Game Boost or Overclocking not working in X299 GAMING M7 ACK + WIN 10

jbmikulenk15da02eb

New member
Joined
Aug 14, 2021
Messages
4
Hello everyone , I'm here looking for some guidance/help with an issue with my rig.

For some time I'm noticing that my rig isn't working properly related to overclocking in Windows 10. I know it works in the past and it has something to do with Windows cause I boot up in Linux, and the clock speed of the CPU appears right. Even in windows when I just log in the speed appears right, but immediately clock down to stock speed (4GHz). Is frustrating to have the hardware capable to do something and for some mysterious bug unable to enjoy it. :mad:
I tested using game boost(via hardware knob or software) and manual overclock in all cases same result, clock down in windows after log in. 😔 I tested with different overclocked settings and CPU clock speed, and nothing :( I know that the CPU is not throttling, cause the temp keep below 50 °C and this behavior happen even when the CPU is idle. The PSU specs are fine looking in here using the maximum overclock speed I tried: https://outervision.com/b/uqnV6W

I also report the bug to Microsoft via Feedback Hub, but nothing 🦗🦗, and really I have low expectation they even look something about it.

These are my system specs:
Windows version:
Windows 10 Pro 21H1
Windows OS Build: 19043.1165
Windows Feature Experience Pack: 120.2212.3530.0
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-7640X CPU @ 4.00GHz, 4008 MHz
CPU Cooler: NZXT Kraken X63 280mm - RL-KRX63-01 - AIO RGB CPU Liquid Cooler
MB: MSI X299 Gaming M7 ACK (MS-7A90)
MB BIOS Version: 1.G1
RAM: 16GB (2x8GB) Kingston HyperX KHX2400C15/8G
GPU: MSI RTX 3070 Ventus 2X (MS-V390)
SSD: CT480BX500SSD1 500GB
HDD: WDC WD10EZEX-08WN4A0 1TB
Case: NZXT H500 with 2 NZXT Aer F 120mm Fans
PSU: Seasonic M12II-620 Evo 80+Bronze 620W

Any suggestion of what to do or maybe what would be de cause of this issue?

Thanks.
 

citay

Pro
SERGEANT
Joined
Oct 12, 2016
Messages
3,674
What do you mean, it clocks down? During idle? Of course CPUs clock down, it's part of how they work. How else are they gonna enter the lowest power states when there's nothing to do?

This is my previous CPU during idle:

C-states cpuz.png


This is my current CPU during idle:

C-states 11500.png


Any modern CPU has power-saving mechanisms that lower VCore and CPU frequency in idle. When there is nothing to calculate, it makes no sense to stay at a high frequency. You would be using up electricity and producing heat for nothing. Once there is something to calculate, for example when you start a program, the CPU will increase its frequency within a couple nanoseconds. There is no downside at all to have the CPU clock low in idle. You can run benchmarks with power savings active (low idle frequency) vs. constant high frequency, and you would see absolutely no difference. But when you look at power consumption and heat, a constantly high VCore and frequency is clearly worse.

The explanation why the CPU doesn't don't clock down in Linux could be simple: It doesn't support all the power-saving techniques, so it's always running the CPU at the highest power state and wasting power for nothing. It is known that on Linux you often have to enable certain flags if you want most of the power-saving to work.

Of course, you can force the CPU in the BIOS to never clock down in Windows too, you just have to disable all the different mechanisms relating to that. But you might just be increasing the power consumption without any real benefit.

Sometimes people focus too much on very small performance benefits / small frequency increases, without putting single-digit performance gains in relation to the high double-digit increases in power consumption. Meaning, instead of seeing benchmark results in relation to the voltage-per-frequency curve, they push that curve to the point of total inefficiency.

For each CPU model, there is an energy efficiency curve such as this:



Certain CPU models have a very steep increase of the curve, so the 100% mark (stock setting) will further towards the right. Usually, the more modern the CPU, the more of a chance of that. With almost all the most modern CPU models, overclocking became out of the question, since Intel and AMD use 99.9% of their capabilities with all the different turbo modes, and use very agressive frequencies at stock. Meaning, they're at a place on the curve which was previously only reached in an overclocked state. Furthemore, with modern CPUs, you might actually lose performance during OC, because you disable the different turbo modes, as well as the intelligent power-saving mechanisms sometimes, depending on how you do it. By forcing specific multipliers, you might have slightly better results in fully multithreaded benchmarks, but your single-core performance might be less than stock, for example.

You have an older CPU where it might still be more worthwhile to OC if you want. But you have to know how to set all the BIOS options, and if it's worth disabling certain things or not.

One last word on GameBoost: As you know, it's an automatic CPU overclocking function, but it always does more harm than good. It will apply too much voltage everywhere (because MSI needed to make it work with all types of CPUs of varying quality), making power consumption and heat production skyrocket, without actually doing much for performance. This can lead to thermal throttling, even with watercooling. GameBoost also doesn't take into account the best way to utilize the turbo modes. That's why out of all possible methods to overclock, GameBoost is always the worst.

Something else i noticed, you're running a quad-channel-memory platform in a dual-channel setup, so you're leaving significant memory performance on the table, especially thruput. You should equip it with a quad-channel memory kit (4x4GB or 4x8GB) and enjoy the performance boost, maybe then you don't even need to OC the CPU ;)
 

jbmikulenk15da02eb

New member
Joined
Aug 14, 2021
Messages
4
@citay thanks for your detailed response. But I think you focus a lot in the part of clocked down on idle, the most important part for me is the CPU never reached the overclocked speed. Sometimes only when I log on.

What do you mean, it clocks down? During idle? Of course CPUs clock down, it's part of how they work. How else are they gonna enter the lowest power states when there's nothing to do?
Sorry, my mistake. I think I didn't' express well this part. I know the CPU in idle always clock down for power saving as you well explained.
What I mean is that my CPU is capped to the stock speed 4.0GHz even in High load, gaming, stress test, etc. The maximum speed reached was 4.08GHz even when "overclocked". Didn't even reach his turbo speed (4.20 GHz) when isn't overclocked, all of this is in Windows. By the way my power saving plan is: Ultimate Performance.

Sometimes people focus too much on very small performance benefits / small frequency increases, without putting single-digit performance gains in relation to the high double-digit increases in power consumption. Meaning, instead of seeing benchmark results in relation to the voltage-per-frequency curve, they push that curve to the point of total inefficiency.
...
You have an older CPU where it might still be more worthwhile to OC if you want. But you have to know how to set all the BIOS options, and if it's worth disabling certain things or not.
In my case like you mentioned my CPU is older, also is an extreme edition so It has some room for improvement and increase performance. An in the past It worked fine in Windows and make difference in performance, I managed to get 4.60GHz and this CPU is quad core.

One last word on GameBoost: As you know, it's an automatic CPU overclocking function, but it always does more harm than good. It will apply too much voltage everywhere (because MSI needed to make it work with all types of CPUs of varying quality), making power consumption and heat production skyrocket, without actually doing much for performance. This can lead to thermal throttling, even with watercooling. GameBoost also doesn't take into account the best way to utilize the turbo modes. That's why out of all possible methods to overclock, GameBoost is always the worst.
I know isn't the best way, but as I mentioned, It worked in the past and I tried also overclocking manually and using Intel® Extreme Tuning Utility. No effects in Windows, all fine in Linux with same setting. Also like I say, didn't throttle, max temp between 50 °C - 60 °C when on load for long period of time and this CPU have Tjunction of 100°C.

Something else i noticed, you're running a quad-channel-memory platform in a dual-channel setup, so you're leaving significant memory performance on the table, especially thruput. You should equip it with a quad-channel memory kit (4x4GB or 4x8GB) and enjoy the performance boost, maybe then you don't even need to OC the CPU ;)
Yes, you're right I'm running a quad-channel-memory platform in a dual-channel setup, it's because my current CPU only supports Dual Channel. :confused:
 

citay

Pro
SERGEANT
Joined
Oct 12, 2016
Messages
3,674
Oh ok, i misunderstood it a bit, sorry. So what you're saying is, you're overclocking exactly like you did in the past, either through BIOS or the Intel Extreme Tuning Utility, but the results are different now, it won't stay at the overclocked speed you're setting?

This requires screenshots of all the relevant BIOS screens (with settings regarding the CPU), which you can make by pressing F12 in the BIOS and saving to a FAT32 USB stick.

Then it would be good to have screenshots of HWinfo64 in Windows with a certain load, for example Cinebench R23, which you can set to single-core or multi-core. In HWinfo64, expand all the sensors by clicking on the <--> arrows on the bottom left of the window.

Also, it would probably be good to see a list of all your installed programs, to see if anything could interfere with the CPU somehow, as you said it's only under Windows. Actually, if you could install Win10 fresh to another SSD for example, you could see if anything with your existing Windows installation or programs is causing it.
 

jbmikulenk15da02eb

New member
Joined
Aug 14, 2021
Messages
4
Thanks @citay. I'll try all of that and post about it.
For the moment I could say I tried 4.2GHz, 4.5GHz and 4.6GHz. None worked.
And even in Windows task manager (opened after just log on), appears at 4.6GHz for example in Base Speed and then go to 4GHz. Note that is the Base Clock not the Speed, that is the current speed that could reflect the CPU clocked down because of power saving.
1629211330157.png

Important: These capture is in my laptop, not my current Desktop PC. It's only an example of what I talking about in the last part.
 

citay

Pro
SERGEANT
Joined
Oct 12, 2016
Messages
3,674
The task manager can be quite misleading when it comes to the frequencies, it averages etc., don't rely on that. You only want to check the frequencies with a reliable tool such as HWinfo64.
 

jbmikulenk15da02eb

New member
Joined
Aug 14, 2021
Messages
4
Hi @citay, I want to thank you for the support and feedback.
I already have my system running fine after a fresh install of Windows. I decided to do that because when I started to test and monitoring with the softwares you mentioned I noticed that with overclocking off, my CPU not even turbo boost according to the specifications, and that is weird, a CPU not turbo boosting in high load in a middle of a stress test. It never passed 4GHz.

1630083912621.png


Thanks!
 
Top