Intel onboard GPU conflicting with CPU power
 

Is it true that if you max out the GPU part of an Intel processor at the same time as all the normal cores, it can't do them all at once? I run Boinc which can do calculations on both at once. And if I use all the CPU cores, the GPU part goes about a 5th of the speed. I guess the only other place this could happen is a game that multithreads on all the cores and also uses the graphics.

--
Attila the Hun died during a bout of rough sex where his partner broke his nose causing a haemorrhage.

Intel onboard GPU conflicting with CPU power
 

On Sat, 26 May 2018 07:11:44 +0100, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

On 5/25/2018 5:48 AM, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
Is it true that if you max out the GPU part of an Intel processor at the
same time as all the normal cores, it can't do them all at once? I run
Boinc which can do calculations on both at once. And if I use all the
CPU cores, the GPU part goes about a 5th of the speed. I guess the only
other place this could happen is a game that multithreads on all the
cores and also uses the graphics.

Are you using a standalone GPU? If not, the CPU will be used to do
on-board/in-chip graphics.

On two of the machines, yes I have a standalone GPU. Two don't. And one has no GPU whatsoever (no monitor just a server).

I know the CPU is used to do graphics, but I'm interested in why it refuses to do that and all the main cores at once without one of the tasks slowing down. It's not overheating.

--
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing.

Intel onboard GPU conflicting with CPU power
 

On 5/25/2018 8:48 AM, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
Is it true that if you max out the GPU part of an Intel processor at the
same time as all the normal cores, it can't do them all at once?* I run
Boinc which can do calculations on both at once.* And if I use all the CPU
cores, the GPU part goes about a 5th of the speed.* I guess the only other
place this could happen is a game that multithreads on all the cores and
also uses the graphics.


A question probably better asked in a different forum. No doubt someone
here will have a definitive answer:

https://boinc.berkeley.edu/dev/forum_index.php

I run BOINC on multiple machines and always understood that it would only
use external (non-cpu) graphics hardware so I can't contribute anything
from personal experience.

Intel onboard GPU conflicting with CPU power
 

On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:55:29 +0100, John McGaw wrote:

On 5/25/2018 8:48 AM, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
Is it true that if you max out the GPU part of an Intel processor at the
same time as all the normal cores, it can't do them all at once? I run
Boinc which can do calculations on both at once. And if I use all the CPU
cores, the GPU part goes about a 5th of the speed. I guess the only other
place this could happen is a game that multithreads on all the cores and
also uses the graphics.

A question probably better asked in a different forum. No doubt someone
here will have a definitive answer:

https://boinc.berkeley.edu/dev/forum_index.php

I asked there too. The consensus of opinion appears to be, with most projects on most CPUs, that an onboard GPU is faster (5 times faster in my case) than one of the cores you have to tell it to stop using, so it's worth using it. If I don't tell it release a core, the GPU part is throttled severely.

But I asked here because I wanted to know why it can't run everything at once (it's not overheating or anywhere near it) - a google search says throttling should only take place if it's too hot.

And this is the case on a couple of computers - i5-3570K and i5-8600K. I didn't bother testing the old Celerons.

I run BOINC on multiple machines and always understood that it would only
use external (non-cpu) graphics hardware so I can't contribute anything
from personal experience.

It depends on the project. They all run on CPUs. Several run on Nvidia cards. Several others run on AMD cards (or both). Only three have Intel graphics support - Einstein, SETI, and I think Collatz.

--
In 1272, the Arabic Muslims invented the condom, using a goat's lower intestine.
In 1873, the British refined the idea by taking the intestine out of the goat first.

Intel onboard GPU conflicting with CPU power
 

On Fri, 25 May 2018 17:18:01 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:

On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:55:29 +0100, John McGaw wrote:

On 5/25/2018 8:48 AM, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
Is it true that if you max out the GPU part of an Intel processor at the
same time as all the normal cores, it can't do them all at once? I run
Boinc which can do calculations on both at once. And if I use all the CPU
cores, the GPU part goes about a 5th of the speed. I guess the only other
place this could happen is a game that multithreads on all the cores and
also uses the graphics.

A question probably better asked in a different forum. No doubt someone
here will have a definitive answer:

https://boinc.berkeley.edu/dev/forum_index.php

I asked there too. The consensus of opinion appears to be, with most projects on most CPUs, that an onboard GPU is faster (5 times faster in my case) than one of the cores you have to tell it to stop using, so it's worth using it. If I don't tell it release a core, the GPU part is throttled severely.

But I asked here because I wanted to know why it can't run everything at once (it's not overheating or anywhere near it) - a google search says throttling should only take place if it's too hot.

And this is the case on a couple of computers - i5-3570K and i5-8600K. I didn't bother testing the old Celerons.

Update, I wasn't sure if I had actually tested the i5-8600K, so I tried it again, and it doesn't seem to slow it down. Maybe they're designed better nowadays? Maybe there's always a bit of a core free with it having 6 cores instead of 4, I don't know. But I am 100% sure that the i5-3570K slows considerably - although, maybe that task required some CPU usage too and wasn't getting it. I'll just reduce the CPU cores used until it doesn't go near 100%, then no GPU gets throttled. The real graphics cards need CPU assistance sometimes anyway.

I run BOINC on multiple machines and always understood that it would only
use external (non-cpu) graphics hardware so I can't contribute anything
from personal experience.

It depends on the project. They all run on CPUs. Several run on Nvidia cards. Several others run on AMD cards (or both). Only three have Intel graphics support - Einstein, SETI, and I think Collatz.

--
I once got the stuffing beat out of me fighting for a girl's honour.
She wanted to keep it.

Intel onboard GPU conflicting with CPU power
 

Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:55:29 +0100, John McGaw wrote:

On 5/25/2018 8:48 AM, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
Is it true that if you max out the GPU part of an Intel processor at the
same time as all the normal cores, it can't do them all at once? I run
Boinc which can do calculations on both at once. And if I use all
the CPU
cores, the GPU part goes about a 5th of the speed. I guess the only
other
place this could happen is a game that multithreads on all the cores and
also uses the graphics.

A question probably better asked in a different forum. No doubt someone
here will have a definitive answer:

https://boinc.berkeley.edu/dev/forum_index.php

I asked there too. The consensus of opinion appears to be, with most
projects on most CPUs, that an onboard GPU is faster (5 times faster in
my case) than one of the cores you have to tell it to stop using, so
it's worth using it. If I don't tell it release a core, the GPU part is
throttled severely.

But I asked here because I wanted to know why it can't run everything at
once (it's not overheating or anywhere near it) - a google search says
throttling should only take place if it's too hot.

And this is the case on a couple of computers - i5-3570K and i5-8600K.
I didn't bother testing the old Celerons.

I run BOINC on multiple machines and always understood that it would only
use external (non-cpu) graphics hardware so I can't contribute anything
from personal experience.

It depends on the project. They all run on CPUs. Several run on Nvidia
cards. Several others run on AMD cards (or both). Only three have
Intel graphics support - Einstein, SETI, and I think Collatz.

Modern processors have power limiting designed into VCore. There
could be a signal coming from VCore, to the processor or PCH,
indicating the power status of VCore.

Any resource used inside the CPU, count towards power usage,
and eventually the overall power "bumps against TDP". If you
stop railing the GPU portion, it gives more headroom for
the CPU cores.

Check the BIOS, to see if there is a setting to
disable the power limiter.

Stick a finger on VCore and see if it's getting too hot.

In the old days, a MOSFET could go into thermal runaway
(channel resistance goes up, I^2R goes up, MOSFET gets hotter,
and so on). With the new design concepts, they seem to be
happy running the MOSFETs at 65C when the CPU is busy.

CPUs didn't always have a TDP limiter. In the past, VCore
may have had an overcurrent, but it should be set high
enough so that it's not triggered in normal usage.
If VCore was rated at 100A, you'd expect OCP to be
set at 130A or more. It's a good idea to have some
protection there, as the area around the CPU socket
can become charred on a plane-to-plane short circuit,
without it. There is one picture out there, of a
motherboard damaged that way.

Paul

Intel onboard GPU conflicting with CPU power
 

On Fri, 25 May 2018 17:46:49 +0100, Paul wrote:

Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:55:29 +0100, John McGaw wrote:

On 5/25/2018 8:48 AM, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
Is it true that if you max out the GPU part of an Intel processor at the
same time as all the normal cores, it can't do them all at once? I run
Boinc which can do calculations on both at once. And if I use all
the CPU
cores, the GPU part goes about a 5th of the speed. I guess the only
other
place this could happen is a game that multithreads on all the cores and
also uses the graphics.

A question probably better asked in a different forum. No doubt someone
here will have a definitive answer:

https://boinc.berkeley.edu/dev/forum_index.php

I asked there too. The consensus of opinion appears to be, with most
projects on most CPUs, that an onboard GPU is faster (5 times faster in
my case) than one of the cores you have to tell it to stop using, so
it's worth using it. If I don't tell it release a core, the GPU part is
throttled severely.

But I asked here because I wanted to know why it can't run everything at
once (it's not overheating or anywhere near it) - a google search says
throttling should only take place if it's too hot.

And this is the case on a couple of computers - i5-3570K and i5-8600K.
I didn't bother testing the old Celerons.

I run BOINC on multiple machines and always understood that it would only
use external (non-cpu) graphics hardware so I can't contribute anything
from personal experience.

It depends on the project. They all run on CPUs. Several run on Nvidia
cards. Several others run on AMD cards (or both). Only three have
Intel graphics support - Einstein, SETI, and I think Collatz.

Modern processors have power limiting designed into VCore. There
could be a signal coming from VCore, to the processor or PCH,
indicating the power status of VCore.

Any resource used inside the CPU, count towards power usage,
and eventually the overall power "bumps against TDP". If you
stop railing the GPU portion, it gives more headroom for
the CPU cores.

Check the BIOS, to see if there is a setting to
disable the power limiter.

Not sure I want to risk that!

Stick a finger on VCore and see if it's getting too hot.

I've done that (and software monitoring) and the temperature is fine, but even if it doesn't overheat, I wouldn't like to allow more power than it's designed to get. A tiny portion of the CPU might overload and melt somewhere without the whole thing being too hot.

In the old days, a MOSFET could go into thermal runaway
(channel resistance goes up, I^2R goes up, MOSFET gets hotter,
and so on). With the new design concepts, they seem to be
happy running the MOSFETs at 65C when the CPU is busy.

CPUs didn't always have a TDP limiter. In the past, VCore
may have had an overcurrent, but it should be set high
enough so that it's not triggered in normal usage.
If VCore was rated at 100A, you'd expect OCP to be
set at 130A or more. It's a good idea to have some
protection there, as the area around the CPU socket
can become charred on a plane-to-plane short circuit,
without it. There is one picture out there, of a
motherboard damaged that way.

It amazes me how they can get that much current into it with little motherboard tracks - if you consider how thick a cable is to supply your electric shower or cooker for example, with a third as much current.

--
All the American flags on the moon have been bleached by radiation from the sun (which can only be a good thing).

Intel onboard GPU conflicting with CPU power
 

On 05/25/2018 12:06 PM, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2018 17:46:49 +0100, Paul wrote:

Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:55:29 +0100, John McGaw wrote:

On 5/25/2018 8:48 AM, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
Is it true that if you max out the GPU part of an Intel processor
at the
same time as all the normal cores, it can't do them all at once?* I
run
Boinc which can do calculations on both at once.* And if I use all
the CPU
cores, the GPU part goes about a 5th of the speed.* I guess the only
other
place this could happen is a game that multithreads on all the
cores and
also uses the graphics.

A question probably better asked in a different forum. No doubt someone
here will have a definitive answer:

https://boinc.berkeley.edu/dev/forum_index.php

I asked there too.* The consensus of opinion appears to be, with most
projects on most CPUs, that an onboard GPU is faster (5 times faster in
my case) than one of the cores you have to tell it to stop using, so
it's worth using it.* If I don't tell it release a core, the GPU part is
throttled severely.

But I asked here because I wanted to know why it can't run everything at
once (it's not overheating or anywhere near it) - a google search says
throttling should only take place if it's too hot.

And this is the case on a couple of computers - i5-3570K and i5-8600K.
I didn't bother testing the old Celerons.

I run BOINC on multiple machines and always understood that it would
only
use external (non-cpu) graphics hardware so I can't contribute anything
from personal experience.

It depends on the project.* They all run on CPUs.* Several run on Nvidia
cards.* Several others run on AMD cards (or both).* Only three have
Intel graphics support - Einstein, SETI, and I think Collatz.

Modern processors have power limiting designed into VCore. There
could be a signal coming from VCore, to the processor or PCH,
indicating the power status of VCore.

Any resource used inside the CPU, count towards power usage,
and eventually the overall power "bumps against TDP". If you
stop railing the GPU portion, it gives more headroom for
the CPU cores.

Check the BIOS, to see if there is a setting to
disable the power limiter.

Not sure I want to risk that!

Stick a finger on VCore and see if it's getting too hot.

I've done that (and software monitoring) and the temperature is fine,
but even if it doesn't overheat, I wouldn't like to allow more power
than it's designed to get.* A tiny portion of the CPU might overload and
melt somewhere without the whole thing being too hot.

In the old days, a MOSFET could go into thermal runaway
(channel resistance goes up, I^2R goes up, MOSFET gets hotter,
and so on). With the new design concepts, they seem to be
happy running the MOSFETs at 65C when the CPU is busy.

CPUs didn't always have a TDP limiter. In the past, VCore
may have had an overcurrent, but it should be set high
enough so that it's not triggered in normal usage.
If VCore was rated at 100A, you'd expect OCP to be
set at 130A or more. It's a good idea to have some
protection there, as the area around the CPU socket
can become charred on a plane-to-plane short circuit,
without it. There is one picture out there, of a
motherboard damaged that way.

It amazes me how they can get that much current into it with little
motherboard tracks - if you consider how thick a cable is to supply your
electric shower or cooker for example, with a third as much current.


YIKES. Someone Protect us from Electric showers, :-)


Rene

Intel onboard GPU conflicting with CPU power
 

Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:

It amazes me how they can get that much current into it with little
motherboard tracks - if you consider how thick a cable is to supply your
electric shower or cooker for example, with a third as much current.

The board is multi-layer, and inner layers can be used to route power.

Yes, you do need "planes" to handle that much current. In some
cases (Gigabyte), they even use 2oz copper for that, rather than
the "normal" half ounce copper. Sometimes you see mention of
that in some advertising blurb.

https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer...oz-copper-lead

You can see some layer stackup diagrams here.

https://www.gigabyte.com/webpage/16/article_12_ud3.htm

At one time, motherboards were four layer.
When RAMBUS came out, those were six layer.

The Gigabyte diagram indicates they used 8 layers
on their X58 product.

https://www.gigabyte.com/webpage/16/article_12_ud3.htm

Paul

Intel onboard GPU conflicting with CPU power
 

On Fri, 25 May 2018 19:26:54 +0100, Rene Lamontagne wrote:

On 05/25/2018 12:06 PM, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2018 17:46:49 +0100, Paul wrote:

Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:55:29 +0100, John McGaw wrote:

On 5/25/2018 8:48 AM, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
Is it true that if you max out the GPU part of an Intel processor
at the
same time as all the normal cores, it can't do them all at once? I
run
Boinc which can do calculations on both at once. And if I use all
the CPU
cores, the GPU part goes about a 5th of the speed. I guess the only
other
place this could happen is a game that multithreads on all the
cores and
also uses the graphics.

A question probably better asked in a different forum. No doubt someone
here will have a definitive answer:

https://boinc.berkeley.edu/dev/forum_index.php

I asked there too. The consensus of opinion appears to be, with most
projects on most CPUs, that an onboard GPU is faster (5 times faster in
my case) than one of the cores you have to tell it to stop using, so
it's worth using it. If I don't tell it release a core, the GPU part is
throttled severely.

But I asked here because I wanted to know why it can't run everything at
once (it's not overheating or anywhere near it) - a google search says
throttling should only take place if it's too hot.

And this is the case on a couple of computers - i5-3570K and i5-8600K.
I didn't bother testing the old Celerons.

I run BOINC on multiple machines and always understood that it would
only
use external (non-cpu) graphics hardware so I can't contribute anything
from personal experience.

It depends on the project. They all run on CPUs. Several run on Nvidia
cards. Several others run on AMD cards (or both). Only three have
Intel graphics support - Einstein, SETI, and I think Collatz.

Modern processors have power limiting designed into VCore. There
could be a signal coming from VCore, to the processor or PCH,
indicating the power status of VCore.

Any resource used inside the CPU, count towards power usage,
and eventually the overall power "bumps against TDP". If you
stop railing the GPU portion, it gives more headroom for
the CPU cores.

Check the BIOS, to see if there is a setting to
disable the power limiter.

Not sure I want to risk that!

Stick a finger on VCore and see if it's getting too hot.

I've done that (and software monitoring) and the temperature is fine,
but even if it doesn't overheat, I wouldn't like to allow more power
than it's designed to get. A tiny portion of the CPU might overload and
melt somewhere without the whole thing being too hot.

In the old days, a MOSFET could go into thermal runaway
(channel resistance goes up, I^2R goes up, MOSFET gets hotter,
and so on). With the new design concepts, they seem to be
happy running the MOSFETs at 65C when the CPU is busy.

CPUs didn't always have a TDP limiter. In the past, VCore
may have had an overcurrent, but it should be set high
enough so that it's not triggered in normal usage.
If VCore was rated at 100A, you'd expect OCP to be
set at 130A or more. It's a good idea to have some
protection there, as the area around the CPU socket
can become charred on a plane-to-plane short circuit,
without it. There is one picture out there, of a
motherboard damaged that way.

It amazes me how they can get that much current into it with little
motherboard tracks - if you consider how thick a cable is to supply your
electric shower or cooker for example, with a third as much current.

YIKES. Someone Protect us from Electric showers, :-)

Do you mean:

1) A silly joke referring to rain outdoors with some form of lightning.

2) You're one of those nancy folk who won't get under a shower unless it's remotely heated water.

--
Gary's weather forecasting stone:
Stone is wet Rain
Stone is dry Not raining
Shadow on ground Sunny
White on top Snowing
Can't see stone Foggy
Swinging stone Windy
Stone jumping up and down Earthquake
Stone gone Tornado