BleepingComputer.com: Need To Find Cpu Speed, Pc Does Not Display...

My PC does not display the CPU speed in the system information, but I have a program that gives me information on all the hardware, including the processor, but I can't make sense of the numbers it gives me. Can someone tell me the speed?

Property	Value
Number of CPU(s)	One Physical Processor / One Core / One Logical Processor
Vendor	GenuineIntel
CPU Full Name	Intel Pentium III
CPU Code Name	Coppermine
Technology	0.18µ
Platform Name	Slot 1
Type	Original OEM processor
FSB Mode	SDR
Microcode ID	0D
Type ID	0
CPU Clock	642.65
System Bus Clock	98.87
System Clock	98.87
Multiplier	6.50
Original Clock	650.00
Original Bus Clock	100.00
Original System Clock	100.00
Original Multiplier	6.50
L2 Cache Speed	642.65 MHz
L2 Cache Speed	Full
CPU Family / Model / Stepping	6 / 8 / 1
Brand ID	02
L1 I-Cache	16 KB
L1 D-Cache	16 KB
L2 Cache	256 KB
RDMSR	CFC80000 00000000 00000000 00000000
MMX	Yes
SSE	Yes
SSE2	No
SSE3	No
SSSE3	No
DualCore	No
HyperThreading	No
IA-64	No
Intel 64 (EM64T)	No
XD	No
VT	No
SpeedStep	No
Architecture	x86

Looks like 642MHz. But go to start/ right click on My Computer/ select properties. If you are using XP, this will tell you.

I would agree with rowal, I have no idea what your 'multiplier' has to do with clock speed. Just out of curiosity, why are you worried about this speed?

Ryan 3000, on Jun 4 2007, 05:42 PM, said:

Multiply the actual system bus speed by the clock multiplier to obtain the CPU internal speed.

98.87 x 6.5 = 642.66. the system should have a bus of 100 MHZ x 6.5 = 650.00

So is the multiplier the actual method by which you overclock things on your mobo?

I need the specs to see if I can run a game.

Ryan 3000, on Jun 4 2007, 07:22 PM, said:

Not necessarily. Overclocking depends on the processor. Some are clock multiplier locked, some are not.

If you are interested in overclocking, here is what I think is the best website on the net:

http://www.overclockers.com/

This post has been edited by oldf@rt: 04 June 2007 - 10:32 PM

FWIW - back in the good old days the multipliers weren't locked and it was the easiest way to overclock a processor. AMD used to cut the traces on their processors (the old Thunderbird one's at least) and you could unlock the multiplier with a pencil.

Generally there's only 2 ways to raise (overclock) the processor speed. That is you'll either raise the multiplier or raise the Front Side Bus (FSB) speed. Given that the multiplier is locked, the only recourse is to raise the FSB.

In the old days, raising the FSB would raise the speed of all the components on the system - so the overclock was limited by the weakest link in the system (could have been video, could have been RAM, could have been the processor, could have even been the motherboard). With the newer mobo's, these speeds (and the relationships between them) are customizable - so you can raise the FSB without adversely impacting the rest of the system. This will result in a higher, stable overclock for the processor.

Just out of curiousity, overclocking is stressing the system beyond its designed limits so, what would be a reasonably safe figure. 1%, 10% or what??

Depends on the components in question. It varies even between the same components. 5% in one case, 30% in another. What you do is only shorten the life-span of the components. In most cases the system will become unstable and refuse to start way before you come close to damaging something.

Yea, actually processors are made in batch. i.e., all Conroes are made on one die. The limits on speed varies from processor to processor and they are classified by what speed they can safely reach, so hypothetically you are getting the same core with any of the Conroe series.

A "safe" figure for overclocking would be 0%. By definition, stressing a system past it's design specs will stress the system - which will presumably have damaging effects on the overclocked hardware. This isn't just hardware failures, but it's also related to reliability, stability and even to the lifespan of the component.