Task Manager reporting wrong CPU frequency


Recommended Posts

Don't know if this is a bug or a feature but the Windows 8 Task Manager always shows frequency higher than CPU-Z.

When I do CPU intensive task, it shows 5.10 Ghz frequency which is obviously wrong as my i5-3550 has maximum frequency limit of 4.10 Ghz.

fmrpM.jpg

Anyone noticed this? Clean re-install nor updating BIOS helped.

Well your CPU will automatically underclock itself when it's not being used, so that part is probably correct.

But when it displays 5.1GHz, I have no idea what's going on there. Does CPU-Z show the same thing?

This is normal if speedstep is on and you are using Balanced as your power plan AFAIK.

The CPU will clock down, then clock up to it's standard operating speed. That CPU operates at 3.30Ghz, and Turbos up to 3.7Ghz. Run prime95 on it and you should see it go up to 3.7Ghz.

I don't see where it says 5.1ghz but I don't know why it's showing 4.1Ghz unless you overclocked it

  On 09/10/2012 at 14:15, sanke1 said:

CPU-Z shows 4.1 Ghz. Windows task manager shows 4.8 Ghz or 5.1 Ghz depending on it's mood.

I would definitely say it's a Windows problem then. But you shouldn't be surprised. :rolleyes:

  On 09/10/2012 at 14:10, sanke1 said:

Don't know if this is a bug or a feature but the Windows 8 Task Manager always shows frequency higher than CPU-Z.

When I do CPU intensive task, it shows 5.10 Ghz frequency which is obviously wrong as my i5-3550 has maximum frequency limit of 4.10 Ghz.

Anyone noticed this? Clean re-install nor updating BIOS helped.

the newer intel cores have "Turbo Boost". Which will underclock your CPU automagically during low loads. During more CPU intensive tasks it will bring it up to speed. It's possible that when CPUz is launched it doesn't have much load and as such you see a lower speed, whereas I am assuming Windows 8 can take that into account and show the maximum, as well as the current.

  On 09/10/2012 at 14:58, Deranged said:

If you've got the system overclocked then yes, it's probably just showing the max speed under TurboBoost. When only one or two cores are active it'll boost the speeds. http://en.wikipedia....tel_Turbo_Boost

i5-3550 is Non-K edition. It cannot be overclocked.

  • 2 months later...
  Quote
i5-3550 is Non-K edition. It cannot be overclocked.

That has absolutely nothing to do with it. Turbo Boost doesn't require a K series processor and is enabled on most of the I-series processors. Basically if it detects that a running program isn't multi-core optimized it shuts off some (1, 2, or even 3) of the cores and overclocks the remaining cores.

For example, my processor is 1.73 but with turbo boost enabled (on 1 core for this example) it rises to 2.93.

What's weird though is Intel says your CPU has a max turbo frequency of 3.7, but Windows is reporting 4.1/5.1 :/ Maybe your motherboard/BIOS is reporting the wrong CPU?

^^ Motherboard and Bios are reporting the exact CPU which I purchased. It's just that Windows Task Manager reports incorrect frequency compared to CPUz or any other CPU freq monitoring program.

This issue has nothing to do with overclocking. The new Task Manager in Windows 8 is incapable of reading correct CPU speeds in some cases. I call this Windows bug.

People replying about Speedstep, try reading again. Looking at the pictures will help explain, also. That's what they're there for.

That being said, I've not seen that, but I generally use slightly older processors. Maybe it's the way the newer ones are seen by the OS?

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Of course the sales are bad. Who even asked for a thinner phone with way less battery? Lightness? It's still a giant brick, it's just a thinner giant brick. It makes no sense at all. Making folding phones thinner, now that does make sense. Because when folded, the thinner it is unfolded, the more usable and pocketable it is when folded. You already expect worse battery at expense of actually being more pocketable. Galaxy Flip, when folded is half the size of S Ultra models and about as thick. That does make a big difference when fitting it in a pocket. But the phone that's as big as Ultra, making it thinner, you don't really solve anything, it's still a giant slab that barely fits into a pocket. All the "Mini" phones made way more sense than this thin crap. Especially now that it's literally impossible to find a phone smaller than 6.5". My dad only needs phone for calls and SMS and he doesn't want to go with smartphone because they are all so massive. Especially cheaper ones. Like, he'd be fine with Galaxy A06 for all he cares in terms of hardware, but it only comes in giant 6.7" format. It's useless. Or is he suppose to find a 800€ old gen iPhone Mini or Zenfone? He doesn't even need those stupid specs and such stupid price. And then you see old people fumbling around with giant smartphones and they don't even need 3/4 of features on them.
    • its funny now instead of robots built for a specific task which is more efficient we are focused on humanoid robots that are built for do anything but might not do it as well because of restrictions similar to how human body works and they were molded after...
    • 3,900 mAh. When compared to the S25 Ultra (5,000), the S25+ (4,900) and the S25 (4,000), it has the worst battery of them all, all because of that slim size. Everything comes with sacrifices.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      emptyother earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Crunchy6 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      KynanSEIT earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      gowtham07 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Collaborator
      lethalman went up a rank
      Collaborator
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      671
    2. 2
      ATLien_0
      272
    3. 3
      Michael Scrip
      218
    4. 4
      +FloatingFatMan
      165
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      163
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!