[radcapricorn]

Originally Posted by yurtesen

The program is pretty trustable and it is based on a well known assembly command. It is very short and you can see the source code to review as well. It also gives correct processor speed on every platform I run it.

I assume you have read the Wikipedia page about RDTSC carefully enough? You can not ever fetch current CPU speed using single instruction wrapped into a loop, (to my memory, such a possibility died loooong ago). Instead, to do this, you need to use (BI)OS-level access layer to power subsystems info that can fetch CPU info at different levels, summarize it and make trustable conclusions.

Also, if you read my first post, I already mentioned that powerd is not increasing the speed during the test.

I said "it may well be", not "it will"

Can you explain why you think that cpufreq is working? I mean how do you come to this conclusion?

I come to this conclusion by what cpufreq and sysctl tell me. Because they do query the hardware in a legitimate, safe and quite precise manner.

But if cpufreq doesnt work but acpi_ppc works then wouldnt you say that there is a problem in cpufreq which should be fixed? because it is obviously lying to people and it can be fixed?

I would. If it were true, I would.

With what information you are certain that cpufreq works properly for you? I have to say, "I'm certain" does not qualify as a proof, do you see scientists having theories/hyphothesis backed up with "I'm certain" ?

Ooooh, they actually always say that Well, the answer's above.

I asked this to you in my previous post also. How do you know that cpufreq really works? If you cant give a solid, verifiable answer to this question then it means that it is not a fact that it works, it is your opinion/view that it works which can be right or wrong (which makes an opinion without proof mostly useless eh?)

The answer you seek is embodied in the three paragraphs at the beginning of my reply. For a short review: cpufreq (and sysctl facility) are a well-weighed, tested and approved softgets that WILL work provided the hardware/bios works. chkfreq, on the contrary, is a too simple tool to make such a great judgement as current CPU frequency.

Oh and BTW, have you checked temperature counts while using cpufreq? Don't they change a bit? Mine do.

Please understand that I am not trying to be offensive here,

I do understand it quite well. In fact, we're in a very interesting discussion here. Though I must say I suspect that if anyone else follows this little batallia, they're already becoming bored

but I have put my case with a lot of information and examples and I am getting answers which ignores and omits all those information. I just dont like explaining all again and again.

And what I'm trying to explain to you is why such a source as chkfreq cannot be lightly trusted despite the fact "it shows correct timings". Especially when it gets compared with the core OS component that exists and extends for several releases now.