Problem detected with CPU performance, not reaching optimal speed.
Problem detected with CPU performance, not reaching optimal speed.
Your laptop runs an Intel Core i7-640M with a base speed of 2.8GHz and a boost of 3.43GHz. Under heavy load it reaches up to 2.926GHz. Wikichip lists the single core max at 3.43GHz and dual core at 3.19GHz. You're wondering why it doesn't reach those numbers consistently. It's possible thermal limits are restricting performance, especially since you notice throttling above 90°C. The Acer Aspire 5733z on Windows 7 should handle these speeds under normal conditions.
It's a laptop with performance limited by various elements like heat and power usage. The processor probably has a maximum power limit, so it won't exceed 2.9 GHz. Mark mentioned that 3.4 GHz isn't fully utilized under load. You might notice one core reaching 3.4 in specific single-threaded tasks, but likely not when the whole chip is operating at full capacity.
I understand it doesn't reach 3.4ghz on every core, I mentioned that in my first comment, though the CPU can hit 3.19 on two cores. It might be power issues, but if that's the case I don't have a solution yet, so I'm checking for other possible causes besides thermal throttling.
I just found out the 3090 only reached 1100MHz in FurMark because it was so demanding that it hit its power cap at that frequency even though it could go up to 2000. It seems your workload might be too heavy for the CPU to increase beyond that limit before reaching its maximum speed. Your i7-10710U also doesn’t hit that high frequency in Cinebench, only about 2.3Ghz—just like the 3090, it’s limited by the same issue. Think of it this way: You’re told to carry a load on a trailer. Until you reach a certain weight, you can go fast. Once it gets too heavy, you lose speed because you can’t overcome the limit. That’s probably what’s happening here.
I identified the issue: three of four system monitors were showing wrong clock speeds. DBCTaskmanager listed a max of 2.8, while CPU-Z and Open Hardware Monitor reported 2.926. HWinfo was accurate at 3.19. I verified this with Cinebench R15 comparisons, confirming a 16% improvement over the i5 480M and i7 640M. This is now the second instance these tools displayed incorrect CPU frequencies.