Take the 2-minute tour ×
Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I was reading this article, and I couldn't help noticing this:

...7003.38 MHz, with two CPU cores enabled and hyper-threading disabled.

Does disabling some CPU cores & disabling Hyper-Threading (or thermal throttle for AMD CPUs) really increase system stability, especially when overclocking?

share|improve this question
19  
Those features would be disabled to reduce the heat. Each core is its own hardware, if they are disabled, they wouldn't generate heat. Even a degree difference would help with such an extreme overclocking attempt. –  Ramhound Jun 18 at 17:00

4 Answers 4

up vote 30 down vote accepted

The OC described in your article involved increasing the core voltage by a huge degree. Additional features needed to be disabled to reduce heat generation while operating at that voltage and frequency.

"Stability" can mean a lot of things as relates to overclocking, but in this case, thermal stability is likely the highest priority.

share|improve this answer

The first thing that comes to mind, specifically with CPU cores, is that it would be easier to deal with the extreme heat that the cores would be producing. In addition, disabling hyper-threading should also, theoretically, help bring down the temperature which at those speeds and that voltage is probably his number one concern.

share|improve this answer
    
Yes, however more bang for your buck disabling a real core vs. disabling hyper-threading, which according to 11 yr old docs, is only an extra 5% of the core's die. –  Chris O Jun 19 at 12:21

CPU thermal instability may arise in the inner core (which is designed to work at higher temperatures than, say, the L2 cache) or in the outer CPU. If the CPU was a thermal superconductor it would be all at the same temperature and this would not matter.

Normally heat is removed from the whole surface covered by the heatsink, and is generated mostly in the core(s) and in lesser measure in the ancillary hardware depending on the power consumption rate per unit of volume (or of surface, since the CPU architecture is basically flat).

Penryn power density map

Raising the CPU voltage and frequency has the effect of increasing heat generation in the core. If this increase, minus the removed heat at steady-state, drives the temperature too high for the core, then it does not matter how many cores you disable - those still enabled will crash. Or fail due to electromigration after some time.

If the temperature is core-safe, though, you'll observe that the temperature outside the core is still driven upwards, as excess heat seeps from the core to the fringe (in red and yellow in the above picture).

So it can happen that while the core is below its critical temperature, it still raises the fringe temperature above fringe temperature tolerance. Then something in the fringe malfunctions, and the CPU in its entirety becomes "unstable", even if the cores themselves are still in the safe zone.

Since heat in the fringe comes (also) from all the cores, hyperthreading sections, and so on, disabling those features reduces this heat and may keep the fringe stable.

For that matter, even the kind of code which is being executed may influence the power generation; so that you may have failures when running the same code compiled with or without, e.g., SSE3 support. Actually, even the choice of instruction sequence may be relevant, and there are studies in that regard.

share|improve this answer

Yes, but that would be pointless unless for some reason you only care about single core performance, then yes disabling other cores will allow you to overclock a bit more.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.