( 41)     0.00 ( 73)      
   |- CPU #16     99.60 (  1)  1394.35 ( 14)  2390.31 ( 24)  4382.23 ( 44)      
   |- CPU #17     99.60 (  1)  1394.35 ( 14)  2390.32 ( 24)  4382.25 ( 44)      
   |- CPU #18     99.60 (  1)  1394.38 ( 14)  2390.37 ( 24)  4382.34 ( 44)      
   |- CPU #19     99.59 (  1)  1394.33 ( 14)  2390.27 ( 24)  4382.17 ( 44)      
   |- CPU #20     99.60 (  1)  1394.35 ( 14)  2390.31 ( 24)  4382.24 ( 44)      
   |- CPU #21     99.60 (  1)  1394.35 ( 14)  2390.31 ( 24)  4382.24 ( 44)      
   |- CPU #22     99.60 (  1)  1394.36 ( 14)  2390.33 ( 24)  4382.27 ( 44)      
   |- CPU #23     99.60 (  1)  1394.36 ( 14)  2390.34 ( 24)  4382.28 ( 44)      
   |- CPU #24     99.60 (  1)  1394.35 ( 14)  2390.32 ( 24)  4382.25 ( 44)      
   |- CPU #25     99.60 (  1)  1394.35 ( 14)  2390.31 ( 24)  4382.24 ( 44)      
   |- CPU #26     99.60 (  1)  1394.45 ( 14)  2390.49 ( 24)  4382.56 ( 44)      
   |- CPU #27     99.60 (  1)  1394.36 ( 14)  2390.33 ( 24)  4382.26 ( 44)      
   |- CPU #28     99.60 (  1)  1394.35 ( 14)  2390.31 ( 24)  4382.24 ( 44)      
   |- CPU #29     99.60 (  1)  1394.35 ( 14)  2390.32 ( 24)  4382.25 ( 44)      
   |- CPU #30     99.60 (  1)  1394.34 ( 14)  2390.30 ( 24)  4382.21 ( 44)      
   |- CPU #31     99.60 (  1)  1394.35 ( 14)  2390.32 ( 24)  4382.25 ( 44)

corefreq_screens_odcm.zip

@cyring
Copy link
Owner

cyring commented Nov 13, 2024

Corefreq version was 1.98.0, now using 1.98.4

  • Thanks for your return.
  • For your testings, a fix is available since commit cb55c1b

ODCM can be safely enable/disable
Per 12.5% step and apparently only on Ecores whereas Pcores remain at 7 MHz
ODCM feature will be marked as no more experimental in next release.

@valentin-barbotin
Copy link
Author

image

I am now using version 1.98.5, thanks to the package maintainer
I haven't rebooted yet but I have reloaded the service and the module and it seems the problem still persists
Here is the proof with the version of CoreFreq displayed

@cyring
Copy link
Owner

cyring commented Nov 15, 2024

I am now using version 1.98.5, thanks to the package maintainer I haven't rebooted yet but I have reloaded the service and the module and it seems the problem still persists Here is the proof with the version of CoreFreq displayed

Is it possible that you try directly from the repository rather than a package ?
Make sure to unload/uninstall all previous versions before

git clone -b develop https://github.com/cyring/CoreFreq.git

cd CoreFreq
make
  • As root
insmod build/corefreqk.ko
./build/corefreqd
  • As User
./build/corefreq-cli

@cyring
Copy link
Owner

cyring commented Nov 15, 2024 •
edited
Loading

@valentin-barbotin
Sorry I should have tell you that fix is available since 3 commits above master
So as shown just above, you have to pull code from the develop branch

@valentin-barbotin
Copy link
Author 

|- Hardware-Controlled Performance States                        HWP       < ON>
   |- Capabilities     Lowest      Efficient     Guaranteed        Highest      
   |- CPU #0      99.60 (  1)  1693.15 ( 17)  4083.47 ( 41)  7270.57 ( 73)      
   |- CPU #1      99.60 (  1)  1693.15 ( 17)  4083.47 ( 41)  7270.57 ( 73)      
   |- CPU #2      99.60 (  1)  1693.15 ( 17)  4083.47 ( 41)  7270.57 ( 73)      
   |- CPU #3      99.60 (  1)  1693.15 ( 17)  4083.48 ( 41)  7270.58 ( 73)      
   |- CPU #4      99.60 (  1)  1693.26 ( 17)  4083.76 ( 41)  7271.08 ( 73)      
   |- CPU #5      99.60 (  1)  1693.26 ( 17)  4083.76 ( 41)  7271.08 ( 73)      
   |- CPU #6      99.60 (  1)  1693.15 ( 17)  4083.48 ( 41)  7270.59 ( 73)      
   |- CPU #7      99.60 (  1)  1693.16 ( 17)  4083.51 ( 41)  7270.64 ( 73)      
   |- CPU #8      99.60 (  1)  1693.15 ( 17)  4083.47 ( 41)  7668.96 ( 77)      
   |- CPU #9      99.60 (  1)  1693.15 ( 17)  4083.48 ( 41)  7668.97 ( 77)      
   |- CPU #10     99.60 (  1)  1693.15 ( 17)  4083.47 ( 41)  7668.96 ( 77)      
   |- CPU #11     99.60 (  1)  1693.14 ( 17)  4083.47 ( 41)  7668.95 ( 77)      
   |- CPU #12     99.60 (  1)  1693.15 ( 17)  4083.47 ( 41)  7270.56 ( 73)      
   |- CPU #13     99.60 (  1)  1693.15 ( 17)  4083.47 ( 41)  7270.57 ( 73)      
   |- CPU #14     99.59 (  1)  1693.04 ( 17)  4083.21 ( 41)  7270.10 ( 73)      
   |- CPU #15     99.59 (  1)  1693.04 ( 17)  4083.21 ( 41)  7270.10 ( 73)      
   |- CPU #16     99.59 (  1)  1294.63 ( 13)  2390.08 ( 24)  4381.82 ( 44)      
   |- CPU #17     99.59 (  1)  1294.66 ( 13)  2390.14 ( 24)  4381.93 ( 44)      
   |- CPU #18     99.60 (  1)  1294.79 ( 13)  2390.39 ( 24)  4382.38 ( 44)      
   |- CPU #19     99.60 (  1)  1294.75 ( 13)  2390.31 ( 24)  4382.24 ( 44)      
   |- CPU #20     99.60 (  1)  1294.80 ( 13)  2390.41 ( 24)  4382.41 ( 44)      
   |- CPU #21     99.60 (  1)  1294.75 ( 13)  2390.30 ( 24)  4382.22 ( 44)      
   |- CPU #22     99.60 (  1)  1294.77 ( 13)  2390.34 ( 24)  4382.29 ( 44)      
   |- CPU #23     99.59 (  1)  1294.72 ( 13)  2390.26 ( 24)  4382.14 ( 44)      
   |- CPU #24     99.60 (  1)  1294.76 ( 13)  2390.33 ( 24)  4382.26 ( 44)      
   |- CPU #25     99.60 (  1)  1294.77 ( 13)  2390.34 ( 24)  4382.29 ( 44)      
   |- CPU #26     99.60 (  1)  1294.78 ( 13)  2390.36 ( 24)  4382.33 ( 44)      
   |- CPU #27     99.60 (  1)  1294.76 ( 13)  2390.32 ( 24)  4382.25 ( 44)      
   |- CPU #28     99.60 (  1)  1294.78 ( 13)  2390.37 ( 24)  4382.34 ( 44)      
   |- CPU #29     99.60 (  1)  1294.77 ( 13)  2390.34 ( 24)  4382.28 ( 44)      
   |- CPU #30     99.60 (  1)  1294.79 ( 13)  2390.39 ( 24)  4382.38 ( 44)      
   |- CPU #31     99.60 (  1)  1294.79 ( 13)  2390.39 ( 24)  4382.38 ( 44)

It's better with right commit :)

@cyring
Copy link
Owner

cyring commented Nov 16, 2024

It's better with right commit :)

Thank you very much

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@cyring @valentin-barbotin