Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

wulf · Nov 19, 2003, 07:55 AM

(No-one seems to have posted on this yet, so...)

Following the information posted here, (mentioned on MacNN news) I entered the following into Terminal:

Code:
sysctl hw.cpufrequency

which reports back what speed your computer is running at. Or thinks it's running at.

My Ti867 (plugged in, fully charged battery) was only running at 667MHz.

One Power Management reset later and my 'Book was back to full speed.

Anyone else get this?

anaphora68 · Nov 19, 2003, 08:11 AM

hw.cpufrequency: 999999996

I have a 1 Ghz aluminum, appears to be OK. Anyone else?

cambro · 10:45 AM

Read the posts on the site you linked!!

The answer is in there.

EDIT:: NO IT ISN'T. I think they are on a witch hunt conspiracy theory trip over there. Read my post below to find out why.

cambro · Nov 19, 2003, 10:43 AM

Still....I'm skeptical that the processor is *really* stuck at a low setting rather than something being funky with the sysctl hw.cpufrequency results.

For example, sysctl hw.cpufrequency gives a score of 667 on my Ghz Ti Book. However, I ran X-bench and it reported a speed of 1Ghz and I get a processor score of about 120. Comparing my processor score to a bunch of Ghz Ti books on the X-bench results page indicates that my book is perfectly comparable to other Ghz Tibooks running this test.

So, either EVERY single Ghz TiBook out there that has submitted X-bench scores is really running at half speed, or some machines give bad sysctl hw.cpufrequency results, for whatever reasons (PMU?).

But HERE IS THE PROOF that sysctl hw.cpufrequency is screwing up (more or less):

If I go on battery power and run X-bench, my processor score drops to about 70, however sysctl hw.cpufrequency still reports 667!!!! Thus, I think it is pretty clear that sysctl hw.cpufrequency is incorrect, NOT the actual processor speed.

gdiddy · Nov 19, 2003, 12:14 PM

Last login: Wed Nov 19 10:22:08 on console
Welcome to Darwin!
[GigaZilla:~] george% sysctl hw.cpufrequency
hw.cpufrequency: 667000000

Hmmm... Same thing here on a Ti 1ghz. Gonna try resetting.

wulf · Nov 19, 2003, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by cambro:
I think it is pretty clear that sysctl hw.cpufrequency is incorrect, NOT the actual processor speed.

I think you must be right. I didn't have time to do any benchtests (at work now). But it seems more likely to be an error in the reading (or PMU derived info) than actual choked hardware.

Still, curious...

gdiddy · Nov 19, 2003, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by gdiddy:
Last login: Wed Nov 19 10:22:08 on console
Welcome to Darwin!
[GigaZilla:~] george% sysctl hw.cpufrequency
hw.cpufrequency: 667000000

Hmmm... Same thing here on a Ti 1ghz. Gonna try resetting.

Welcome to Darwin!
[GigaZilla:~] george% sysctl hw.cpufrequency
hw.cpufrequency: 999999997

After reset. I feel much better even if it was just a glitch in sysctl hw.cpufrequency.

threestain · Nov 19, 2003, 12:39 PM

I get 667000000 too - on a 1GHz TiBook. What do you lose when you do the reset? Is it just stuff like time and date, or more important stuff?

emalen · Nov 19, 2003, 01:49 PM

I'm glad someone brought this up - as no one replied to my earlier posts...

i am convinced my 1.25 PB superdrive isn't actually 1.25.... or something is off...

at times i find that my ibook does things faster (like starting up)

is there a easy way to check.. ie. a simple program (one that you don't have to be a computer techie/genius to understand)

thanks,
emalen

Mourn · Nov 19, 2003, 04:14 PM

For me, xbench suggests its a reporting error, however resetting the pmu didn't fix whatever the problem was. Immediately after resetting the pmu, it reported the proper processor speed, but when i rebooted it was back to reporting the lower cpu frequency.

I would like "official" confirmation it's just a reporting error, however.

Powaqqatsi · Nov 19, 2003, 05:29 PM

My Ti867 reports 667 too...

xylon · Nov 19, 2003, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by emalen:
I'm glad someone brought this up - as no one replied to my earlier posts...

i am convinced my 1.25 PB superdrive isn't actually 1.25.... or something is off...

at times i find that my ibook does things faster (like starting up)

is there a easy way to check.. ie. a simple program (one that you don't have to be a computer techie/genius to understand)

thanks,
emalen

emalen, you may want to try the "top" command in Terminal. You may have a process hogging your processor, as I did. Simply open the Terminal application, type "top" (without quotations) and hit enter. Have a gander at the resulting (rather long) list.

emalen · Nov 19, 2003, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by xylon:
emalen, you may want to try the "top" command in Terminal. You may have a process hogging your processor, as I did. Simply open the Terminal application, type "top" (without quotations) and hit enter. Have a gander at the resulting (rather long) list.

Thanks xylon,
I tried what you suggested, and nothing seemed to be hogging my processor.

In general my powerbook performs well.. although I do find it completely odd that my ibook 600 starts up faster then my powerbook.

threestain · Nov 20, 2003, 04:51 AM

My comp has also gone straight back to 667000000 after a restart for a 1GHz Tibook. this is quite a difference - hopefully just a bug?

wulf · Nov 20, 2003, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by wulf:
I think you must be right. I didn't have time to do any benchtests (at work now). But it seems more likely to be an error in the reading (or PMU derived info) than actual choked hardware.

Still, curious...

OK, so after installing the Security Update, restart, sysctl hw.cpufrequency once again reported 667MHz.

Ran Xbench, score ~54, shutdown, reset PMU, restart, cpufrequency reports 867 (as it should), ran xbench, score ~54.

So (as cambro said) my Ti wasn't running any slower. It just thought it was

dialo · Nov 20, 2003, 11:18 AM

Ghz Ti

hw.cpufrequency = 1000000000

ilion · Nov 21, 2003, 04:57 AM

12" 867 256ram

I've run the command in Terminal and received the reduced processor speed (566... or whatever).

But now I'm reading that this may simply be a command problem or software bug? That is, the computer is really running at 867, but another program thinks it's running at 566?

I'm quite confused and paranoid, as futzing with Terminal doesn't exactly put me at ease.

Anyone have any noticeable improvements with their systems after clearing the power settings? I've had problems with games and I'm wondering if this might be the problem.

And for my most pathetic question: wiping the power settings will supposedly erase RAM disks... what are these? (prepares to be smoten).

And finally, will the power manager settings, once reset, somehow go back to what they were before? I.e., back to reading the processor at reduced speed?

Macfreak7 · Nov 21, 2003, 05:46 AM

After resetting the power manager it went up to ~866 from ~566.
Interesting.
Is everyone running panther?

inchhigh · Nov 21, 2003, 03:59 PM

I also have a 1Ghz TiPB that reports the following under Panther (10.3.1):

%sysctl hw.cpufrequency
hw.cpufrequency: 667000000

I tried resetting the PMU and it went to 1000, but reset to 667 on next reboot.

XBench, CHUD and Skidmarks GT all indicate that I am running at full speed though. These benchmarks do decrease proportionately when I change the setting in Energy Settings for Highest to Reduced so I'm feeling this is more an error of reporting of sysctl.

It would be nice to hear some official word on this, of course lately Apple doesn't speak on anything that might cast them in a negative light without pending legal action hanging over their heads. More likely they will fix it quietly without ever admitting anything, or even more likely there will be an update that changes nothing except to remove the sysctl command. Welcome to the new world.

In any case I won't lose sleep over it.

Macfreak7 · Nov 21, 2003, 09:21 PM

I just tried the same thing on a 550Mhz Titanium and it showed 550. So is it just the new PBs?

buddhabelly · Nov 23, 2003, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by Macfreak7:
I just tried the same thing on a 550Mhz Titanium and it showed 550. So is it just the new PBs?

Maybe only because the newer powerbooks allowed you to scale back the CPU speed to preserve power. I don't think the 550, 500 and 400 did this.

At anyrate, I have the same thing happen here on a 1ghz TiBook.

hl_keyboard · Nov 24, 2003, 01:10 AM

My 15AL 1.25 gives back so i would guess it's an incompatibility with the mainboard commands on the older powerbooks.

But i'm not the guy to ask.

dialo · Nov 24, 2003, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by buddhabelly:
Maybe only because the newer powerbooks allowed you to scale back the CPU speed to preserve power. I don't think the 550, 500 and 400 did this.

Older powerbooks had a reduced setting.

sysctl hw.cpufrequency is not accurate. It was fine in jaguar, but since I've updated to panther it is giving me the lower frequency. Again, it is not accurate.

buddhabelly · Nov 24, 2003, 03:41 AM

Originally posted by dialo:
Older powerbooks had a reduced setting.

sysctl hw.cpufrequency is not accurate. It was fine in jaguar, but since I've updated to panther it is giving me the lower frequency. Again, it is not accurate.

So if it's not accurate, what, if anything, is?

ngrundy · Nov 24, 2003, 04:27 AM

Originally posted by buddhabelly:
So if it's not accurate, what, if anything, is?

The marketing material.

adamberti · Nov 24, 2003, 04:55 AM

Originally posted by dialo:
Older powerbooks had a reduced setting.

sysctl hw.cpufrequency is not accurate. It was fine in jaguar, but since I've updated to panther it is giving me the lower frequency. Again, it is not accurate.

I'm still running Jaguar on this TiBook and I'm getting the 667 report, although it's set to run at 1 GHz. It has seemed slow lately, but I think it's just that Mail.app is FUBAR and needs replacing, as it is hogging my cycles and doing strange things. Meanwhile MS Word is doing absolutly nothing right now, expcept chewing up more cycles, so between the two, they're using about 50%...

Bugger.

forcelite · Nov 24, 2003, 11:13 AM

You guys know that the power management settings will underclock the processor in order to get more battery life. This has been done for awhile, even intel uses the same technology called speedstep.

This is why you will see it underclocked, all you have to do is set it to high performance.

bamchum · Nov 24, 2003, 04:28 PM

It's not that. People, including me, are getting readings below the official clock speed even when they have the processor speed set to "Highest" in Energy Saver.

Macfreak7 · Nov 24, 2003, 05:06 PM

Ok one more thing: Try changing the setting in energy saver to REDUCED, and THEN check the terminal, it doesn't get reduced.
So wtf is going on? Anyone with PowerMacs or iMacs wanna check this?