AMD Ryzen 7 3800X review
PowerColor 5700 RED DEVIL review
MSI Radeon RX 5700 XT Evoke review
ASUS Radeon RX 5700 XT ROG STRIX review
ViewSonic Elite XG240R Monitor Review
Promo: URCDKey Summer Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
X570 Aorus master review
Cooler Master Silencio S600 review
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G review
ASUS RoG Swift PG35VQ Monitor review
HWiNFO64 Download v6.10
on: 07/31/2019 11:29 AM [ 6 comment(s) ]
Advertisement
Download HWiNFO64 - a System Information and Diagnostics Tool. HWInfo64 is an application that monitors your PC's components and outs computer information about your the operating system, storage capacity, and RAM. It also displays more technical data, such as the number of logical CPUs, memory speed, and temperatures.
HWiNFO is a professional hardware information and diagnostic tools supporting latest components, industry technologies, and standards. Both tools are targeted to recognize and extract the most possible amount of information about computer's hardware which makes them suitable for users searching for driver updates, computer manufacturers, system integrators and technical experts too.
Changes:
- Enhanced sensor monitoring on ASUS CROSSHAIR VIII series.
- Added monitoring of AMD X570 chipset temperature.
- Enhanced sensor monitoring on ASUS PRIME X570 and TUF X570 series.
- Enhanced sensor monitoring on ASUS Pro WS X570-ACE.
- Added NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER, 2070 SUPER and 2080 SUPER.
- Added monitoring of Infineon XDPE10281 on GPU (Galax RTX 2080 Ti HOF).
- Enhanced sensor monitoring on ASRock X570 series.
- Enhanced sensor monitoring on ASUS ROG STRIX B365-F and STRIX B365-G.
- Added reporting of Favored Cores List for Intel CPUs.
- Several minor improvements and bugfixes.
- Preliminary sensor monitoring enhancements for ASUS ROG ZENITH II and X590 series.
- Added ability to show custom sensors.
chispy
Senior Member
Posts: 8758
Joined: 2006-10-29
Senior Member
Posts: 8758
Joined: 2006-10-29
#5656687 Posted on: 04/03/2019 04:54 PM
Thank you for the update Mumak , downloading now.
Thank you for the update Mumak , downloading now.
Groot
Junior Member
Posts: 13
Joined: 2016-09-08
Junior Member
Posts: 13
Joined: 2016-09-08
#5661059 Posted on: 04/17/2019 04:18 PM
Ran v6.04 with Z97 + i7-4980HQ and HWinfo seems to be reporting only 80% of CPU / DRAM power. In fact this 80% reporting seems to go way back to at least version 543
Version 502 gives the expected values so don't know why newer versions are different.
Ran v6.04 with Z97 + i7-4980HQ and HWinfo seems to be reporting only 80% of CPU / DRAM power. In fact this 80% reporting seems to go way back to at least version 543
Version 502 gives the expected values so don't know why newer versions are different.
Mumak
Senior Member
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-05
Senior Member
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-05
#5669635 Posted on: 05/15/2019 10:38 PM
Ran v6.04 with Z97 + i7-4980HQ and HWinfo seems to be reporting only 80% of CPU / DRAM power. In fact this 80% reporting seems to go way back to at least version 543
Version 502 gives the expected values so don't know why newer versions are different.
What is your actual BCLK and what PCIe clock is shown in HWiNFO, 125 MHz ?
It would be great if you could attach the HWiNFO Debug File.
Ran v6.04 with Z97 + i7-4980HQ and HWinfo seems to be reporting only 80% of CPU / DRAM power. In fact this 80% reporting seems to go way back to at least version 543
Version 502 gives the expected values so don't know why newer versions are different.
What is your actual BCLK and what PCIe clock is shown in HWiNFO, 125 MHz ?
It would be great if you could attach the HWiNFO Debug File.
Groot
Junior Member
Posts: 13
Joined: 2016-09-08
Junior Member
Posts: 13
Joined: 2016-09-08
#5671729 Posted on: 05/22/2019 07:27 AM
Hi Martin, in that particular SS using 4:5 strap, BCLK 125, PCIe 100.
RAPL appears tied to BCLK, ie proportionally more counts per millisecond the higher BCLK is.
For instance using a forced power limit of 40W with fixed voltage supply shows the same power delta form mains supply, 12V Rail supply and VRM IOUT for straps of 5:5, 4:5 and 3:5 and same throttled clocks at 100MHz, 125MHz and 167MHz BCLK. HWiNFO shows 40W for package power for all straps while the others including latest XTU to date show 40W, 50W and 66W respectively, each proportional to the strap used. So in this case HWiNFO is correct and others wrong.
I'm assuming you switched to using the strap ratio for RAPL estimations at some point but have maybe forgotten with all that has happened since then. Your results don't seem to be based solely on BCLK as changing BCLK to 95MHz and PCIe at 95MHz results in 38W being reported with 40W limit. I'm a little surprised this isn't mentioned in the Intel SDM or specification update unless I missed it and even more surprised that XTU is incorrect.
Hi Martin, in that particular SS using 4:5 strap, BCLK 125, PCIe 100.
RAPL appears tied to BCLK, ie proportionally more counts per millisecond the higher BCLK is.
For instance using a forced power limit of 40W with fixed voltage supply shows the same power delta form mains supply, 12V Rail supply and VRM IOUT for straps of 5:5, 4:5 and 3:5 and same throttled clocks at 100MHz, 125MHz and 167MHz BCLK. HWiNFO shows 40W for package power for all straps while the others including latest XTU to date show 40W, 50W and 66W respectively, each proportional to the strap used. So in this case HWiNFO is correct and others wrong.
I'm assuming you switched to using the strap ratio for RAPL estimations at some point but have maybe forgotten with all that has happened since then. Your results don't seem to be based solely on BCLK as changing BCLK to 95MHz and PCIe at 95MHz results in 38W being reported with 40W limit. I'm a little surprised this isn't mentioned in the Intel SDM or specification update unless I missed it and even more surprised that XTU is incorrect.
Mumak
Senior Member
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-05
Senior Member
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-05
#5671886 Posted on: 05/22/2019 03:46 PM
Hi Martin, in that particular SS using 4:5 strap, BCLK 125, PCIe 100.
RAPL appears tied to BCLK, ie proportionally more counts per millisecond the higher BCLK is.
For instance using a forced power limit of 40W with fixed voltage supply shows the same power delta form mains supply, 12V Rail supply and VRM IOUT for straps of 5:5, 4:5 and 3:5 and same throttled clocks at 100MHz, 125MHz and 167MHz BCLK. HWiNFO shows 40W for package power for all straps while the others including latest XTU to date show 40W, 50W and 66W respectively, each proportional to the strap used. So in this case HWiNFO is correct and others wrong.
I'm assuming you switched to using the strap ratio for RAPL estimations at some point but have maybe forgotten with all that has happened since then. Your results don't seem to be based solely on BCLK as changing BCLK to 95MHz and PCIe at 95MHz results in 38W being reported with 40W limit. I'm a little surprised this isn't mentioned in the Intel SDM or specification update unless I missed it and even more surprised that XTU is incorrect.
Indeed, there's a RAPL power adjustment done by HWiNFO, but it is tied only to those cases where a different PCIE:BCLK strap is used. So in case of 95 MHz BCLK this isn't applied.
Problem is that this is not well documented by Intel, not even in special non-public documents.
So besides the case of 95 MHz, in which other cases you see the issue? I'd really need to see the HWiNFO Debug File for those so I can check why it's not correct.
Hi Martin, in that particular SS using 4:5 strap, BCLK 125, PCIe 100.
RAPL appears tied to BCLK, ie proportionally more counts per millisecond the higher BCLK is.
For instance using a forced power limit of 40W with fixed voltage supply shows the same power delta form mains supply, 12V Rail supply and VRM IOUT for straps of 5:5, 4:5 and 3:5 and same throttled clocks at 100MHz, 125MHz and 167MHz BCLK. HWiNFO shows 40W for package power for all straps while the others including latest XTU to date show 40W, 50W and 66W respectively, each proportional to the strap used. So in this case HWiNFO is correct and others wrong.
I'm assuming you switched to using the strap ratio for RAPL estimations at some point but have maybe forgotten with all that has happened since then. Your results don't seem to be based solely on BCLK as changing BCLK to 95MHz and PCIe at 95MHz results in 38W being reported with 40W limit. I'm a little surprised this isn't mentioned in the Intel SDM or specification update unless I missed it and even more surprised that XTU is incorrect.
Indeed, there's a RAPL power adjustment done by HWiNFO, but it is tied only to those cases where a different PCIE:BCLK strap is used. So in case of 95 MHz BCLK this isn't applied.
Problem is that this is not well documented by Intel, not even in special non-public documents.
So besides the case of 95 MHz, in which other cases you see the issue? I'd really need to see the HWiNFO Debug File for those so I can check why it's not correct.
Post New Comment
Click here to post a comment for this file on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 11383
Joined: 2008-08-28
Thanks!