All you need to confirm if turbo boost 3.0 is active and running is hwinfo64. Just open it and the first page shows a real time graph of the CPU core speeds. If they are above 3.6ghz by a fraction of a second, TB3 is on. If they are above 3.4ghz, Turbo boost is on.
Ah ok..But it probably won't be triggered whilst at idle I may have to run something CPU-intensive and watch it side by side But if TB3 or TB works that way, what's the point of having this "Add App" (in the screenshot above) Since any TBx tech will kick in once high CPU load is detected (and all other conditions are met e.g. temp below the CPU's TDP limit) Why explicitly define an App on that list? Prioritize that specific app (other other apps)? All-core boost? But in any case, for starters, I ll try what you suggested, thanks
You don't need to install any turbo boost software. the windows kernel and drivers do everything for you The turbo boost 3.0 will only happen on light 1 core loads. Prime95 is not light. Idle tasks or web browsing might trigger the tb3.0 speeds
Also, you can enable it on your motherboard bios to use TubroBoost.. That what I did my i7 core 4.00GHz and will hit turbo to 4.65Ghz.. ) ATGPUD2003
well, I did mention that - its just that I didn't take it for granted (as with many similar MS statements in the past). After all, it installs OK and even shows that it is 'Enabled' So if their Turbo boost tech ver 3.0 doesn't work because of that, still the TB 2.0 should work. So I ll try to find the older TB 2.0 driver and use that instead
Just deploy a 1809 install in parallel using a native vhd, so you can check in 10 minutes if the requirement is real or not. Stop with that "driver" thing I never installed a TB driver in my life and my TB works
I have no intention switching to 1809 just for the TB to work.. If I could get the 2.0 TB to work (as it should) on the 1607, that ll be great. Otherwise I ll just forget about it, no worries
OK... This is a screenshot of what I saw, during the last time I used that PC It was taken right after boot. The tool reported 3.6GHz just for 1-2 seconds, before dropping down to the usual 1.2GHz Subsequently, it only ever went back to 3.6GHz after starting up 'Computer Management', but this time only for a split second So my question now would be - is this figure reliable enough to conclude that TB indeed works on that system? And if it does work, 3.6GHz is TB speed - but TB3max specs says it should be 3.8GHz. Not that I care much, only curious.. @acer-5100 regarding my remarks about the 'TB driver' - this is actually a requirement (at least for custom desktop PCs that I ve build) There was always a relevant driver that needed to be installed (from the motherboard vendor) - otherwise I d get a 'yellow mark/unknown device' in Device Manager Mind you - I ve always installed device drivers manually (and not via online update) - so this could be the reason why you never had to worry about installing something with regard to TB (?)
Isn't that way that problems are bisected. If you use a parallel 1809 you can be sure that the problems isn't elsewhere, (buggy bios, wrong bios setting, whatever). I'm not suggesting to move to 1809 I'm suggesting to use as evidence. On a modern machine it's 10 minutes to set it up, and 1 second to delete one file when isn't needed anymore (perhaps, personally I have always at least a second OS as emergency option, since the win95 days, Android has it by design)
That's what I mean, I don't mind wasting my time doing manually what the PC does perfect by itself, and installing any needed drivers is usually included in that category. Notebooks with dual VGA or more exotic setups may get the wrong (or not the best) driver, but that's the proverbial exception that confirms the rule.
I ll have to (respectfully) disagree here. What Windows finds online from its repo - isn't always the "optimal". And I m not even talking about exotic setups Perfect example of that is its tendency to prefer the 'standard SATA AHCI controller' over the ideal RST/RSTe drvs (version depending on the chipset) And I have even witnessed few similar cases for GPU drivers too. So to me, some manual work, or at least a check is somewhat inevitable All I m saying its not a good idea to rely on Windows about such aspects (if not about anything really), even though as you say that in most cases, it will get it right on its own
Please... WU at least since the W8x days does a pretty good job updating drivers, we aren't anymore in the XP days (when the WU drivers where pretty limited but still good) Indeed that's the right thing to do, by far. RST drivers should be thoroughly restricted to raid only setups, in normal AHCI scenario they are a cancer, hard to cure. Trying to solve already solved problems is against my religion. I spent two decades doing manual setups when it was needed, now I can use my time with something more intelligent, or at least with something more in line with current needs.
Can you ellaborate bit more on why that is? Just curious (about normal AHCI scenario) My info may be outdated (athough I never faced any issues with the RST drv)
AHCI is industry standard, it works and it works well, except on some early implementation on some NVIDIA chipsets and other older chipsets which are now almost completely extinct. In the specific Intel case the RST drivers messes the storage settings in a way that makes almost impossible moving your OS to a better AMD platform (or even to a older/newer Intel MB), all of this providing practically nothing in exchange, except a bunch of additional troubles when dealing with low level utilities like the SSD FW updater. We have a said in my language that can be roughly translated in "better is the enemy of well", it's a damn right said.