f13.net

Disclaimer:  This post is probably a result of being paranoid because of too much information given to someone without proper knowledge of what that information means.

I was doing some reading on quad vs dual cores and overclocking.  One of the articles I came across was one on Toms Hardware in which they pitted the Q6600 vs the E6750.  I noted they were using CPU-Z to gleem some nifty information regarding the processors they were testing.  Intrigued, I downloaded it, ran it.  What it's showing is a bit disconcerting...

From the Toms Hardware article found here (http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/08/dual_vs_quad/page3.html), you can see the CPUZ readings of their Q6600 test proc.

This is my information saved from txt file:
Processor 1 (ID = 0)
Number of cores      4 (max 4)
Number of threads   4 (max 4)
Name         Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600
Codename      Kentsfield
Specification      Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU    Q6600  @ 2.40GHz
Package         Socket 775 LGA (platform ID = 4h)
CPUID         6.F.B
Extended CPUID      6.F
Core Stepping      G0
Technology      65 nm
Core Speed      1601.2 MHz (6.0 x 266.9 MHz)
Rated Bus speed      1067.5 MHz
Stock frequency      2400 MHz
Instructions sets   MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, EM64T
L1 Data cache      4 x 32 KBytes, 8-way set associative, 64-byte line size
L1 Instruction cache   4 x 32 KBytes, 8-way set associative, 64-byte line size
L2 cache      2 x 4096 KBytes, 16-way set associative, 64-byte line size
FID/VID Control      yes
FID range      6.0x - 9.0x
max VID         1.275 V
Features      XD, VT

The multiplier on mine is x 6.0, whereas the Toms Hardware graphic shows x 9.0 (6 - 9).  My core voltage is a bit lower as well, 1.140-1.155 vs 1.280v.  The core voltage on mine is raising and lowering but not getting higher than 1.158ish. 

My 'readings' are at essentially an idle state, with a couple IE windows open, msn messenger, and normal background processes like antiviri and such.   Every so often, the core speed reading jumps up the 2400 range, and the 'multiplier' reading jumps to x 9.0.

So my question is, is this normal?   

All of my BIOS voltages and such are set at 'auto', which is pretty much what I've always done.

Should they be set to specific voltages?

Yes, your machine is acting normally. At idle, some chips are 'clocked down' to save power, then crank up via multiplier to the actual designated speed. Its all in what motherboard you're using. I suspect you've got, what, either an Asus or a Gigabyte. You can go in there and set the clockspeed to 'normal', which will lock your clock speed at the default level for your CPU, or you can leave it at 'adaptive' or whatever your brand calls it, which clocks it down under low load.

As far as messing with voltages, I wouldn't worry about it. In a nutshell, if you want to OC your CPU, then you sometimes have to inch up your voltage a hair at a time while increasing either your base frequency and/or multiplier. Since I don't think you're interested in doing that, your default voltage may seem a bit low to you, but if it runs stably, that's all it requires.

Run Prime95 or something that eats all your CPU cycles - it should show as 9 then.

Yes, its normal.

Your seeing "Speedstep (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpeedStep)" in action, it will dynamically scale the processor to meet processing demands.

Your BIOS settings of auto preforms a lookup of the processors specified voltages/multiplier/FSB and set the system accordingly. Its also used to overclock if you push say the FSB or multiplier higher outside of the "normal/auto" spec.

You can download (http://www.overclock.net/downloads/138139-intel-tat.html) a copy of TAT (Intel's Thermal Analysis Tool) and I bet you will see a change in your cores C-State corresponding to your changes in CPU-Z.

The C-States define the idle power state of a processor or core and the scaling of power and features(All related to speedstep). There's a great user friendly article at Intel Blog (http://softwareblogs.intel.com/2008/03/27/update-c-states-c-states-and-even-more-c-states/).