F5F Stay Refreshed Hardware Desktop The turbo boost isn't activating on the i7-4790.

The turbo boost isn't activating on the i7-4790.

The turbo boost isn't activating on the i7-4790.

S
srpedroza
Junior Member
24
10-27-2016, 10:48 PM
#1
bios - turbo was activated, but I attempted to turn off a setting named "speed." That didn't help. In bios, I also tried setting fans to maximum speed, which caused a lot of noise without any improvement. In power manager, I'm using the balanced setting, and the CPU options are: minimum CPU at 100% cooling, maximum CPU at 100%. I changed to max performance and adjusted the percentage, but it still stuck at 3,592. If I disable the speed feature in bios, it drops lower as well. Despite this, turbo should reach 4.0GHz.
S
srpedroza
10-27-2016, 10:48 PM #1

bios - turbo was activated, but I attempted to turn off a setting named "speed." That didn't help. In bios, I also tried setting fans to maximum speed, which caused a lot of noise without any improvement. In power manager, I'm using the balanced setting, and the CPU options are: minimum CPU at 100% cooling, maximum CPU at 100%. I changed to max performance and adjusted the percentage, but it still stuck at 3,592. If I disable the speed feature in bios, it drops lower as well. Despite this, turbo should reach 4.0GHz.

X
226
10-28-2016, 06:58 AM
#2
I experimented with my 4790k recently, after it stopped running a few years back. For a load test, the expected wattage should be higher. It seems closer to around 80W for full power, unless you reset the CMOS and stick to the recommended settings. If it still doesn’t reach 4GHz, it might be due to a Windows scheduler p-state issue. Are you using Windows 10?
X
X_Impossible_X
10-28-2016, 06:58 AM #2

I experimented with my 4790k recently, after it stopped running a few years back. For a load test, the expected wattage should be higher. It seems closer to around 80W for full power, unless you reset the CMOS and stick to the recommended settings. If it still doesn’t reach 4GHz, it might be due to a Windows scheduler p-state issue. Are you using Windows 10?

X
xX_Skr4ydd_Xx
Member
58
11-14-2016, 10:53 AM
#3
Yes, it's Windows 10. You're removing the CMOS battery and putting it back in to reset the BIOS. The Windows Scheduler P-State refers to a state in the Task Scheduler that tracks how long a task has been running.
X
xX_Skr4ydd_Xx
11-14-2016, 10:53 AM #3

Yes, it's Windows 10. You're removing the CMOS battery and putting it back in to reset the BIOS. The Windows Scheduler P-State refers to a state in the Task Scheduler that tracks how long a task has been running.

G
Gingeepie
Junior Member
42
11-15-2016, 07:12 PM
#4
It seems the problem likely stems from a configuration in the UEFI/BIOS rather than a Windows scheduling conflict. P-states and C-states represent high and low power modes. I've encountered similar issues with OS-level P-state management for certain programs, but a widespread problem hasn't been resolved by adjusting power plans to Performance mode, which alters the scheduler and affects p/c-state handling.
G
Gingeepie
11-15-2016, 07:12 PM #4

It seems the problem likely stems from a configuration in the UEFI/BIOS rather than a Windows scheduling conflict. P-states and C-states represent high and low power modes. I've encountered similar issues with OS-level P-state management for certain programs, but a widespread problem hasn't been resolved by adjusting power plans to Performance mode, which alters the scheduler and affects p/c-state handling.

C
chronopath
Junior Member
14
11-23-2016, 12:07 AM
#5
I just rebooted the BIOS settings again, but the issue persists. It looks like when I skip benchmarking, it sometimes jumps to around 4,000 units, which seems to be the balanced power plan. The CPU settings don’t appear to change much in performance.
C
chronopath
11-23-2016, 12:07 AM #5

I just rebooted the BIOS settings again, but the issue persists. It looks like when I skip benchmarking, it sometimes jumps to around 4,000 units, which seems to be the balanced power plan. The CPU settings don’t appear to change much in performance.

J
jjsoini
Posting Freak
809
11-23-2016, 04:03 AM
#6
Once the benchmark finished, the single-core test began increasing to 3991. Why bother with Turbo if it only kicks in when the CPU isn’t under heavy load? In the photo, the moment it jumps to 3991 marks when the benchmark stopped.
J
jjsoini
11-23-2016, 04:03 AM #6

Once the benchmark finished, the single-core test began increasing to 3991. Why bother with Turbo if it only kicks in when the CPU isn’t under heavy load? In the photo, the moment it jumps to 3991 marks when the benchmark stopped.

F
fibifelise
Member
233
11-28-2016, 07:49 AM
#7
Thermal and power constraints play a role here. The 4790 would support Turboboost 2.0, an older feature compared to the capabilities of Intel and AMD today. It might also reflect limitations of the motherboard at the time. Nowadays, most boards are built to support mid-to-high performance CPUs. The aim is to enable the CPU to run at higher clock speeds during lighter tasks, improving single-thread performance. The 4790k can sustain 4.5GHz across all cores, which is typical for a K-style Intel CPU from the past. If you're looking to upgrade and overclock, the i7 5775C is a compelling choice and technically the top option for that era. I wouldn't recommend it for cost-effectiveness, as spending around $100 on a CPU from nine years ago doesn't offer much value. In fact, it was one of the earliest MCM-based processors available.
F
fibifelise
11-28-2016, 07:49 AM #7

Thermal and power constraints play a role here. The 4790 would support Turboboost 2.0, an older feature compared to the capabilities of Intel and AMD today. It might also reflect limitations of the motherboard at the time. Nowadays, most boards are built to support mid-to-high performance CPUs. The aim is to enable the CPU to run at higher clock speeds during lighter tasks, improving single-thread performance. The 4790k can sustain 4.5GHz across all cores, which is typical for a K-style Intel CPU from the past. If you're looking to upgrade and overclock, the i7 5775C is a compelling choice and technically the top option for that era. I wouldn't recommend it for cost-effectiveness, as spending around $100 on a CPU from nine years ago doesn't offer much value. In fact, it was one of the earliest MCM-based processors available.

D
Dovi007
Member
78
12-06-2016, 07:53 AM
#8
ohh no then ill just keep this one, it's fine and everything just wanted to make sure everything is fine seemed a little off for me. really old pc, upgraded from hdd to ssd, 6gb ram to 16gb ram, and i3-4150 to i7-4790, all from second hand for less then 30 bucks, pc is really smooth now for my needs ( i play maplestory LOL), thank you so much so!
D
Dovi007
12-06-2016, 07:53 AM #8

ohh no then ill just keep this one, it's fine and everything just wanted to make sure everything is fine seemed a little off for me. really old pc, upgraded from hdd to ssd, 6gb ram to 16gb ram, and i3-4150 to i7-4790, all from second hand for less then 30 bucks, pc is really smooth now for my needs ( i play maplestory LOL), thank you so much so!

A
AlmightyEag
Posting Freak
785
12-06-2016, 09:51 AM
#9
I tested several benchmarks on Warframe using my 7950x3D and a 4790k. It ran smoothly at 4K ultra, outperforming expectations for a game with strict CPU limits. Recently, the game’s default lighting engine improved significantly, which reduces the comparison to today’s version but remains a helpful reference.
A
AlmightyEag
12-06-2016, 09:51 AM #9

I tested several benchmarks on Warframe using my 7950x3D and a 4790k. It ran smoothly at 4K ultra, outperforming expectations for a game with strict CPU limits. Recently, the game’s default lighting engine improved significantly, which reduces the comparison to today’s version but remains a helpful reference.