# OFFICIAL 5900X and 5950X two chiplet Zen 3 CPUs Overclocking thread



## Pietro

Since there is no such thread and plenty of people are interested how those new 2 chiplet Zen 3 processors are overclocking I'm starting a one. Post up your screens of OC's, cooler that you have used to do that, temperature under stability tests and a batch number if you know(it is placed on ryzen's IHS).

So here's mine:
*Cooler:* Noctua D15
*Temperatures*: up to 90 *C in blender rendering, AIDA CPU&FPU&Cache stress test in well ventilated case with many fans. Package power = 191W. VRMs on B550 Tomahawk after 1 hour AIDA test 52,5 *C on LL3 with 1000kHz swithing frequency.
*Batch:* 2037 SUS
*Voltage:* 1.2875V in bios on LL3 dropping to 1.269V(SVI2 TFN) under full avx load
*Infnity fabric max stable frequency:* who knows, currentyly 1900MHz is stable and more is not possible to achieve on newest MSI bios betas well basically noone can go over that on them and on older 2000MHz was rather easy to get, but it had plenty of whea errors - no crashes nor worse results.

*CCX OC in bios:*
CCX0 - 4725 MHz
CCX1 - 4600 MHz

Cinebench R20: 9306 points
Aida ram latency 62 ns with 4x16GB Crucial Ballistix 3200MHz CL16 @ 3800MHz 16-19-16-16-36-60 tRFC 580


----------



## managerman

Thanks for making this thread. Just got a 5950x and MSI x570 godlike. Should be a fun time. 

-M


----------



## pantsoftime

Looking forward to this thread.


----------



## Coldplayer

What does your single core boost to? Not sure how you managed 785 single core score.


----------



## gerardfraser

Coldplayer said:


> What does your single core boost to? Not sure how you managed 785 single core score.


Look at the test he ran,it is normal score for that test.


----------



## Coldplayer

EDIT: Ignore


----------



## Outcasst

My 5900x must be a complete dud. It'll only boost to 4.4GHz all core and reaches 86c in an R20 run.

Full custom loop with 2 x 360 PE rads. Tried remounting several times, I really just think the chip runs hot.


----------



## DeusM

Outcasst said:


> My 5900x must be a complete dud. It'll only boost to 4.4GHz all core and reaches 86c in an R20 run.
> 
> Full custom loop with 2 x 360 PE rads. Tried remounting several times, I really just think the chip runs hot.


What Mobo are you using? I was having the opposite issue where even with prime95 and OCCT the temp would not even reach over 60c. 


I ended up updating the bios to the beta (x570 unify) and it fixed a few of the issues. 


I have been hearing your problem with a lot of people with 5800x but it seems to be bios issues. Hopefully it is. 

In saying that my cinebench only runs @4.2 to 4.3 all core. My score is about 8300ish

Single core was at 645 i believe.


----------



## Outcasst

DeusM said:


> What Mobo are you using? I was having the opposite issue where even with prime95 and OCCT the temp would not even reach over 60c.
> 
> 
> I ended up updating the bios to the beta (x570 unify) and it fixed a few of the issues.
> 
> 
> I have been hearing your problem with a lot of people with 5800x but it seems to be bios issues. Hopefully it is.
> 
> In saying that my cinebench only runs @4.2 to 4.3 all core. My score is about 8300ish
> 
> Single core was at 645 i believe.


I'm using the Crosshair VIII hero. It's just very strange how this CPU heats up. It'll shoot up to 80c while at a couple percent load randomly while on the desktop.

I mean it's never thermal throttled at any point, and my cinebench scores seem to be in line with mainstream reviews.


----------



## RoadRashed

I just finished my rig a few days ago (well.....almost finished, still trying to find a @#@[email protected] 3080). Unavailable
I have not built a rig in almost 8 years....and have pretty much forgotten everything I learned back when I overclocked that one. Going to sit back and watch you smarter folks figure things out for a while before I do anything myself. Currently not even using XMP for the RAM...it is running at the "auto" 2666mhz due to a memory leak issue COD Cold War is having that causes the whole PC to shut down and reset, if XMP is used to set the RAM to 3600mhz (only game to do this, and has been confirmed to be a problem elsewhere). Can't wait to see what this beast will do eventually, once I feel like I've learned enough to avoid frying it. 

As far as temps go, when I run Prime 95 for hours, it very occasionally hits mid 70's, and then the AIO fans speed up just a bit and temps drop back below 60C. When I run GAMES though (COD, Fry Cry New Dawn, Doom), temps hit mid to high 80's. This is my first build with liquid cooling and was really expecting better results than that going with the Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360. My temps don't seem any better than folks running air coolers.... ***...


----------



## LesPaulLover

Outcasst said:


> My 5900x must be a complete dud. It'll only boost to 4.4GHz all core and reaches 86c in an R20 run.
> 
> Full custom loop with 2 x 360 PE rads. Tried remounting several times, I really just think the chip runs hot.


Yes they are hot-running chips. My 8C/16T 5800x runs about ~10c hotter than my 12C/24T 3900x. I'm ALSO on a custom loop w/ 2x 360mm rads w/ 5800x+RTX 3080 on the loop.

My GUESS is that it comes down to the density of the new 8-core CCD -- it's just way more heat packed into a tighter area.


----------



## LesPaulLover

Outcasst said:


> I'm using the Crosshair VIII hero. It's just very strange how this CPU heats up. It'll shoot up to 80c while at a couple percent load randomly while on the desktop.
> 
> I mean it's never thermal throttled at any point, and my cinebench scores seem to be in line with mainstream reviews.


If you monitor the chip in operation, you'll notice that under single/dual-core CPU loads the voltage will spike up to 1.475-1.500vcore. This is perfectly safe and within Ryzen design specs, and is ALSO the reason you see those temperature spikes. My 3900x and now my 5800x both work the same way (tho mine are under water so the temp-spikes I see top out closer to 62c -- air coolers reach saturation almost instantly though, so youll see much higher temp-spikes)

It makes setting custom fan curves very difficult. My reccommendation is to run your system under a CPU+GPU stress test and monitor and other NON-CPU motherboard temps readingss (System temps // PCIe Temps etc) and use THOSE numbers to set your fan curves. Otherwise your CPU fan especially will be constantly spinning up and down as those temp spikes occur.


----------



## Outcasst

Yeah I've come to terms with the temperatures now, I just can't for the life of me get this chip to boost above 4.4 all core with any PBO options. I can get it to "artificially" do it at 4.6, but the effective clock is much lower so I lose performance.

Coming from a 7700k so still getting used to how all this works. Very different compared to Intel.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Both my 5950x and 5900x only go to 1.45v under single core workload. 5950x actually boost lower at 4.9GHz which 5900x goes to 4.95GHz.


----------



## Dri1zzit

I have a question about motherboard compatibility for the 5900x. 

I am a beginner who would like to get into overclocking for better gaming performance on 4k (perhaps it won't matter at that high resolution and all I have to worry about is overclocking the graphics card, 3080?).

Will the Asus TUF Gaming x570x Pro be a suitable motherboard to overclock the 5900x? The board is cheaper than the Crosshair VIII Hero and Dark Hero (good luck finding the latter).


----------



## Outcasst

So turns out something is up with my loop. Tried the 5900x on the server which has an Asus x570 Pro and cine bench run is about 12c cooler at the same voltage and its only running a kraken x62.


----------



## DeusM

LesPaulLover said:


> Yes they are hot-running chips. My 8C/16T 5800x runs about ~10c hotter than my 12C/24T 3900x. I'm ALSO on a custom loop w/ 2x 360mm rads w/ 5800x+RTX 3080 on the loop.
> 
> My GUESS is that it comes down to the density of the new 8-core CCD -- it's just way more heat packed into a tighter area.


I wouldn't think so, my 3800x ran hotter then the current 5900x.


----------



## Section31

Delete


----------



## Ark-07

Outcasst said:


> My 5900x must be a complete dud. It'll only boost to 4.4GHz all core and reaches 86c in an R20 run.
> 
> Full custom loop with 2 x 360 PE rads. Tried remounting several times, I really just think the chip runs hot.


Im genuin


ZealotKi11er said:


> Both my 5950x and 5900x only go to 1.45v under single core workload. 5950x actually boost lower at 4.9GHz which 5900x goes to 4.95GHz.


Are you saying your getting actual sustained load max boost speeds? Unlike the 3900xt


----------



## calvin8997

Just finished building my system with minimal tuning.

Cooling: Noctua D15 /w conductonaut
Temps: 86C playing MS flight sim
Core: PBO +200mhz (auto boost to 4.7Ghz single thread or 4.4Ghz all core)
Voltage: Auto
Infinity fabric : 1900mhz (buildzoid told me to go offsync due to slower ram)
Memory: Hynix AFR B0 3000kit @ 3333 CL16 (ram from 2016)
GPU: Zotac 3080 trinity OC




















I am happy with the current performance with MS flight sim with 50+fps @ 4k ultra
not sure if more all core overclock or faster ram is going to further increase my fps
more tuning soon


----------



## Syjeklye

DeusM said:


> I wouldn't think so, my 3800x ran hotter then the current 5900x.


I just got my 5950x, also replaced a 3800x. I'm getting better temps on the 5950x than i did on my 3800x. I severely lost the silicon lottery on my 3800x though, max i could get was 4300 all core, in stock form, it never boosted above 4590mhz...

Super satisfied with this 5950x, still dialing in the OC though.


----------



## LionAlonso

calvin8997 said:


> Just finished building my system with minimal tuning.
> 
> Cooling: Noctua D15 /w conductonaut
> Temps: 86C playing MS flight sim
> Core: PBO +200mhz (auto boost to 4.7Ghz single thread or 4.4Ghz all core)
> Voltage: Auto
> Infinity fabric : 1900mhz (buildzoid told me to go offsync due to slower ram)
> Memory: Hynix AFR B0 3000kit @ 3333 CL16 (ram from 2016)
> GPU: Zotac 3080 trinity OC
> 
> View attachment 2467988
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2467989
> 
> 
> I am happy with the current performance with MS flight sim with 50+fps @ 4k ultra
> not sure if more all core overclock or faster ram is going to further increase my fps
> more tuning soon


Im sorry to say thats a horrible score, you must be clock stretching.
I would play with Curve optimizer and lower the 200Mhz for sure.


----------



## calvin8997

LionAlonso said:


> Im sorry to say thats a horrible score, you must be clock stretching.
> I would play with Curve optimizer and lower the 200Mhz for sure.


That was with all core at 4.4Ghz

Here is result from manual overclocking instead of PBO
CCX0: 4750
CCX1: 4650
1.2875v


----------



## smonkie

I'm experiencing a weird issue when enabling CCX OC in my 5950X. Bench scores are just right when everything is at stock, but as soon as I enable CCX overclock, only half of each chiplets reach the selected frequency (4.5 in this case):



I'm running this cpu in an Aorus Master X570 in which I tried a 3950X before with no issues playing with CCX. Any ideas?


----------



## shaolin95

Hello.
Glad to see this thread as this is my first AMD since phenom ii so i am feeling a bit lost right now.
So I got the 5950x with x570 hero wifi.

first of all .. Where do i fold the individual core temps?
i used to do it with hwinfo for my Intel ones but I just don't find them in that app.

Are there and guides around to get me a base to start from?
thanks!!


----------



## GRABibus

Hello,
What do you think about the H115i RGB Platinum for a 5950X ?

does someone use this combo ?

is this cooler enough to cool the beast at overclocks with Vcore 1,3V to 1,35V or would you recommend definitely a 360mm as Artic Freezer II 360 ?


----------



## HyperC

Is anybody else having a 10c difference in ccds


----------



## fockwulf

HyperC said:


> Is anybody else having a 10c difference in ccds


I am ! around 12°C although the peaks peak at 6°C.

5950X.


----------



## ForestWhitakersGoodEye

This is my result after playing around for 3-4 days

Managed to get 4000mhz @2000fclk but it lowers the latency by 4 (59.8ns),but it does increase Read,Write and Copy. Now I'm running 1.287 voltage if I go to 4000mhz @2000clk it needs to go up atleast to 1.350-1.400volt which gets to mid 80's to low 90's with NZXT Z73 running 3 Noctua NF-A12x25 fans at full speed

RAM - Team T-Force Xtreem 4500mhz 4x8GB

3800hz at 1900fclk and PBO enabled











4000mhz at 2000fclk and also same PBO enabled


----------



## VPII

Ever since I started using AMD Ryzen since my first Ryzen 7 1700 I always used manual overclocking as I prefered the all core boost to single core performance. However, currently with my Ryzen 9 5950X I've found that running the processor stock with PBO almost give me the same preformance in CB20 as I would get with my processor running 4.6ghz.... Yes I can push the processor higher as this is only using 1.3375 vcore but I prefer to keep the processor from reaching 90C CCD temps.

So here is firstly PBO first run, the second is when setting realitime and the last is with the processor at 4.6ghz, unfortunately this was using 1.25vcore so running realitime did not work.


----------



## pantsoftime

smonkie said:


> I'm experiencing a weird issue when enabling CCX OC in my 5950X. Bench scores are just right when everything is at stock, but as soon as I enable CCX overclock, only half of each chiplets reach the selected frequency (4.5 in this case):
> 
> I'm running this cpu in an Aorus Master X570 in which I tried a 3950X before with no issues playing with CCX. Any ideas?


Are you running any software-based CCX overclocking tools? I noticed that the Asus Zen2 "worktool" would have this effect on Zen3 CCD overclocking. The older quad-CCD tools seem to mess up with Zen3 due to the different architecture. 
If you're doing it with BIOS it might be a bug that you'll have to wait for Gigabyte to fix.


----------



## BluePaint

Managed to get 32100 [email protected]@1.3v fixed with WC + 480 rad 10C ambient. Temps must not exceed 70C much or it will crash at that voltage after 8 or 9 minutes. Higher voltage gets too hot.


----------



## Muqeshem

BluePaint said:


> Managed to get 32100 [email protected]@1.3v fixed with WC + 480 rad 10C ambient. Temps must not exceed 70C much or it will crash at that voltage after 8 or 9 minutes. Higher voltage gets too hot.
> View attachment 2470097


yeah do a ccx oc 4750mhz and 4600mhz and btw 1.3 is high, very very high. the ideal voltage is 1.25 volt. which a ryzen 9 5950x should achieve in all cores. My ryzen 9 5900x was able to achieve 4700mhz and 4650mhz in ccx0 and 1 at 1.25 volt with llc3.


----------



## BluePaint

4700 on 1.25 yes but not @ 4750 on my cpu. 5900 will be cooler than a 5950 so its easier to achieve stability. Also not sure how good my sample is. I just wanted to see whats the max all core under sustained full load.


----------



## Performer81

Im just using curve optimizer. I just dialed negative and 20 for all cores, ...done. Resulted in an allcore clock of 4450-4500 in Cinebench instead of 4150 before where i already hit powerlimit and about 100-200mhz more in Games. Using 5900X.
Im happy with it.


----------



## newls1

can someone please answer a quick question regaurding the curve optimizer.... what is the "-" (negetive) number mean? EX, when someone sets -15 or -20 for all cores, what is that actually setting? just dont understand...


----------



## Performer81

Negative means minus (less voltage). Per step its 3-5mv. -20 = -20 * (3-5) = -60 up to -100mv lower voltage than stock (in theory)


----------



## thegr8anand

I am annoyed with my 3900x because of its poor thermals and oc. Planning to replace with 5900x. Have both thermals and oc improved with 5900x? The max i am able to run is 4.4 on 2 ccds and 4.2 on the other 2. But this is not stable when benching hard like multiple CBr20 runs or anything that uses all threads as the temp limit is reached in few minutes. I am seeing 4.6-4.7ghz all-core on 5900x.


----------



## QQryQ

I've heard some rumors that rising higher voltage than 1.25 for daily use will degrade cpu, how it is in practice? Actually found sweet spot for my 5900x on 4,5GHz for all cores with 1,275v with turbo llc ( aorus master mobo ) and was reaching around 75C max.


----------



## Pietro

QQryQ said:


> I've heard some rumors that rising higher voltage than 1.25 for daily use will degrade cpu, how it is in practice? Actually found sweet spot for my 5900x on 4,5GHz for all cores with 1,275v with turbo llc ( aorus master mobo ) and was reaching around 75C max.


It's fine and under high current loads there is probably a vdrop. If yours CPU will degrade on 1.3V it would also under PBO an you just got a poor bin. With 2 chiplet cpus you will be first temperature limited. I think that 1.25-1.275V on vdrop are fine.


----------



## QQryQ

Pietro said:


> It's fine and under high current loads there is probably a vdrop. If yours CPU will degrade on 1.3V it would also under PBO an you just got a poor bin. With 2 chiplet cpus you will be first temperature limited. I think that 1.25-1.275V on vdrop are fine.


well actually was trying 1,3V with 4,6GHz couldnt pass, but 1,3V with 4,5GHz working well and still not throttling with temps I think my cooling can handle it but cant pass 4,6GHz even with 1,325 - 1,35 cant pass it...


----------



## woppy101

Hard work but seem have all my settings dialled all except 1 cores boosting to 5ghz, and with adjusting PPT, TDC and EDC I have dropped 10c off my max temp(@Postmodum is a genius) here are my settings and screens










and the pic of my system

and the system picture


----------



## Pietro

QQryQ said:


> well actually was trying 1,3V with 4,6GHz couldnt pass, but 1,3V with 4,5GHz working well and still not throttling with temps I think my cooling can handle it but cant pass 4,6GHz even with 1,325 - 1,35 cant pass it...


 It's not worth it, try 4.575GHz and at least 100MHz(you can typically get from 50 to 125MHz more on better CCX) more on better CCX. If anyone intrested AIDA has new instruction optimizations to test statbility on Zen 3.


----------



## ForestWhitakersGoodEye

woppy101 said:


> Hard work but seem have all my settings dialled all except 1 cores boosting to 5ghz, and with adjusting PPT, TDC and EDC I have dropped 10c off my max temp(@Postmodum is a genius) here are my settings and screens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the pic of my system
> 
> and the system picture


Curious to see what will happen if I set everything up like yours on my 5900x. I’m not sure if my aorus x570 xtreme or the 5900x is the issue but with enabling PBO it wasn’t good at all. I got 6-7 cores to boost to 5.125ghz but it was randomly crashing. You start windows and after 10-20sec it crashes,now I’m running all cores at 4.75ghz and 1.3v it’s stable. Didn’t have any issues at all,I’ll try your off sets and see how it goes. 
really curious to see if my temps will go 10ish degrees down.


----------



## woppy101

ForestWhitakersGoodEye said:


> Curious to see what will happen if I set everything up like yours on my 5900x. I’m not sure if my aorus x570 xtreme or the 5900x is the issue but with enabling PBO it wasn’t good at all. I got 6-7 cores to boost to 5.125ghz but it was randomly crashing. You start windows and after 10-20sec it crashes,now I’m running all cores at 4.75ghz and 1.3v it’s stable. Didn’t have any issues at all,I’ll try your off sets and see how it goes.
> really curious to see if my temps will go 10ish degrees down.


Give it a try, can’t do any harm


----------



## MikeMK

OK guys, quick question before I tear down my custom loop! I have just dropped in my 5950X and I am seeing 10 - 15 degrees higher temps vs. my 3950x on the same loop. Do these chips run significantly hotter? I am concerned I have a bad mount on my waterblock and need to re-seat it. 

Running an EK mono block on a Gigabyte x570 Aorus Master & triple 140mm rad. I have tried undervolting the dynamic vcore a bit, and also playing around with curve optimiser. It does make a bit of a difference but still not where my 3950 was in terms of temps. For info in games I am getting.

Cyberpunk up to 65 - 70c
Valhalla 60-65c degrees
Horizon Zero Dawn - 60 - 65c

I do note the spikes in voltage are significantly higher than the 3950 - up to 1.45v even higher when everything is stock out of the box.

The CPU itself is great! Out of the box it will boost up to 5ghz in lightly threaded loads - v.nice. With some tweaking it will do a little higher than that.


----------



## MikeS3000

So I just upgraded my 5800x to a 5900x. Very different PBO behavior going on here. On the 5800x I would set +200, Motherboard limites for power, and decrease the curve optimizer per core until the computer didn't crash. All cores would touch 5050 mhz and benchmarks went up in single and all-core accordingly. My 5900x shows better multi-core scores with the same settings just mentioned, but single core goes down. If I change power limits back to Auto from Motherboard then the single core boost is back and multi-core suffers. What am I doing wrong?


----------



## Spiffles

623/11133 in R20 here currently. I think I can get better settings, but this is pretty good already, especially considering the temps which would probably lead to throttling if they were any higher.

EDIT: I did manage to get slightly better scores after all. That's it, not messing with the settings anymore. This is pretty respectable and single core performance is paramount for me anyway, soooo yeah.

















If you think these scores are decent and are struggling to get similar ones, feel free to ask me my settings.


----------



## QQryQ

Spiffles said:


> 623/11133 in R20 here currently. I think I can get better settings, but this is pretty good already, especially considering the temps which would probably lead to throttling if they were any higher.
> 
> EDIT: I did manage to get slightly better scores after all. That's it, not messing with the settings anymore. This is pretty respectable and single core performance is paramount for me anyway, soooo yeah.
> View attachment 2470716
> 
> View attachment 2470717
> 
> 
> If you think these scores are decent and are struggling to get similar ones, feel free to ask me my settings.


 can you do r23 test?


----------



## MikeS3000

Still playing with 5900x and PBO / Curve Optimizer. What does everyone's motherboard set for EDC when selecting PBO Motherboard limits? My Gigabyte board selects 215A (actual limits of the board set manually are 600A). I've noticed that I loose single core boost / performance at 215A but multi-core seems to peform the best. Cpu-z single is in the mid 670s at 215A. At default 140A CPU-z is in the low 680s but multi-core clocks suffer. Has anyone else experienced this?


----------



## DoomDash

I'm curious if anyone here is using an ICE Giant cooler on a 5950X? How is it?


----------



## Spiffles

QQryQ said:


> can you do r23 test?


Sure thing, I've done quite a few in the course of fine-tuning the PBO already. Currently I'm getting around 28500 for multi and like 1615 for single core.


----------



## Performer81

MY 5900X is running happy with curve optimizer -20 allcore. Nothing else changed. Improves allcore clock in cinebench by about 200MHZ and clocks in games also.


----------



## floatboth

Lost the silicon lottery on CCX1 :/ Have to run it at 4350 to stay at a reasonable voltage that doesn't cook the chip to 105 degrees and thermal shutdown.
And even at those high voltages it only really goes to maybe 4500 (not stable).

BTW, seems like PBO really hates losers: it just doesn't push above 4GHz in an all-core load on my chip.
[UPD: or maybe it's related to an ASUS bug mentioned in 5900x Not Boosting Under Load ??]
But this per-CCX static setup works great for me, high scores, very fast in real work, not overheating (just 90C in R23).

Oh and that memory.. just upgraded to 64GB because I needed the capacity.
3466 rated kit of four dual-rank Hynix 8gbit CJR sticks. Yeah.. the dreaded QUAD RANK setup!
I've been able to push it to 3800 CL16 and calculator recommended timings.
No stability issues when running, but POSTing/training is absolute pain. Sometimes it just doesn't train >_<


----------



## Muqeshem

QQryQ said:


> I've heard some rumors that rising higher voltage than 1.25 for daily use will degrade cpu, how it is in practice? Actually found sweet spot for my 5900x on 4,5GHz for all cores with 1,275v with turbo llc ( aorus master mobo ) and was reaching around 75C max.


werid. I got 4.7ghz all core with 1.256 volt with llc 3 on asus impact viii


----------



## sisay

I have 5950x, default in cb20 is 9300.
My edc and tdc is 100% when tested, cpu power only 95w...
I raised tdc to 110 and edc to 160, curve -15 all core = cinebench 20 10200
This result is still worse than the default in the reviews
The temperature during the test was only 63C
The processor is only 3800mhz (with increased power limit) and 3700mhz default during the cinebench test.

I do not know what's going on, so bad silicon lottery?
Asus Strix-e X570 + Noctua D15

Sorry for my English


----------



## floatboth

sisay said:


> The processor is only 3800mhz (with increased power limit) and 3700mhz default during the cinebench test.


Maybe the ASUS bug described in 5900x Not Boosting Under Load ?

PBO isn't working well for me either, see post above.
I recommend manual per-CCX static overclocking, only that lets you truly find what your chip is capable of.
You can't rely on automatic stuff like PBO to make any conclusions about silicon lottery.


----------



## sisay

floatboth said:


> Maybe the ASUS bug described in 5900x Not Boosting Under Load ?
> 
> PBO isn't working well for me either, see post above.
> I recommend manual per-CCX static overclocking, only that lets you truly find what your chip is capable of.
> You can't rely on automatic stuff like PBO to make any conclusions about silicon lottery.




I understand that pbo to overclocking is the way to shortcuts. But it is strange that by default I only have 9300 in CB20 and 3.7 GHz
Cpu is cold. Just for me, turning on / off auto-oc does not improve boost


----------



## KickAssCop

Can someone with a 5900X and Tomahawk X570 post their bios settings that work. I have had very poor luck clocking this CPU and it runs very hot.

Currently running.

PBO2 enabled
+200 MHz
Voltage override 1.25 volts
IF 1866
DDR4 3733

Tried many other things but no luck. CR20 score around 8000. SC around 635. Anything other than auto volts makes it boost only to 4.1-4.2 GHz. Tried curve optimizer with -10 and it wasn’t stable.


----------



## Bart

Woppy101: I wanna be just like you!! 🙃 Are you running 1800mhz at those CL14 timings?


----------



## HyperC

This is the hottest I have ever seen my 5900x


----------



## KickAssCop

I front mounted my rad so temps are down about 8 C (from 80 C before). GPU temps went up by 1 C (up to 66 C) and RAM temps went up by 1 C (up to 54 C). Think totally worth the effort. Might help someone.


----------



## Performer81

HyperC said:


> This is the hottest I have ever seen my 5900x


In Cinebench my temps are nearly 15 degrees lower than in BF5 with my 5900X. SO i doubt this is the hottest.


----------



## BluePaint

Interesting, Cyberpunk allows to run 5000 / 4950 ccx1/ccx2 for hours on my 5950X. 1.375v 70C


----------



## Pedros

My latest runs on a 5950X with CO tuning 
Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. MS-7C35 - Geekbench Browser 

--












CO is a a funny thing


----------



## Bojamijams

That's a very nice Geekbench single core. 1800+ !! How did you get it to boost to 5.2?


----------



## Pedros

Curve Optimizer and Boost to +200. Lots of tweaking and testing on the CO.


----------



## Bojamijams

No change to PPT/TDC/EDC limits? Just motherboard values? 
Any special settings like Preffered cores on/auto? Auto voltage and auto LLC or manual ?


----------



## Pedros

Bojamijams said:


> No change to PPT/TDC/EDC limits? Just motherboard values?
> Any special settings like Preferred cores on/auto? Auto voltage and auto LLC or manual?


I have the limits to the motherboard yes. Other than everything on auto  And no preferred cores selected.


----------



## Bojamijams

Pedros said:


> I have the limits to the motherboard yes. Other than everything on auto  And no preferred cores selected.


Congrats man, you must have a golden chip there. See what else it can do


----------



## Pedros

Some more geekbench runs, with CO fine-tuning





Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. MS-7C35 - Geekbench Browser


Benchmark results for a Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. MS-7C35 with an AMD Ryzen 9 5950X processor.



browser.geekbench.com


----------



## KedarWolf

I'm buying a b550 Unify-X online here in Canada this Friday, still in preorder status, but I can wait.

Oh, and about my 5950x I preordered launch day Nov. 5th at a store here locally.

A guy who ordered the same day at the same store got his two days ago, but no word on mine yet.

He ordered early in the afternoon, I ordered just before the store closed at 6:30 p.m.

When I called the store a month ago, there were 16 peeps ahead of me on the preorder list.

I hope soon. But it might be good I waited.

I heard a rumour the first batch of the 5000 series CPUs were not very good and those that RMA'd them and got a new one, the new ones were much better.


----------



## KedarWolf

KickAssCop said:


> I front mounted my rad so temps are down about 8 C (from 80 C before). GPU temps went up by 1 C (up to 66 C) and RAM temps went up by 1 C (up to 54 C). Think totally worth the effort. Might help someone.


I've heard bad things about mounting the hoses of an AIO on top of the rad. As coolant evaporates, it can get air in the hoses and loop and cause really bad things to happen. Front mount, hoses on the bottom or top mount the way to go.


----------



## Pentium4 531 overclocker

KedarWolf said:


> I'm buying a b550 Unify-X online here in Canada this Friday, still in preorder status, but I can wait.
> 
> Oh, and about my 5950x I preordered launch day Nov. 5th at a store here locally.
> 
> A guy who ordered the same day at the same store got his two days ago, but no word on mine yet.
> 
> He ordered early in the afternoon, I ordered just before the store closed at 6:30 p.m.
> 
> When I called the store a month ago, there were 16 peeps ahead of me on the preorder list.
> 
> I hope soon. But it might be good I waited.
> 
> I heard a rumour the first batch of the 5000 series CPUs were not very good and those that RMA'd them and got a new one, the new ones were much better.


Canadian distributors be like that. I ordered a launch day 5900X at 10:29 in the morning at got my CPU 2 weeks after my friend who ordered at like 5PM. Canada Computers is just like that unfortunately.

My chip from Dec 23rd is pretty poggers. im still testing but it just ran 50MHz boost -30 all core CO. So far no instability issues. Hoping to turn up that boost clock and see where my cores decided to poo out at. 

Currently boosts to 4.5GHz all core (hits thermal limit), and 4.9GHz single core (occasionally goes 5ghz in random desktop stuff, but that isnt really doing much for performance).


----------



## coelacanth

KedarWolf said:


> I heard a rumour the first batch of the 5000 series CPUs were not very good and those that RMA'd them and got a new one, the new ones were much better.


I heard this as well. My 5900X is from week 37 2020 (early September). I can't get 1900 Fclk to work, but I'm nut sure if it's silicon quality or something else.


----------



## HeadlessKnight

Highest my 5900X can bench in CB20/23 with manual OC to set all cores at 4.625GHz at 1.3125v default LLC before temps/stability go out of hand, is this chip a dud or just average? Also at stock with no PBO it boosts to only 4.2 to 4.25 GHz in CB and it significantly underperforms compared to review samples, all that with Asus CH VIII Dark Hero.


----------



## Pedros

Well 2 friends bought a 5900x and a 5950x recently, the latest batches .. they can't get more than 1900IF either so ... i don't believe this is a case of later batches being best or not.

In my case, my 5950x can do -22 and -25 on the best cores, all the remaining are set at -30 with 200Mhz boost, Scalar 10x ...

I bought it in late November if I'm not mistaken and it's proven to be a solid bin.


----------



## KickAssCop

KedarWolf said:


> I've heard bad things about mounting the hoses of an AIO on top of the rad. As coolant evaporates, it can get air in the hoses and loop and cause really bad things to happen. Front mount, hoses on the bottom or top mount the way to go.


I already top mounted the rad and added RGB cables so that my overclocks increase.


----------



## HyperC

feels like a milestone but I finally hit 700 single core, Never rebooted a pc so much in my life... Think I gained 5 more gray hairs in my beard and a pissed off wife..


----------



## skline00

Dear Lord HyperC! I keep my 5900x stock. It's too hard to replace!


----------



## JohnnyFlash

KedarWolf said:


> I've heard bad things about mounting the hoses of an AIO on top of the rad. As coolant evaporates, it can get air in the hoses and loop and cause really bad things to happen. Front mount, hoses on the bottom or top mount the way to go.


If there's an air buildup, you want it in the hoses and not the pump. Any config where the pump is the below part of the rad is the same and fine.


----------



## sisay

Hey, I have a request, could you check how many mhz you have in 5950x during prime95 smallest fft. (On stock setup)
Mine is 2900 mhz during test a 5950 x may 3400 mhz base clock ...


----------



## halcyonon

sisay said:


> Hey, I have a request, could you check how many mhz you have in 5950x during prime95 smallest fft. (On stock setup)
> Mine is 2900 mhz during test a 5950 x may 3400 mhz base clock ...


I'm seeing effective clocks of 4150mhz across all the cores, I have PBO on, -10 curve, +200 limit, using an H150i Elite Capellix in push pull for cooling.

2900mhz seems quite low, do you have PBO on? Is your cooling seated and working properly?


----------



## sisay

No, just stock / default, no PBO. I want to see what frequency other cpu have in default setup because I have RMA from AMD


----------



## KickAssCop

Some more tweaking. This time with curve optimizer.


Geekbench 1712/15203
CPU-Z 676/9900
AIDA64 - 56.8Gs / 61 ns

Updated settings.
CO Best cores -15, All others -10
IF 1867
DDR4 3733 16-19-19-19-39-60-1T
PBO +200 MHz

Need to wait 3-5 days for WHEA errors.


----------



## VPII

sisay said:


> Hey, I have a request, could you check how many mhz you have in 5950x during prime95 smallest fft. (On stock setup)
> Mine is 2900 mhz during test a 5950 x may 3400 mhz base clock ...


Okay I tested fully stock and with PBO disabled. Clock speeds between 3200 and 3350mhz as per screen shot. I also tested with PBO and curve set to what I use daily for second screenshot.


----------



## Dannyz

Hello,

So I've been playing around with the new PBO2 curve optimizer in the bios and am confused by what's the best way to go about it.
With the key feature being per core undervolting, I'm personally finding that just leaving all cores with a -30 offset is yielding the best results for my chip.

Here are my specs
CPU: Ryzen 9 5900X
CPU cooler: NH-D15
RAM: G Skill Trident Z 32GB (4x8GB) 3600MHz CL15 (two of these kits F4-3600C15D-16GTZ)
Motherboard: Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master Rev 1.0 (using F32 bios Agesa 1.1.0.0D)
SSD: Samsung 970 Evo Plus 1TB
GPU: RTX 2080
PSU: EVGA 750G2

I started with just setting everything to -30, PBO limits to motherboard, scalar on auto, frequency offset to +325MHz and found these settings made the 5900X boost high pretty aggressively. In CB20 I can see the CPU sustain around 4.9-5.0GHz under the single threaded test. Doing other lightly threaded tasks I see all cores on CCD1 going above 5GHz with my best 2 cores hitting 5.2GHz which I thought was great. After reading and seeings results from other people on various forums I saw that lowering the negative offset on the best cores will allow the CPU to sustain even higher clock speeds. 
So I set my cores to something like this
Core 0 (1/6) = -25
Core 1 (1/3) = -8 
Core 2 (1/2) = -5
Core 3 (1/4) = - 8
Core 4 (1/1) = -5
Core 5 (1/5) = -25 
Cores 6-11 = -30 

Doing this though results in lower SC boost where the best cores are only doing about 4.7-4.85GHz, and at most the cores are just hitting 4.95GHz under lightly threaded tasks. I've been playing around with the number, setting the best cores to -10, and -15 but so far they aren't able to match my results from just leaving all cores at -30. Which contradicts what I've read that setting the best cores lower yields better results. I have also stress tested -30 in various scenario Prime95, handbrake, gaming, and its been stable, no errors, BSODs, or random restarts.

Forgot to mention, I have tried various core offset as well, and found +325MHz to be the best.


----------



## BluePaint

If everything works with -30 and u dont have idle reboots for example when u have a golden cpu and dont need to change any offsets because that will lower your scores
Using less undervolting for best cores is for stabilizing single core speeds not for better performance (performance will be worse)

Would be interesting to see some Cinebench 20 or CB23 scores from your CPU. Or a quick cpu z benchmark run


----------



## sisay

VPII said:


> Okay I tested fully stock and with PBO disabled. Clock speeds between 3200 and 3350mhz as per screen shot. I also tested with PBO and curve set to what I use daily for second screenshot.


THX


----------



## thigobr

My 5950X is also getting between 2800MHz and 2900MHz Prime95 small FFT, all stock settings, after a clear CMOS. Temperature between 55-60°C. Frequency seems low compared to the official base clock of 3400MHz
Going by the HWINFO the cpus is hitting EDC limit of 140A at stock...


----------



## Manuru

Here is my CPU-Z result with +150Mhz PBO: -10 best, -15 second best, -20 all other CCD0, -25 all CCD1.










As you can see, single-core is pretty good.
But as for multi-core, it's complicated. 

12 threads: after initial boost to ~4450Mhz, CPU starts to gradually reduce frequency down to 4400Mhz (at ~1Mhz/sec).
24 threads: very short boost and then down to 4350Mhz.

Is it because of temperature? Currently I use Dark Rock Pro 4 (and wait for EKWB AIO to be shipped from their shop) and temps immediately go to 80-81 after I hit stress.
PBO limits are set to motherboard, EDC 220A. Ryzen Master shows 98% usage of EDC.


----------



## floatboth

floatboth said:


> BTW, seems like PBO really hates losers: it just doesn't push above 4GHz in an all-core load on my chip.
> [UPD: or maybe it's related to an ASUS bug mentioned in 5900x Not Boosting Under Load ??]


Update: with BIOS 1801 PBO doesn't suck that much anymore, it does 4.3GHz all core at least.
(It's still not smart enough to boost higher on the better quality CCX so manual is still superior )


----------



## MikeS3000

Manuru said:


> Here is my CPU-Z result with +150Mhz PBO: -10 best, -15 second best, -20 all other CCD0, -25 all CCD1.
> 
> View attachment 2475905
> 
> 
> As you can see, single-core is pretty good.
> But as for multi-core, it's complicated.
> 
> 12 threads: after initial boost to ~4450Mhz, CPU starts to gradually reduce frequency down to 4400Mhz (at ~1Mhz/sec).
> 24 threads: very short boost and then down to 4350Mhz.
> 
> Is it because of temperature? Currently I use Dark Rock Pro 4 (and wait for EKWB AIO to be shipped from their shop) and temps immediately go to 80-81 after I hit stress.
> PBO limits are set to motherboard, EDC 220A. Ryzen Master shows 98% usage of EDC.


Single core looks great! Multi is a bit low for your settings. Should be closer to 10,000 points. If you are hitting 80-81 in CPU-Z benchmark then I would say that is too high and the CPU is throttling back a bit. For 24 threads you should be at 4500 to 4600 mhz for that test. I want to say on my 5900x using a NH-D15s (I think similar peformance to your Dark Rock) my temps are in the low to mid 70s. Hopefully your AIO should bring temps down and increase boost.


----------



## KickAssCop

Manuru said:


> Here is my CPU-Z result with +150Mhz PBO: -10 best, -15 second best, -20 all other CCD0, -25 all CCD1.
> 
> View attachment 2475905
> 
> 
> As you can see, single-core is pretty good.
> But as for multi-core, it's complicated.
> 
> 12 threads: after initial boost to ~4450Mhz, CPU starts to gradually reduce frequency down to 4400Mhz (at ~1Mhz/sec).
> 24 threads: very short boost and then down to 4350Mhz.
> 
> Is it because of temperature? Currently I use Dark Rock Pro 4 (and wait for EKWB AIO to be shipped from their shop) and temps immediately go to 80-81 after I hit stress.
> PBO limits are set to motherboard, EDC 220A. Ryzen Master shows 98% usage of EDC.


What is driving such high SC score. I couldn’t manage beyond 680.


----------



## Dannyz

Manuru said:


> Here is my CPU-Z result with +150Mhz PBO: -10 best, -15 second best, -20 all other CCD0, -25 all CCD1.
> 
> View attachment 2475905
> 
> 
> As you can see, single-core is pretty good.
> But as for multi-core, it's complicated.
> 
> 12 threads: after initial boost to ~4450Mhz, CPU starts to gradually reduce frequency down to 4400Mhz (at ~1Mhz/sec).
> 24 threads: very short boost and then down to 4350Mhz.
> 
> Is it because of temperature? Currently I use Dark Rock Pro 4 (and wait for EKWB AIO to be shipped from their shop) and temps immediately go to 80-81 after I hit stress.
> PBO limits are set to motherboard, EDC 220A. Ryzen Master shows 98% usage of EDC.


Nice SC score, the most I can get is around 682 on my 5900X. Although I get around 10K for the MC. 
Can you post CB20 scores?


----------



## Manuru

MikeS3000 said:


> Single core looks great! Multi is a bit low for your settings. Should be closer to 10,000 points. If you are hitting 80-81 in CPU-Z benchmark then I would say that is too high and the CPU is throttling back a bit. For 24 threads you should be at 4500 to 4600 mhz for that test. I want to say on my 5900x using a NH-D15s (I think similar peformance to your Dark Rock) my temps are in the low to mid 70s. Hopefully your AIO should bring temps down and increase boost.


Thanks! Also I noticed that performance increases a little after I air the room. The cpu is very temperature sensitive.


KickAssCop said:


> What is driving such high SC score. I couldn’t manage beyond 680.


Low latency memory definitely helps to achieve that. I have 3800 CL14 dual rank kit with 56ns latency. I've seen some kits that can do 51ns.


Dannyz said:


> Nice SC score, the most I can get is around 682 on my 5900X. Although I get around 10K for the MC.
> Can you post CB20 scores?


Yeah, but almost every realworld load is multi-threaded so low multicore boost really bothers me. CB20:







Multi-core pass tempreture was 84C.

Upd: Also I played around with CPU-Z stress test with different count of threads:







Almost all cores of CCD0 are able to achieve 5.1Ghz, so the cpu itself seem to be ok.

Upd2: Found out that Dark Rock Pro 4 surface is not even. May not be good for AMD chiplet design.


----------



## Dannyz

Manuru said:


> Thanks! Also I noticed that performance increases a little after I air the room. The cpu is very temperature sensitive.
> 
> Low latency memory definitely helps to achieve that. I have 3800 CL14 dual rank kit with 56ns latency. I've seen some kits that can do 51ns.
> 
> Yeah, but almost every realworld load is multi-threaded so low multicore boost really bothers me. CB20:
> View attachment 2475969
> 
> 
> 
> Upd2: Found out that Dark Rock Pro 4 surface is not even. May not be good for AMD chiplet design.
> View attachment 2476003


I get about 642 points single core in CB20 and 9K for multi core score. 

I'm tempted on upgrading my NH-D15 to my Corsair H115i Pro XT or getting one of those arctic freezer coolers.


----------



## Manuru

Dannyz said:


> I'm tempted on upgrading my NH-D15 to my Corsair H115i Pro XT or getting one of those arctic freezer coolers.


I think it's worth upgrading. I ordered EKWB AIO 360.


----------



## GRABibus

Pietro said:


> Since there is no such thread and plenty of people are interested how those new 2 chiplet Zen 3 processors are overclocking I'm starting a one. Post up your screens of OC's, cooler that you have used to do that, temperature under stability tests and a batch number if you know(it is placed on ryzen's IHS).
> 
> So here's mine:
> *Cooler:* Noctua D15
> *Temperatures*: up to 90 *C in blender rendering, AIDA CPU&FPU&Cache stress test in well ventilated case with many fans. Package power = 191W. VRMs on B550 Tomahawk after 1 hour AIDA test 52,5 *C on LL3 with 1000kHz swithing frequency.
> *Batch:* 2037 SUS
> *Voltage:* 1.2875V in bios on LL3 dropping to 1.269V(SVI2 TFN) under full avx load
> *Infnity fabric max stable frequency:* who knows, currentyly 1900MHz is stable and more is not possible to achieve on newest MSI bios betas well basically noone can go over that on them and on older 2000MHz was rather easy to get, but it had plenty of whea errors - no crashes nor worse results.
> 
> *CCX OC in bios:*
> CCX0 - 4725 MHz
> CCX1 - 4600 MHz
> 
> Cinebench R20: 9306 points
> Aida ram latency 62 ns with 4x16GB Crucial Ballistix 3200MHz CL16 @ 3800MHz 16-19-16-16-36-60 tRFC 580
> 
> View attachment 2466617
> View attachment 2466618
> View attachment 2466619


I am impressed by your temps with your Noctua.
Which Blender test do you use ? Ambient temp ?

I have the same cpu and with following OC ;
CCX0 @ 4,65GHz
CCX1 @ 4,55GHz

Vid=1,27V with LLC3 => Vcore full load = 1,232V.

I reach 88 degrees on ccd1 die in hwinfo after 8 hours of realbench at 22degrees ambient.
I have a H115i RGB Platinum.

With your voltages I would go beyond 90degrees in Realbench at 22degrees ambient


----------



## AStaUK

thigobr said:


> My 5950X is also getting between 2800MHz and 2900MHz Prime95 small FFT, all stock settings, after a clear CMOS. Temperature between 55-60°C. Frequency seems low compared to the official base clock of 3400MHz
> Going by the HWINFO the cpus is hitting EDC limit of 140A at stock...


I’m getting similar clock speeds when running small FTT, specifically the test that includes L1,L2 and L3 caches. I wonder if it is specific to that test as it also hits the L3 cache that limits the clock rate. P95/Blended and other benchmarks appear to be okay.


----------



## KedarWolf

How do you check the manufacturing date on a 5950x?


----------



## Toddimus

KedarWolf said:


> How do you check the manufacturing date on a 5950x?


It’s on the chip heat spreader. On the second line after the SKU? number. Mine is 2043SUS, which means 2020 week 43 and I think the SUS has to do with where it was manufactured and assembled. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KickAssCop

Is there a way to figure out which core is causing the WHEA error. I can run my computer at -30 CO but after 1-2 days it gives a WHEA error.

I even ran -15 CO for 3-4 days and then suddenly a WHEA error.

Right now I have it on -15 on best and better cores but -10 on all others. I think this setup lasted me days without any errors. Going to keep it here unless someone tells me how to locate the problematic core so I can just put that on -10 and everything else on -20 or something.


----------



## Esticbo

@KickAssCop have you tested your cores with occt?


----------



## KickAssCop

No I have not. What is best way to test?


----------



## fireedo

AMD does give us a great product
I have the 5950x and with only using PBO setting recorded just now via HWinfo one of the core can achieve 5,250 Ghz, running with FCLK 1900 no WHEA error whatsoever
CB R23 result always give me >= AMD Threadripper 2990wx (32cores!!!)


----------



## scanz

KickAssCop said:


> Is there a way to figure out which core is causing the WHEA error. I can run my computer at -30 CO but after 1-2 days it gives a WHEA error.
> 
> I even ran -15 CO for 3-4 days and then suddenly a WHEA error.
> 
> Right now I have it on -15 on best and better cores but -10 on all others. I think this setup lasted me days without any errors. Going to keep it here unless someone tells me how to locate the problematic core so I can just put that on -10 and everything else on -20 or something.


Checked Event Viewer? Whea-Logger should tell you the processor.


----------



## Spiffles

Guys, one question. I've had to use Ryzen Master and the "game mode" preset (with legacy mode enabled) for one game to run (Witcher 2 to be precise). What to do to return from this mode to the BIOS settings with this software? Will "reset defaults" do the trick, or do I have to just uninstall it after I'm done playing? Thanks!


----------



## KickAssCop

Here is today's CBR20 run. I have hit 9100 w/ all core 4.7 Gs clock but this is my daily so better rep of my system. Also hit 645 SC when I was pushing 250 MHz OC. Back to 200 MHz OC. -10 CO on first core and -20 on all others. Some ram tuning as well. SC boosts to 5150 MHz and all core usually hovers between 4650-4750.

Here is CPU-Z run
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X @ 4548.94 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR
Here is my Geekbench run
Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. MS-7C84 - Geekbench Browser

Real bench I can hit about 341K.
Thu Feb 4 2021
10:51:16
Image Editing: 230034
Time: 23.1618
Encoding: 383545
Time: 13.8914
OpenCL: 415740
KSamples/sec: 76450
Heavy Multitasking: 337324
Time: 22.6251
System Score: 341660

AIDA 57.3 Gs / 59.5 ns. Not the best in the world but w/ CL16 it is OK I guess.


----------



## Onliketron

soooo i tried using ryzen master on my 5950x and tried tinkering with bios but cannot get my 5950x to be stable at anything over 4.4ghz all core. Seems to be a thing with several people from what i've seen. anything i can do to get this higher?? the temps will randomly get crazy high when trying it out then just shuts down. im running a 240mm corsair aio. would switching to a 360 help at all? or would it just be a minimal difference?? also im sure this is a stupid question but my max ram speed is 3200mhz using docp. does it have anything to do with this cap as well? im running a rog strix b550-e gaming mobo.


----------



## BluePaint

Which kind of voltage do u have under load at 4400mhz?


----------



## blackzaru

So, apparently it's here that I should post my results.

Just flashed my Asus X570 Dark Hero with the latest bios (has AGESA 1.2.0.0), and fiddled a bit with settings to see how much I could push FCLK on that bios. Turns out that I gained 66MHz (1900 to 1966).

The timings are pretty rough (had to loosen them quite a lot), and it will probably take me days or weeks of my free time to pin-point the tightest timings I can run at that frequency.

Naturally, I'll have to fiddle with my CPU as well, as I might have some gains on that front from the bios update as well.

All in all, I can say that, in my experience, that new AGESA version seems like a nice little boost to my system!


----------



## KedarWolf

My 5950x, check out the 5250MHz single core in AIDA64 Extreme. 😎

And @Veii suggested the CAD BUS and ClkDrvStr etc. and my AIDA is 1k higher in every category with better latency.

Also WHEA free and TM5 stable.


----------



## Gerd_Gerdsen

I try to setup ctr 2.0 for my 5950x and could run the suggested p1 settings, but the p2 settings, 4600mhz at 1250mv, got over 200w ppt wich i increased to 240w, wich lead to reaching the max tdc of default 150A. I had the 5950x running before with max ~235W and max 90°C in hwinfo64 in a 30 minute test with prime95 just by enabling pbo. Wich max tdc is allright to run? Board is a x570 Aorus Master v1.0.


----------



## KedarWolf

This with a CCX overclock of 4.75/4.7 on my 5950x.

If multicore threaded apps and games your go-to thing, CCX overclock the way to go.

Single-core suffers though.


----------



## domdtxdissar

KedarWolf said:


> This with a CCX overclock of 4.75/4.7 on my 5950x.
> 
> If multicore threaded apps and *games *your go-to thing, CCX overclock the way to go.
> 
> Single-core suffers though.
> 
> View attachment 2477349


Very nice allcore OC 

I agree with you its better to run a static OC in programs that use all threads all the time, both in regards to clocks and temps/watt. 
But i dont think a static CCX overclock is better in medium-high to low threadcount programs and/or games.. Nevermind the singlethread.

With my PBO CO settings on normal ambient temps i'm getting ~12100 points in Cinebench r20, which means my allcore effective clock is around 4650mhz (~1.6% lower then your average static OC @ 4725mhz.

But in apps/games that use something like 28,24,20,16,10 or even 8 threads etc i'm pretty sure my effective clock with PBO CO is much higher then with a static OC of lets say 4750mhz.. 

One other problem i find with a static OC is that if you maximize your clocks for a "light AVX workload" (~4700-4800 mhz) like Cinebench is, it will fail in a "heavy AVX workload" (~4400-4600 mhz) like prime95/y-cruncher etc. And if you maximize for "light" games/low threadcount (4800mhz+) it will fail in everything else.

Clocktuner 2.0's P0,P1 and P2 states tries to fix this but in my findings its too slow/buggy to switch between the different modes effectively.. 
Just try to run CPU-Z bench and see the singlethread suffer because it dont switch fast enough. And if you lower then "hangtime" it will start switching profiles all the time and lower your overall performance.

With my lucky/better than average 5950x, i think PBO CO is the way to go.. but that's just my 2cents on this matter


----------



## KickAssCop

Slightly better results. Testing now -10 first core and -25 all others. The -10 first core and -20 all cores passed all tests and didn’t have any idle WHEA errors for 4-5 days. 

The testing for the system is quite troublesome. Is there a way to reproduce WHEA errors faster than waiting days to see if idle errors will happen?


----------



## Manuru

Manuru said:


> Here is my CPU-Z result with +150Mhz PBO: -10 best, -15 second best, -20 all other CCD0, -25 all CCD1.
> 
> View attachment 2475905


So I've changed motherboard from Gaming Edge to Unify X which has 16 direct VRM phases and now my results are even worse: 9000 stock and 9300 with PBO.
Cooling, temps, RAM, PSU, PBO settings - everything is the same, but boost frequency went down from 4350 to 4100-4200.
Something is wrong.


----------



## KedarWolf

Manuru said:


> So I've changed motherboard from Gaming Edge to Unify X which has 16 direct VRM phases and now my results are even worse: 9000 stock and 9300 with PBO.
> Cooling, temps, RAM, PSU, PBO settings - everything is the same, but boost frequency went down from 4350 to 4100-4200.
> Something is wrong.


I wouldn't give up on yet. Different motherboards need different settings. What works on one will not work the same on the other.

I run Manual, not Motherboard with 330/300/200 Scaler 4, 200 Boost and with Curve Optimizer get over 11700 in Cinebench on my 5950x.

Edit: Single core boosts regularly as high as 5150.


----------



## Veii

KedarWolf said:


> My 5950x, check out the 5250MHz single core in AIDA64 Extreme. 😎
> 
> And @Veii suggested the CAD BUS and ClkDrvStr etc. and my AIDA is 1k higher in every category with better latency.
> 
> Also WHEA free and TM5 stable.
> View attachment 2477298


It's surprising that you get it stable with only half of my message 
CAD_BUS Timings 3-3-15,are misisng with tCKE

Also you have clock stretching, if this 5250 is actually applying
10.9ns = 4.65Ghz
10.6ns = 4.8Ghz
each 100mhz = 0.2ns less
5ghz without Clock Stretching should be 10.2ns / 5.1 = 10ns
5.25 would be 9.7ns not 10ns 

If you skip these CAD_BUS timings, 
then you would need to up CsOdtDrvStr to 30 to fix memory training and cold boot isuses
x-20-20-20 only works with tCKE and CAD_BUS timings together
4000MT/s would be tCKE 11 , 4-4-18


----------



## KedarWolf

Veii said:


> It's surprising that you get it stable with only half of my message
> CAD_BUS Timings 3-3-15,are misisng with tCKE
> 
> Also you have clock stretching, if this 5250 is actually applying
> 10.9ns = 4.65Ghz
> 10.6ns = 4.8Ghz
> each 100mhz = 0.2ns less
> 5ghz without Clock Stretching should be 10.2ns / 5.1 = 10ns
> 5.25 would be 9.7ns not 10ns
> 
> If you skip these CAD_BUS timings,
> then you would need to up CsOdtDrvStr to 30 to fix memory training and cold boot isuses
> x-20-20-20 only works with tCKE and CAD_BUS timings together
> 4000MT/s would be tCKE 11 , 4-4-18


Actually, had some BSODs and random reboots with the CAD BUS 6-3-3 even though OCCT and TM5 would pass. Can't do 3-3-15, no 15 option in my BIOS.

I went back to my previous CAD BUS settings that worked but with 40-20-20-20 and that passed TM5 and OCCT with no BSODs on boot and reboots etc.

I'm trying tCKE at 9 now hough.


----------



## Veii

KedarWolf said:


> Actually, had some BSODs and random reboots with the CAD BUS 6-3-3 even though OCCT and TM5 would pass. Can't do 3-3-15, no 15 option in my BIOS.
> 
> I went back to my previous CAD BUS settings that worked but with 40-20-20-20 and that passed TM5 and OCCT with no BSODs on boot and reboots etc.
> 
> I'm trying tCKE at 9 now hough.


CAD_BUS timings you should have , which scale from 0-63
they are next to normal CAD_BUS
I recommend to use Bing or Yandex translate for Korean








쿨엔조이,쿨앤조이 coolenjoy, cooln, 쿨엔, 검은동네


출처:https://blog.asset-intertech.com/test_data_out/2014/11/memory-training-testing-and-margining.ht



coolenjoy.net




Scroll down to CAD_BUS Timings and tCKE
Or here from all older collected informations
A, B, C








쿨엔조이,쿨앤조이 coolenjoy, cooln, 쿨엔, 검은동네


출처 Veii 님https://www.overclock.net/forum/28385690-post3279.htmlhttps://www.overclock.net/forum/28385



coolenjoy.net





The OCN links should hopefully function again ~ they restored a lot of my broken ones


----------



## patrickisfrench

could a mod delete this post please, ty - I made a separate thread for my question.


----------



## Manuru

KedarWolf said:


> I wouldn't give up on yet. Different motherboards need different settings. What works on one will not work the same on the other.


Yeah, worked it out. I got Arctic MX-4 thermal paste and changed my Dark Rock Pro 4 to EK AIO 360. Temps are now a little better.

My 5900x is extremely tempreture sensitive and even with AIO I get the best results only after I air a room.

Normally CPU is idling at 32C, but if it goes down to 29C, I get these numbers with PBO +200Mhz -30 CO (-25 best):
CB20: 8831 / 662
CPU-Z: 9932 / 715


----------



## KedarWolf

Got this, just left HWInfo open while running Diablo 3, then Cyberpunk, watching Twitch as well, for a few hours.

TM5 at 2500% instead of 100%, 2 cycles.


----------



## MakubeX

KedarWolf said:


> I wouldn't give up on yet. Different motherboards need different settings. What works on one will not work the same on the other.
> 
> I run Manual, not Motherboard with 330/300/200 Scaler 4, 200 Boost and with Curve Optimizer get over 11700 in Cinebench on my 5950x.
> 
> Edit: Single core boosts regularly as high as 5150.


What vcore and curve optimizer magnitudes do you use?


----------



## KedarWolf

MakubeX said:


> What vcore and curve optimizer magnitudes do you use?


I got the quality of each core from the CTR2 app, then set the below. The CO:0 etc. is the Core number, the three-digit number is the quality, the last number is what I set the Core to.

I listed the cores from the highest quality to the lowest. Then set them in the Curve Optimizer.

The voltage is on Auto.

*Edit: For your BIOS you need to change from the CTR2 app, for example, CO:1 to CO:0 or CO:6 to CO:5, one lower. They are listed differently in CTR2 then
the BIOS.

And have Curve Optimizer enabled at default settings before you check the quality in the CTR2 app, the quality can be different enabled rather than disabled.*

CO:0 - 220 - 8
CO:4 - 220 - 8
CO:5 - 215 - 10
CO:7 - 211 - 10
CO:1 - 206 - 15
CO:6 - 201 - 15
CO:2 - 197 - 20
CO:3 - 192 - 20
CO:14 - 187 - 25
CO:15 - 183 - 25
CO:11 - 178 - 25
CO:10 - 173 - 25
CO:13 - 169 - 30
CO:9 - 164 - 30
CO:8 - 159 - 30
CO:12 - 155 - 30


----------



## MakubeX

KedarWolf said:


> I got the quality of each core from the CTR2 app, then set the below. The CO:0 etc. is the Core number, the three-digit number is the quality, the last number is what I set the Core to.
> 
> I listed the cores from the highest quality to the lowest. Then set them in the Curve Optimizer.
> 
> The voltage is on Auto.
> 
> CO:0 - 220 - 8
> CO:4 - 220 - 8
> CO:5 - 215 - 10
> CO:7 - 211 - 10
> CO:1 - 206 - 15
> CO:6 - 201 - 15
> CO:2 - 197 - 20
> CO:3 - 192 - 20
> CO:14 - 187 - 25
> CO:15 - 183 - 25
> CO:11 - 178 - 25
> CO:10 - 173 - 25
> CO:13 - 169 - 30
> CO:9 - 164 - 30
> CO:8 - 159 - 30
> CO:12 - 155 - 30


Cool, thanks. I need to try CTR2. Right now I'm getting around 11550 in CB R20 with PBO with my 24/7 settings (fclk at 1867), which I think is still good but maybe I can squeeze a bit more out of this chip.


----------



## KedarWolf

MakubeX said:


> Cool, thanks. I need to try CTR2. Right now I'm getting around 11550 in CB R20 with PBO with my 24/7 settings (fclk at 1867), which I think is still good but maybe I can squeeze a bit more out of this chip.


See my edits to my post above.


----------



## KedarWolf

Deleted


----------



## KedarWolf

MakubeX said:


> Cool, thanks. I need to try CTR2. Right now I'm getting around 11550 in CB R20 with PBO with my 24/7 settings (fclk at 1867), which I think is still good but maybe I can squeeze a bit more out of this chip.


*Added screenshot of other settings.*

I listed the cores from the highest quality to the lowest. Then set them in the Curve Optimizer.

The voltage is on Auto.

*Edit: For your BIOS you need to change from the CTR2 app, for example, CO:1 to CO:0 or CO:6 to CO:5, one lower. They are listed differently in CTR2 then
the BIOS.

And have Curve Optimizer enabled at default settings before you check the quality in the CTR2 app, the quality can be different enabled rather than disabled.*

CO:0 - 220 - 8
CO:4 - 220 - 8
CO:5 - 215 - 10
CO:7 - 211 - 10
CO:1 - 206 - 15
CO:6 - 201 - 15
CO:2 - 197 - 20
CO:3 - 192 - 20
CO:14 - 187 - 25
CO:15 - 183 - 25
CO:11 - 178 - 25
CO:10 - 173 - 25
CO:13 - 169 - 30
CO:9 - 164 - 30
CO:8 - 159 - 30
CO:12 - 155 - 30


----------



## MakubeX

KedarWolf said:


> *Added screenshot of other settings.*
> 
> I listed the cores from the highest quality to the lowest. Then set them in the Curve Optimizer.
> 
> The voltage is on Auto.
> 
> *Edit: For your BIOS you need to change from the CTR2 app, for example, CO:1 to CO:0 or CO:6 to CO:5, one lower. They are listed differently in CTR2 then
> the BIOS.
> 
> And have Curve Optimizer enabled at default settings before you check the quality in the CTR2 app, the quality can be different enabled rather than disabled.*
> 
> CO:0 - 220 - 8
> CO:4 - 220 - 8
> CO:5 - 215 - 10
> CO:7 - 211 - 10
> CO:1 - 206 - 15
> CO:6 - 201 - 15
> CO:2 - 197 - 20
> CO:3 - 192 - 20
> CO:14 - 187 - 25
> CO:15 - 183 - 25
> CO:11 - 178 - 25
> CO:10 - 173 - 25
> CO:13 - 169 - 30
> CO:9 - 164 - 30
> CO:8 - 159 - 30
> CO:12 - 155 - 30
> 
> View attachment 2478897


Awesome, thanks again!


----------



## jvidia

Here is my 5900X:
























What do you think?
Running the CNR20 single core test I get 5000Mhz on my 2 best cores (*#0 and #3) "only":









Running the CNR20 multi core test I get this all core boost:









Aren't the single core and multi core boosts low?


----------



## Roacoe717

Got a 5900x on a Mugen 5 air cooler with 2 high cfm noctua fans.
Settled at 4.55ghz at 1.187v
Ram gskill 3600 16-19-19-36
Temps are a nice 36c and 70c in prime
R23 multicore score 22721
Single core is just ok.


----------



## MakubeX

KedarWolf said:


> *Added screenshot of other settings.*
> 
> I listed the cores from the highest quality to the lowest. Then set them in the Curve Optimizer.
> 
> The voltage is on Auto.
> 
> *Edit: For your BIOS you need to change from the CTR2 app, for example, CO:1 to CO:0 or CO:6 to CO:5, one lower. They are listed differently in CTR2 then
> the BIOS.
> 
> And have Curve Optimizer enabled at default settings before you check the quality in the CTR2 app, the quality can be different enabled rather than disabled.*
> 
> CO:0 - 220 - 8
> CO:4 - 220 - 8
> CO:5 - 215 - 10
> CO:7 - 211 - 10
> CO:1 - 206 - 15
> CO:6 - 201 - 15
> CO:2 - 197 - 20
> CO:3 - 192 - 20
> CO:14 - 187 - 25
> CO:15 - 183 - 25
> CO:11 - 178 - 25
> CO:10 - 173 - 25
> CO:13 - 169 - 30
> CO:9 - 164 - 30
> CO:8 - 159 - 30
> CO:12 - 155 - 30
> 
> View attachment 2478897


Did you set those curve coefficients as positive or negative? The way I have it right now for mine (before trying CTR 2), they are all negatives but in the reverse order, that is, the better the core, the larger the negative value (I had determined the quality of the cores using HWInfo, which I now confirmed with CTR 2).


----------



## jvidia

KedarWolf said:


> *Added screenshot of other settings.*
> 
> I listed the cores from the highest quality to the lowest. Then set them in the Curve Optimizer.
> 
> The voltage is on Auto.
> 
> *Edit: For your BIOS you need to change from the CTR2 app, for example, CO:1 to CO:0 or CO:6 to CO:5, one lower. They are listed differently in CTR2 then
> the BIOS.
> 
> And have Curve Optimizer enabled at default settings before you check the quality in the CTR2 app, the quality can be different enabled rather than disabled.*
> 
> CO:0 - 220 - 8
> CO:4 - 220 - 8
> CO:5 - 215 - 10
> CO:7 - 211 - 10
> CO:1 - 206 - 15
> CO:6 - 201 - 15
> CO:2 - 197 - 20
> CO:3 - 192 - 20
> CO:14 - 187 - 25
> CO:15 - 183 - 25
> CO:11 - 178 - 25
> CO:10 - 173 - 25
> CO:13 - 169 - 30
> CO:9 - 164 - 30
> CO:8 - 159 - 30
> CO:12 - 155 - 30
> 
> View attachment 2478897


EDC Limit at 200A only? Even PBO Limit in "Motherboard" gives 220A.

I've done extensive tests with PBO Limit between Auto/Motherboard/Manual.
Don't know why but my board in "Manual" always gives me lower multicore boosts compared to Auto/Motherboard. Even with the same values inserted manually.


----------



## Manuru

jvidia said:


> Aren't the single core and multi core boosts low?


Every chip is different. I am able to get 5150 single core but my all-core is far behind at 4550. Overall your numbers are very good.


----------



## KedarWolf

MakubeX said:


> Awesome, thanks again!


That screenshot had the wrong settings, I had flashed the BIOS, set them wrong.

If in Cinebench temps are too high, change the PPT to 230, should stay 80C or under and you don't lose too much in the score.


----------



## KedarWolf

jvidia said:


> EDC Limit at 200A only? Even PBO Limit in "Motherboard" gives 220A.
> 
> I've done extensive tests with PBO Limit between Auto/Motherboard/Manual.
> Don't know why but my board in "Manual" always gives me lower multicore boosts compared to Auto/Motherboard. Even with the same values inserted manually.


330/230/200










Motherboard










Auto










330/230/220 does do a bit better though.


----------



## MakubeX

KedarWolf said:


> That screenshot had the wrong settings, I had flashed the BIOS, set them wrong.
> 
> If in Cinebench temps are too high, change the PPT to 230, should stay 80C or under and you don't lose too much in the score.
> 
> View attachment 2479047


I appreciate the clarification. One more thing, about your curve optimizer coefficients/magnitudes, are they negative or positive?


----------



## KedarWolf

MakubeX said:


> I appreciate the clarification. One more thing, about your curve optimizer coefficients/magnitudes, are they negative or positive?


Negative.


----------



## Bojamijams

One thing that is confusing me is that people put a lower negative value on their best cores. 

This doesn't make sense to me and I asked @Thracks (AMD Official) on Twitter about it and he confirmed that the best cores should get the lowest offsets


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1358245965535264769
But that seems oppposite based on what some people are reporting here.


----------



## Veii

jvidia said:


> Here is my 5900X:
> View attachment 2478935
> 
> View attachment 2478936
> View attachment 2478937
> 
> 
> What do you think?
> Running the CNR20 single core test I get 5000Mhz on my 2 best cores (*#0 and #3) "only":
> View attachment 2478938
> 
> 
> Running the CNR20 multi core test I get this all core boost:
> View attachment 2478939
> 
> 
> Aren't the single core and multi core boosts low?


Effective clock, effective clock is all that matters 
Change HWInfo to CPU Snapshot pooling - tracking and check there effective clock T0


----------



## KedarWolf

Bojamijams said:


> One thing that is confusing me is that people put a lower negative value on their best cores.
> 
> This doesn't make sense to me and I asked @Thracks (AMD Official) on Twitter about it and he confirmed that the best cores should get the lowest offsets
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1358245965535264769
> But that seems oppposite based on what some people are reporting here.


From what I understand, the best cores need less voltage, hence a lower offset, and the worst cores need more voltage, so you put a higher offset.


----------



## Bojamijams

KedarWolf said:


> From what I understand, the best cores need less voltage, hence a lower offset, and the worst cores need more voltage, so you put a higher offset.


That would make sense if the sign was positive, but we're all doing negative. We're taking more voltage away


----------



## shaolin95

Bojamijams said:


> That would make sense if the sign was positive, but we're all doing negative. We're taking more voltage away


Exactly, we are doing negative thus the idea of best cores needing less voltage then we are doing the opposite most of the time.


----------



## KedarWolf

Bojamijams said:


> That would make sense if the sign was positive, but we're all doing negative. We're taking more voltage away


I tried higher negative offset on best cores, lower offset on worst cores, instant reboot in Cinebench R20.

With my regular higher on worst cores, lower on best cores, I get over 11750 in R20.

I don't know exactly how it works but 'Dis is da wae."


----------



## shaolin95

Yeah I tried lowering my best core to 30 like my others and got a whea on it so back to 20 it went


----------



## BluePaint

Its a misunderstanding. The 2 best cores determine the single core boost and voltage level, which is why they usually need a lower negative offset.
From the group of all other cores, the best ones can get a higher negative offset or expressed the other way round, the bad cores in that group need more voltage.


----------



## zGunBLADEz

Veii said:


> Effective clock, effective clock is all that matters
> Change HWInfo to CPU Snapshot pooling - tracking and check there effective clock T0


yes and his l3 cache numbers are half of what they should be too

ppl should ignore mhz reported they are not indicative of performance test test test


----------



## Bojamijams

BluePaint said:


> Its a misunderstanding. The 2 best cores determine the single core boost and voltage level, which is why they usually need a lower negative offset.
> From the group of all other cores, the best ones can get a higher negative offset or expressed the other way round, the bad cores in that group need more voltage.


But why Core 0 and Core 1 to be used in that way? Why not just the best core to establish a datum as you imply? 

I'll have to test this hypothesis


----------



## BluePaint

Bojamijams said:


> But why Core 0 and Core 1 to be used in that way?


The 2 cores used by PBO for single core boost/voltage are the ones marked in Ryzen Master with a special icon and are different from CPU to CPU.


----------



## Bojamijams

BluePaint said:


> The 2 cores used by PBO for single core boost/voltage are the ones marked in Ryzen Master with a special icon and are different from CPU to CPU.


Yeah I get that I just phrased my question wrong. I meant, why would it use two best cores to determine single core boost and voltage level. Wouldn't it just be the best core that is used for that?


----------



## BluePaint

The 2 best cores will usually boost the highest and used mostly if not more cores are required. In practice and in detail it gets more complicated (Windows core selection, apps choosing their own cores, heat balancing,..)


----------



## Sleepycat

When you apply negative offset, it essentially changes it from (as an example):
4.5 GHz @ 1.4V
to
4.5 GHz @ 1.3V

So that means if you still give the CPU a 1.4V with negative offset, you end up with a clock speed that is higher than 4.5 GHz, up to the upper programmed clock limit. So if you give your best cores a negative offset, you get higher speeds and better benchmark scores. 

The other aspect is that voltage would also be lower for the same speed if you don't boost it up with the +200 MHz option, allowing it to maintain that speed for longer before CPU temperatures reach the predetermined level at which clock speeds start decreasing again.


----------



## drnilly007

KedarWolf said:


> I got the quality of each core from the CTR2 app, then set the below. The CO:0 etc. is the Core number, the three-digit number is the quality, the last number is what I set the Core to.
> 
> I listed the cores from the highest quality to the lowest. Then set them in the Curve Optimizer.
> 
> The voltage is on Auto.
> 
> *Edit: For your BIOS you need to change from the CTR2 app, for example, CO:1 to CO:0 or CO:6 to CO:5, one lower. They are listed differently in CTR2 then
> the BIOS.
> 
> And have Curve Optimizer enabled at default settings before you check the quality in the CTR2 app, the quality can be different enabled rather than disabled.*
> 
> CO:0 - 220 - 8
> CO:4 - 220 - 8
> CO:5 - 215 - 10
> CO:7 - 211 - 10
> CO:1 - 206 - 15
> CO:6 - 201 - 15
> CO:2 - 197 - 20
> CO:3 - 192 - 20
> CO:14 - 187 - 25
> CO:15 - 183 - 25
> CO:11 - 178 - 25
> CO:10 - 173 - 25
> CO:13 - 169 - 30
> CO:9 - 164 - 30
> CO:8 - 159 - 30
> CO:12 - 155 - 30











Whats your suggestion with these numbers?


----------



## zGunBLADEz

this is my final tweak on the cpu side xfr/pbo/ c states everything is on and enable


----------



## shaolin95

zGunBLADEz said:


> View attachment 2481280
> 
> 
> this is my final tweak on the cpu side xfr/pbo/ c states everything is on and enable


Mind posting you bios settings? That single in cb20 is awesome


----------



## zGunBLADEz

shaolin95 said:


> Mind posting you bios settings? That single in cb20 is awesome


just played with the amd overclock setting and used an offset on the cpu until the single score wasnt affected as much vs the all core...

i can get 47x on all cores for example but loose the single/low cpu usage performance..

So now i get 47-48x depending how cold is the cpu on the run on all cores ..

So in another words it needs good cooling, offset negative on the volts it have his own sweep spot as well on the specific negative offset voltage (you need to try every each of them) and how well you manage to cool the "given voltage"
also using curve optimizer all negative 30 also play with the llc as well..


test/test/test <=== make sure is stable..

so it ended like

SSE instructions LOW LOADS" 49x "AlL CORES"
AVX/AVX2 between 47-48x "ALL CORES"
and then well normal single boost behavior

btw i also disable everything protection from the mobo itself tdp wise..


----------



## shaolin95

zGunBLADEz said:


> just played with the amd overclock setting and used an offset on the cpu until the single score wasnt affected as much vs the all core...
> 
> i can get 47x on all cores for example but loose the single/low cpu usage performance..
> 
> So now i get 47-48x depending how cold is the cpu on the run on all cores ..
> 
> So in another words it needs good cooling, offset negative on the volts it have his own sweep spot as well on the specific negative offset voltage (you need to try every each of them) and how well you manage to cool the "given voltage"
> also using curve optimizer all negative 30 also play with the llc as well..
> 
> 
> test/test/test <=== make sure is stable..
> 
> so it ended like
> 
> SSE instructions LOW LOADS" 49x "AlL CORES"
> AVX/AVX2 between 47-48x "ALL CORES"
> and then well normal single boost behavior
> 
> btw i also disable everything protection from the mobo itself tdp wise..


What mobo is that? I don't find anything about see and abc on mine like i used to see in my z390 mobo


----------



## zGunBLADEz

sse is the instructions set like 98% of all writen code lol
avx/avx2 is also instructions sets that required more power

This is an asus b550 itx strix


----------



## shaolin95

zGunBLADEz said:


> sse is the instructions set like 98% of all writen code lol
> avx/avx2 is also instructions sets that required more power
> 
> This is an asus b550 itx strix


Interesting i got an asus but x570 and don't find those. Oh well


----------



## zGunBLADEz

shaolin95 said:


> Interesting i got an asus but x570 and don't find those. Oh well


its not a bios settings its an instruction set that the cpu supports.

GeekBench5 score ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser


Todays HCI run

















still messing around with it. dont see any usage or lowering timings to be honest this is a old kit and infinity fabric is holding it get same performance on 14s/16s/17s lol


----------



## shaolin95

zGunBLADEz said:


> its not a bios settings its an instruction set that the cpu supports.
> 
> GeekBench5 score ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser
> 
> 
> Todays HCI run
> 
> View attachment 2481541
> View attachment 2481542
> 
> 
> still messing around with it. dont see any usage or lowering timings to be honest this is a old kit and infinity fabric is holding it get same performance on 14s/16s/17s lol


Yes i know they are instructions sets but i thought you were limiting the speeds in bios for them like i could with my 9900k before where you could have an offset for AVX for example.


----------



## zGunBLADEz

shaolin95 said:


> Yes i know they are instructions sets but i thought you were limiting the speeds in bios for them like i could with my 9900k before where you could have an offset for AVX for example.


The cpu does that automatic. Less amps more boost.


----------



## Zardoz

I don't know how some of y'all are hitting the scores/temps you are beyond silicon lottery. Feels like I've had to fight tooth and nail to hit >5.0 in effective clock in single threaded CB20 (640 score). Dialed it back a bit from there, but still kind of stuck.

5900x
NH-d14, HAF Evo XB
MSi x570 Tomahawk
G.skill 2x16 3600cl16 @3800, IF 1900


Spoiler: Latest CB 20













CO is set to -30 on 2 best cores, rest are at -25
PBO max is 51
Vcore is set to -0.500 offset, LLC is auto
PPT - 300, TDC - 130, EDC - 190 (mobo or higher limits resulted in worse performance in both sc+mc)
VRM swt freq is 800khz on core and soc



Haven't done any real stability testing yet, but the only hard crashes/whea errors I've seen in the last month were from CTR or doing something stupid.

Open to suggestions.


----------



## shaolin95

Zardoz said:


> I don't know how some of y'all are hitting the scores/temps you are beyond silicon lottery. Feels like I've had to fight tooth and nail to hit >5.0 in effective clock in single threaded CB20 (640 score). Dialed it back a bit from there, but still kind of stuck.
> 
> 5900x
> NH-d14, HAF Evo XB
> MSi x570 Tomahawk
> G.skill 2x16 3600cl16 @3800, IF 1900
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Latest CB 20
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2481699
> 
> 
> CO is set to -30 on 2 best cores, rest are at -25
> PBO max is 51
> Vcore is set to -0.500 offset, LLC is auto
> PPT - 300, TDC - 130, EDC - 190 (mobo or higher limits resulted in worse performance in both sc+mc)
> VRM swt freq is 800khz on core and soc
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't done any real stability testing yet, but the only hard crashes/whea errors I've seen in the last month were from CTR or doing something stupid.
> 
> Open to suggestions.


It seems these chips are very unique as what works for one person doesn't necessarily work others and i don't mean simple tweaks.
For instance you have a higher negative value for your main cores which seems to be the opposite of the norm. If i do that, i get whea on those cores.
Also, my edc is lower than my tdc and that seems to give me better results than the norm.
I do 280, 190, 150 with co -30 all cores except -20 on my 2 best ones.


----------



## Zardoz

Oh wow. First cb20 run with edc = 140, tdc = 160 gave me a 640 sc, and 8300 mc.

Saw a lot of 5025 in effective clocks during the sc test. Mc clocks I saw ccd1 hit 45 and droop to 4475, ccd2 at 4450 and droop to 44.

Vcore (Sv12) was in the mid 1.4's during sc, and dropped as low as 1.18 during mc test.

Ccd1 temps averaged 62 during sc (which is higher than I've ever seen it hit 5.0), and cpu die was maybe 72 during mc.

Bumped it up to +200 pbo and LLC4 and core 5 crashed IMMEDIATLY when entering windows.

Now was the crash a voltage thing, or an amperage thing? Gonna back pbo off to +75 and see what it does.

Super bizarre behaviour.

[edit: I'm just as lost now as I ever was]


Spoiler: Settings/scores











Vcore- auto, LLC - auto


----------



## zGunBLADEz

You need to test different llc/offsets i use negative offset and llc1. Depending.of the instructions sets used/amps sse and avx etc the clocks will fluctuate.
The boost is determined by your worst die if you want all the same mhz on all the cores.

You can switch to favor the main die but you will loose like 200-300mhz on the worst die to benefit the main die with 50-100 maybe 150mhz more.


----------



## Zardoz

I actually ran through all the llc settings with the same set up as my first post there. None performed as well as auto, though 5 and 6 performed almost the same with better thermals.

Any attempt I've made at using offset seems to rob too much voltage from single core and I lose clocks/score. Feels like I end up in some goofball loop of stealing voltage with one setting and feeding it back in with LLC or scalar.

Funny enough the best boosting behaviour I've seen was leaving everything at auto, pbo +75, and same CO settings. Sc was 643, but mc dropped to like 8200 in CB20.


----------



## zGunBLADEz

Use aida stress test start with cpu box tick alone. I use asus app to change voltage on windows on the fly click start watch behavior of boosting alone. Cpu box only does sse instructions fpu will throw avx to it.. Watch the boosting behavior and temps change voltage on the fly finding the sweet spot between sse/avx with matched clocks on all cores regardless of instructions... Then you benefit from low use single boost max cores. Temps dictates the extra mhz as well and voltage. Then use something like rog bench to validate overclock stay away from p95 or y kruncher for the sake of sanity lol. Do not use aida for stress just for quick boosting/voltage behavior while doing changes on the fly.


I have curve - 30 all cores negative offset something 0.6xx something , you can use motherboard limits as pbo limit for example. Max scalar 10x...


----------



## jamie1073

Mine performs best with CCD0 set to -12 on all but the two best cores where they are -15, then CCD1 set to -10 in Curve Optimizer. I can not do any lower than a CO of -10 all core or I get WHEA crashes. If I set my EDC and TDC at certain lower values than the MB default higher values, or set to the CPU values, then I get WHEA errors. I still can not get single core test runs to get anywhere near where then get in stock form but they are ok for me.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Anybody here has issues with IF clock hole at 1900mhz?? 1933 and 2000mhz IF Clock works just that 1900mhz..is it AGESA Code related/induced issue or its really the batch??


----------



## Zardoz

zGunBLADEz said:


> Temps dictates the extra mhz as well and voltage.


I have a 420 aio on the way, I feel like temp spikes could be an issue.



jamie1073 said:


> I still can not get single core test runs to get anywhere near where then get in stock form but they are ok for me.


From what I've seen, single core performance seems to scale with voltage the most. If you can play with vcore offset, LLC, and scalar without adding too much to multicore you should see single core come up some.



kairi_zeroblade said:


> Anybody here has issues with IF clock hole at 1900mhz?? 1933 and 2000mhz IF Clock works just that 1900mhz..is it AGESA Code related/induced issue or its really the batch??


Since I've set my ram I have yet to see any kind of crash or whea related to ram or IF clock 1900. I did set soc voltage to 1.1, and soc vrm to 800khz as well as using some of the secondary voltages in Dram tuner for Ryzen.



Spoiler: zen timings















I know I'm not pushing ram performance as hard as a lot of others, but this kit is only CJR as reported by Typhoon.


----------



## zGunBLADEz

guys if you having issues with cooling you can limit this also with pbo..

For example lets say you want max socket cpu draw lets say 160w (this dont include the whole chip) thats the max its going to let it go before adjusting itself to match power criteria same with amps tdc/edc different instructions different numbers depends your aplication/apps..

in my case using the curve the best 4 cores wants the higher negative to boost to the max possible.. problem is amd dont apply this voltage to one core... it try to swing around the ccx with the volt requesting.. funny tho according to clock tuner my cpu is a bronze sample... my worst ccx is 10c behind the 1st ccx. that ccx per core is like 4watts each core under the main ccx ones...

If is strictly for gaming adjust the best cores to the highest negative number and cap the wattage to 120watts or something.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Zardoz said:


> Since I've set my ram I have yet to see any kind of crash or whea related to ram or IF clock 1900. I did set soc voltage to 1.1, and soc vrm to 800khz as well as using some of the secondary voltages in Dram tuner for Ryzen.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: zen timings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2481854
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know I'm not pushing ram performance as hard as a lot of others, but this kit is only CJR as reported by Typhoon.


you seem to have not understand me..what I meant was when I set my IF clock and Memory clock to 1900mhz it doesn't boot up..but beyond 1900mhz and below 1900mhz it does boot..(1866mhz and 1933mhz)


----------



## BluePaint

@kairi_zeroblade 
There are some AGESA/BIOS versions which have a 1900 fclk 'hole'. Look for a bios update for your board


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

BluePaint said:


> @kairi_zeroblade
> There are some AGESA/BIOS versions which have a 1900 fclk 'hole'. Look for a bios update for your board


yup an older one did boot up on me on 1900mhz..though off course AMD recommends the new one as it has more fixes..I am torn about it if I do have to keep an updated/newer bios or just use an older one..


----------



## zGunBLADEz

zGunBLADEz said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2481280
> 
> 
> 
> this is my final tweak on the cpu side xfr/pbo/ c states everything is on and enable


I guess theres some improvement to be made still.. dropped 10c out of the hottest ccx


----------



## zGunBLADEz

btw thats 1musmus clock tuner in conjunction with amds boost tweaked.... difference is with the pbo alone is too hot... using clock tuner you have both options with hybrid oc and amd/bios option.... still dialing settings now that i manage to drop that much in temps.. cant wait for his revision of the app.. This would put the asus dark with the feature it have as exclusive bye bye... lol


----------



## shaolin95

zGunBLADEz said:


> I guess theres some improvement to be made still.. dropped 10c out of the hottest ccx


Dang that 658 single CB20 is impressive! I just hit my max ever but was just 646 lol

Below are my settings, maybe you can offer some extra advice even though we dont have tthe same CPU. 


> [2021/03/09 20:52:00]
> Ai Overclock Tuner [D.O.C.P. Standard]
> D.O.C.P. [D.O.C.P DDR4-3200 14-14-14-34-1.35V]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3600MHz]
> FCLK Frequency [1800MHz]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> CPU Core Ratio [Auto]
> Core VID [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> CCX0 Ratio [Auto]
> TPU [Keep Current Settings]
> Performance Bias [Auto]
> PBO Fmax Enhancer [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Manual]
> PPT Limit [220]
> TDC Limit [160]
> EDC Limit [170]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [50]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> DRAM CAS# Latency [14]
> Trcdrd [15]
> Trcdwr [14]
> DRAM RAS# PRE Time [14]
> DRAM RAS# ACT Time [28]
> Trc [42]
> TrrdS [4]
> TrrdL [6]
> Tfaw [16]
> TwtrS [4]
> TwtrL [12]
> Twr [12]
> Trcpage [Auto]
> TrdrdScl [4]
> TwrwrScl [4]
> Trfc [288]
> Trfc2 [225]
> Trfc4 [138]
> Tcwl [14]
> Trtp [8]
> Trdwr [8]
> Twrrd [4]
> TwrwrSc [1]
> TwrwrSd [7]
> TwrwrDd [7]
> TrdrdSc [1]
> TrdrdSd [5]
> TrdrdDd [5]
> Tcke [1]
> ProcODT [53.3 ohm]
> Cmd2T [1T]
> Gear Down Mode [Enabled]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> RttNom [Auto]
> RttWr [Auto]
> RttPark [Auto]
> MemAddrCmdSetup [Auto]
> MemCsOdtSetup [Auto]
> MemCkeSetup [Auto]
> MemCadBusClkDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusAddrCmdDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCsOdtDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> MemCadBusCkeDrvStren [24.0 Ohm]
> Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
> Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto]
> CPU Current Capability [Auto]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
> Active Frequency Mode [Disabled]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
> CPU Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> CPU Power Thermal Control [120]
> VDDSOC Load-line Calibration [Level 2]
> VDDSOC Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VDDSOC Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Current Capability [100%]
> DRAM Power Phase Control [Extreme]
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> CPU Core Current Telemetry [Auto]
> CPU SOC Current Telemetry [Auto]
> Force OC Mode Disable [Disabled]
> SB Clock Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
> VTTDDR Voltage [Auto]
> VPP_MEM Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
> DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V Standby Voltage [Auto]
> CPU 3.3v AUX [Auto]
> 1.2V SB Voltage [Auto]
> DRAM R1 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R2 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R3 Tune [Auto]
> DRAM R4 Tune [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R1 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R2 [Auto]
> PCIE Tune R3 [Auto]
> PLL Tune R1 [Auto]
> PLL reference voltage [Auto]
> T Offset [Auto]
> Sense MI Skew [Auto]
> Sense MI Offset [Auto]
> Promontory presence [Auto]
> Clock Amplitude [Auto]
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.10000]
> DRAM Voltage [1.46000]
> VDDG CCD Voltage Control [1.050]
> VDDG IOD Voltage Control [1.050]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [0.950]
> 1.00V SB Voltage [1.00000]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [1.80000]
> TPM Device Selection [Discrete TPM]
> Erase fTPM NV for factory reset [Enabled]
> PSS Support [Enabled]
> PPC Adjustment [PState 0]
> NX Mode [Enabled]
> SVM Mode [Disabled]
> SMT Mode [Auto]
> Core Leveling Mode [Automatic mode]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> SATA Port Enable [Enabled]
> SATA Mode [AHCI]
> NVMe RAID mode [Disabled]
> SMART Self Test [Auto]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> Hot Plug [Disabled]
> HD Audio Controller [Disabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> PCIEX16_2 Bandwidth Bifurcation configuration [Auto Mode]
> When system is in working state [All On]
> Q-Code LED Function [POST Code Only]
> When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [All On]
> Realtek 2.5G LAN Controller [Auto]
> Realtek PXE OPROM [Setup]
> Intel LAN Controller [Setup]
> ASM1074 Controller [Enabled]
> Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) Controller [Enabled]
> Bluetooth Controller [Enabled]
> USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
> PCIEX16_1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX16_2 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX1 Mode [Auto]
> PCIEX16_3 Mode [Auto]
> M.2_1 Link Mode [Auto]
> M.2_2 Link Mode [Auto]
> SB Link Mode [Auto]
> ErP Ready [Disabled]
> Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
> Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
> Power On By RTC [Disabled]
> Above 4G Decoding [Enabled]
> Re-Size BAR Support [Auto]
> SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
> Legacy USB Support [Disabled]
> XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
> USB Device Enable [Enabled]
> U32G2_2 [Enabled]
> U32G2_3 [Enabled]
> U32G2_4 [Enabled]
> U32G1_10 [Enabled]
> U32G1_11 [Enabled]
> USB12 [Enabled]
> USB13 [Enabled]
> U32G2_7 [Enabled]
> U32G2_8 [Enabled]
> U32G2_C9 [Enabled]
> Network Stack [Disabled]
> Device [SATA6G_7: WDC WD40EZRZ-00GXCB0]
> CPU Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
> MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
> VRM Temperature [Monitor]
> T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
> CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
> High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
> W_PUMP+ Speed [Monitor]
> AIO PUMP Speed [Monitor]
> PCH Fan Speed [Monitor]
> Flow Rate [Monitor]
> CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
> 3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
> 5V Voltage [Monitor]
> 12V Voltage [Monitor]
> CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Standard]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [0 sec]
> Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Standard]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [Auto]
> High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [CPU]
> High Amp Fan Step Up [0 sec]
> High Amp Fan Step Down [0 sec]
> High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
> High Amp Fan Profile [Standard]
> Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [Disabled]
> Above 4GB MMIO Limit [39bit (512GB)]
> Fast Boot [Enabled]
> Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
> Boot Logo Display [Auto]
> Bootup NumLock State [On]
> POST Delay Time [1 sec]
> Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
> Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
> Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
> Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
> Launch CSM [Disabled]
> OS Type [Other OS]
> AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
> Flexkey [Reset]
> Setup Animator [Disabled]
> Load from Profile [2]
> Profile Name [3103lowtemp!]
> Save to Profile [1]
> DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A1]
> Bus Interface [PCIEX16_1]
> Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Enabled]
> CPU Frequency [0]
> CPU Voltage [0]
> CCD Control [Auto]
> Core control [Auto]
> SMT Control [Auto]
> Overclock [Enabled ]
> Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
> Tcl [Auto]
> Trcdrd [Auto]
> Trcdwr [Auto]
> Trp [Auto]
> Tras [Auto]
> Trc Ctrl [Auto]
> TrrdS [Auto]
> TrrdL [Auto]
> Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
> TwtrS [Auto]
> TwtrL [Auto]
> Twr Ctrl [Auto]
> Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
> TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
> TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
> Tcwl [Auto]
> Trtp [Auto]
> Tcke [Auto]
> Trdwr [Auto]
> Twrrd [Auto]
> TwrwrSc [Auto]
> TwrwrSd [Auto]
> TwrwrDd [Auto]
> TrdrdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSd [Auto]
> TrdrdDd [Auto]
> ProcODT [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Infinity Fabric Frequency and Dividers [Auto]
> ECO Mode [Disable]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
> PBO Limits [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Curve Optimizer [Per Core]
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [20]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 12 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 12 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 13 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 13 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 14 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 14 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 15 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 15 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [0MHz]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Disabled]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> Custom Pstate0 [Auto]
> L1 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> L2 Stream HW Prefetcher [Auto]
> Core Watchdog Timer Enable [Auto]
> SMEE [Auto]
> Core Performance Boost [Auto]
> Global C-state Control [Auto]
> Power Supply Idle Control [Typical Current Idle]
> SEV ASID Count [Auto]
> SEV-ES ASID Space Limit Control [Auto]
> Streaming Stores Control [Auto]
> Local APIC Mode [Auto]
> ACPI _CST C1 Declaration [Auto]
> MCA error thresh enable [Auto]
> PPIN Opt-in [Auto]
> Fast Short REP MOVSB [Enabled]
> Enhanced REP MOVSB/STOSB [Enabled]
> IBS hardware workaround [Auto]
> DRAM scrub time [Auto]
> Poison scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber control [Auto]
> Redirect scrubber limit [Auto]
> NUMA nodes per socket [Auto]
> Memory interleaving [Auto]
> Memory interleaving size [Auto]
> 1TB remap [Auto]
> DRAM map inversion [Auto]
> ACPI SRAT L3 Cache As NUMA Domain [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT Distance Control [Auto]
> ACPI SLIT remote relative distance [Auto]
> GMI encryption control [Auto]
> xGMI encryption control [Auto]
> CAKE CRC perf bounds Control [Auto]
> 4-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> 3-link xGMI max speed [Auto]
> xGMI TXEQ Mode [Auto]
> PcsCG control [Auto]
> Disable DF to external downstream IP SyncFloodPropagation [Auto]
> Disable DF sync flood propagation [Auto]
> CC6 memory region encryption [Auto]
> Memory Clear [Auto]
> Overclock [Enabled]
> Memory Clock Speed [Auto]
> Tcl [Auto]
> Trcdrd [Auto]
> Trcdwr [Auto]
> Trp [Auto]
> Tras [Auto]
> Trc Ctrl [Auto]
> TrrdS [Auto]
> TrrdL [Auto]
> Tfaw Ctrl [Auto]
> TwtrS [Auto]
> TwtrL [Auto]
> Twr Ctrl [Auto]
> Trcpage Ctrl [Auto]
> TrdrdScL Ctrl [Auto]
> TwrwrScL Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc2 Ctrl [Auto]
> Trfc4 Ctrl [Auto]
> Tcwl [Auto]
> Trtp [Auto]
> Tcke [Auto]
> Trdwr [Auto]
> Twrrd [Auto]
> TwrwrSc [Auto]
> TwrwrSd [Auto]
> TwrwrDd [Auto]
> TrdrdSc [Auto]
> TrdrdSd [Auto]
> TrdrdDd [Auto]
> ProcODT [Auto]
> Power Down Enable [Auto]
> Disable Burst/Postponed Refresh [Auto]
> DRAM Maximum Activate Count [Auto]
> Cmd2T [Auto]
> Gear Down Mode [Auto]
> CAD Bus Timing User Controls [Auto]
> CAD Bus Drive Strength User Controls [Auto]
> Data Bus Configuration User Controls [Auto]
> Data Poisoning [Auto]
> DRAM Post Package Repair [Default]
> RCD Parity [Auto]
> DRAM Address Command Parity Retry [Auto]
> Write CRC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM Write CRC Enable and Retry Limit [Auto]
> Disable Memory Error Injection [True]
> DRAM ECC Symbol Size [Auto]
> DRAM ECC Enable [Auto]
> DRAM UECC Retry [Auto]
> TSME [Auto]
> Data Scramble [Auto]
> DFE Read Training [Auto]
> FFE Write Training [Auto]
> PMU Pattern Bits Control [Auto]
> MR6VrefDQ Control [Auto]
> CPU Vref Training Seed Control [Auto]
> Chipselect Interleaving [Auto]
> BankGroupSwap [Auto]
> BankGroupSwapAlt [Auto]
> Address Hash Bank [Auto]
> Address Hash CS [Auto]
> Address Hash Rm [Auto]
> SPD Read Optimization [Enabled]
> MBIST Enable [Disabled]
> Pattern Select [PRBS]
> Pattern Length(VMR) [6]
> Aggressor Channel [1 Aggressor Channel]
> Aggressor Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Target Static Lane Control [Disabled]
> Worst Case Margin Granularity [Per Chip Select]
> Read Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Read Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Voltage Sweep Step Size [1]
> Write Timing Sweep Step Size [1]
> IOMMU [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Auto]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> FCLK Frequency [Auto]
> SOC OVERCLOCK VID [0]
> UCLK DIV1 MODE [Auto]
> VDDP Voltage Control [Auto]
> VDDG Voltage Control [Auto]
> SoC/Uncore OC Mode [Auto]
> LN2 Mode [Auto]
> ACS Enable [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Support [Auto]
> PCIe ARI Enumeration [Auto]
> PCIe Ten Bit Tag Support [Auto]
> cTDP Control [Auto]
> EfficiencyModeEn [Auto]
> Package Power Limit Control [Auto]
> APBDIS [Auto]
> DF Cstates [Auto]
> CPPC [Auto]
> CPPC Preferred Cores [Auto]
> NBIO DPM Control [Auto]
> Early Link Speed [Auto]
> Presence Detect Select mode [Auto]
> Preferred IO [Auto]
> CV test [Auto]
> Loopback Mode [Auto]
> SRIS [Auto]
> Data Link Feature Exchange [Disabled]


----------



## Joeking78

kairi_zeroblade said:


> Anybody here has issues with IF clock hole at 1900mhz?? 1933 and 2000mhz IF Clock works just that 1900mhz..is it AGESA Code related/induced issue or its really the batch??


Had that issue on my 5900x.

1900IF no boot no matter what I tried...below fine, above WHEA.

On my 5800x on the same board same issue with 1900IF but its stable and WHEA free up to 2066IF...currently won't boot at 2100IF


----------



## zGunBLADEz

the override use the other one and put +200 try again
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [50] <== use [Auto] and in the other setting tab for amd overclock
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [0MHz] instead 200+
you have alot of stuff on auto tho but start from there..

i tweaked the default bios/amd/cpu behavior to max boost, now that aside i know is stable.... now im notching the all core overclock with clock tuner which i net like 10-15c drops depending what im running.. over the first set of numbers thing is i didnt know you can use normal amd behavior on boosting and clock tuner at the same time depending on the load % on the threads


----------



## zGunBLADEz

this multi score while maintaining the single boost behavior at the same time now im aiming just for scraps lol time to notch down back to my 70c ish lol... that temps 80-85ish what i was getting on just my normal tweaked boosting behavior vs clock tuner


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Joeking78 said:


> Had that issue on my 5900x.
> 
> 1900IF no boot no matter what I tried...below fine, above WHEA.
> 
> On my 5800x on the same board same issue with 1900IF but its stable and WHEA free up to 2066IF...currently won't boot at 2100IF


same on my 5800X all IF Clocks are available and bootable upto 2000mhz for me..


----------



## Theo164

Daily settings tested with P95, aida64, occt, y-cruncher, LinpackXtreme, HKEPC, TM5 1usmus_v3 & [email protected] and lots of gaming
Seems stable so far no ide reboots, full load reboots, BSOD, memory errors and/or WHEA

Ai Overclock Tuner [D.O.C.P. Standard]
D.O.C.P. [D.O.C.P DDR4-3603 16-16-16-36-1.35V]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3800MHz]
FCLK Frequency [1900MHz]

CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
- VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.03125]
DRAM Voltage [1.40000]
VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.900]
VDDG IOD Voltage Control [0.950]
CLDO VDDP voltage [0.850]
1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]

Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
PBO Limits [Manual]
PPT Limit [W] [220]
TDC Limit [A] [120]
EDC Limit [A] [160]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
Curve Optimizer [Per Core]
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [16]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [24]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [150MHz]
Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]





































Some 4800 @ 1.3v static oc performance testing


----------



## shaolin95

Kil


zGunBLADEz said:


> View attachment 2481976
> 
> 
> this multi score while maintaining the single boost behavior at the same time now im aiming just for scraps lol time to notch down back to my 70c ish lol... that temps 80-85ish what i was getting on just my normal tweaked boosting behavior vs clock tuner


CTR has issues with Px with my setup unfortunately where it seems to be stable yet a quick test of the aida CPU Zlib test will reboot my computer unless i set Px to a very low 4900 which is far slower and performs much slower than my rock solid PBO+CO setup :/


----------



## jamie1073

I for some reason can not do any lower than -10 on my CCD2 and -12on CCD1, except 2 best at -15 on my 5900X. It also boost better that way than if I do -10 on CCD2 and try lower numbers on CCD1. If I try to set the best cores to something like -1 it will not boost single core higher, it does best at -15.. If I drop my EDC to something like 190 or 170 I get WHEA errors and reboots, if I do 180 or 160 I need to do positive offset on the CPU voltage of a .05V for stability. Currently I have it set to motherboard values for PPT, TDC and EDC and that is 385, 255, 200 and LLC=3 and boost to +150 and 6X and that is giving me the best MC and SC scores when compared to other settings. I had EDC=160 and LLC=3 but my MC tanked and it really did not boost SC much, best I can do it 624 on R20 and 8700 on MC. But my memory is kicking ass in AIDA64 tests. Hell I have passed an hour of OCCT and then had WHEA reboot 5 minutes after it ends if I try anything less than EDC=200 without a positive offset. I am not sure if it a bad CPU since it does work flawlessly if set to PBO Auto, PBO enabled, and PBO manual and over 200 on EDC. It is very strange that it does not seem to be as tweakable as all of yours. If I set CCD2 to anything more than -10 on CO it is just not stable. Won't even boot trying all core at -15, -20, -25 or -30.


----------



## zGunBLADEz

shaolin95 said:


> Kil
> CTR has issues with Px with my setup unfortunately where it seems to be stable yet a quick test of the aida CPU Zlib test will reboot my computer unless i set Px to a very low 4900 which is far slower and performs much slower than my rock solid PBO+CO setup :/


From the bios itself when my cpu boost for example

It have a high vid under sse instructions aida cpu tick only no fpu it boost between 48-49x my setup have vdroop on it im using loose llc around 1.3x volts . on avx i get 46x on all cores it gets quite hot thats when ctr will help you to lower the temps on all cores usage on those type of loads.


Watch the vid musmus recommends an llc that doesnt do any vdrooop close to output voltage with not much variation i like vdroop myself lol. But the higher vid in pbo guaranteed you higher boost clocks on those cores for example. Problem is it gets quite hot. Also if the start voltage its not high enough those boost cores would not boost high its a gamble..

So you would need to set your bios first to take advantage of pbo and then after you know thats stable and temps manageable , use ctr to dial all core under load to minimize those temps.

Do not try to 1:1 your ccx leave your worst ccx behind like 100-200mhz on all core try for as example 1.300v and ccx1 47x ccx2 46x under ctr then you check the vdroop it should be around 1.280v-1.300v no less then you check for stability use rog bench for that. Then adjust volts up&down until is stable.

Remember the trick for the higher single boost its high vid over 1.4v on low loads lol my bios is adaptive negative 0.06xx curve -30 every cpu is different in that regards.


----------



## jamie1073

Does this indicate a not so good chip and the reason I can not get good results with curve optimizer? I pretty much tried to do close to those values in CO, closest value to what it says, so for say an 11 I used 10. But my CPU does worse with those values than with -10 on all CCD2 cores and -12 on all but the two best CCD1 cores, where they are -15. If I do the reverse and try something like -5 on the best cores and -8 on the others in CCD1 then I get worse results. Mine pretty much does best with -10 on bad CCD and -12 on best CCD. But none give me better than a 624 single core R20 value or better than 8700 multi. I think I just have bad luck with AMD cpus. My 3900x was low boosting as well no matter what I tried. Only way it ever did well was with th EDC bug and even that stopped boosting after a while, I even bought a different X570 board after I got the 5900 because it was not performing well and I thought it could be the board. Grrrr. About to just switch to Intel again.


----------



## Zardoz

jamie1073 said:


> Does this indicate a not so good chip and the reason I can not get good results with curve optimizer?
> 
> 
> Spoiler: snip
> 
> 
> 
> I pretty much tried to do close to those values in CO, closest value to what it says, so for say an 11 I used 10. But my CPU does worse with those values than with -10 on all CCD2 cores and -12 on all but the two best CCD1 cores, where they are -15. If I do the reverse and try something like -5 on the best cores and -8 on the others in CCD1 then I get worse results. Mine pretty much does best with -10 on bad CCD and -12 on best CCD. But none give me better than a 624 single core R20 value or better than 8700 multi. I think I just have bad luck with AMD cpus. My 3900x was low boosting as well no matter what I tried. Only way it ever did well was with th EDC bug and even that stopped boosting after a while, I even bought a different X570 board after I got the 5900 because it was not performing well and I thought it could be the board. Grrrr. About to just switch to Intel again.
> 
> View attachment 2482389


Your cppc values are exactly the same as mine. Which incidentally are exactly the same as some of the twitter posts I've seen from iusmus' CTR snippets.



Spoiler: CTR FIT measurements



DEFAULT CURVE COEFFICIENTS
CORE#1 9 CPPC 166
CORE#2 10 CPPC 174
CORE#3 11 CPPC 174
CORE#4 9 CPPC 162
CORE#5 9 CPPC 158
CORE#6 10 CPPC 170
CORE#7 0 CPPC 137
CORE#8 3 CPPC 150
CORE#9 0 CPPC 133
CORE#10 2 CPPC 154
CORE#11 1 CPPC 141
CORE#12 2 CPPC 145



The best single core score I've gotten (643) was from leaving everything pretty well stock and increasing ppt while using CO.

Throw board variance and bios versions into the mix and it's kind of a crapshoot. Like if I set PBO limits to motherboard, edc goes up to like 250, and gives worse performance.


----------



## jamie1073

Zardoz said:


> Your cppc values are exactly the same as mine. Which incidentally are exactly the same as some of the twitter posts I've seen from iusmus' CTR snippets.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: CTR FIT measurements
> 
> 
> 
> DEFAULT CURVE COEFFICIENTS
> CORE#1 9 CPPC 166
> CORE#2 10 CPPC 174
> CORE#3 11 CPPC 174
> CORE#4 9 CPPC 162
> CORE#5 9 CPPC 158
> CORE#6 10 CPPC 170
> CORE#7 0 CPPC 137
> CORE#8 3 CPPC 150
> CORE#9 0 CPPC 133
> CORE#10 2 CPPC 154
> CORE#11 1 CPPC 141
> CORE#12 2 CPPC 145
> 
> 
> 
> The best single core score I've gotten (643) was from leaving everything pretty well stock and increasing ppt while using CO.
> 
> Throw board variance and bios versions into the mix and it's kind of a crapshoot. Like if I set PBO limits to motherboard, edc goes up to like 250, and gives worse performance.


Yeah but mine seems to only like EDC of 200 or over. I get hella WHEA error, reboots, if I play with anything lower without adding voltage to the CPU. 180 seems stable then bam reboot after I run OCCT for an hour and think it is fine with no errors. 160 does better but performs worse. 225 or 235 do great MC but crap shoot on the SC. So far my best is 200 which is the setting I get when set to Motherboard, also the only one where setting LLC to anything other than Auto benefits. It just seems strange that there are so many other samples that do great and I seem to get the crap ones. I thought because I got the 3900X right when it was introduced that may be why mine just did nothing near what any reviewers got, and I mean 100's of points lower on MC and 10's of points on SC. Mine with stock settings does great on SC but scores less than 8100 on multi. Oh well. It had been running all day today with no issues and then bam WHEA reboot. Grrr. But thanks for the info. At least my Ram runs at 3800 and is good.


----------



## Theo164

Could be possible different motherboards equal different results because of voltage control / default bios settings? Don't know just checking...
Both runs are @ 1usmus recommended settings + ram oc only change LLC auto vs 3


----------



## BluePaint

Everything related to voltage + load line will heavily influence RTC results.
The stronger the load line, the better your CPU will look like in RTC because it thinks it can undervolt your CPU more. 
Not sure why RTC doesn't also take actual voltage into account.


----------



## Zardoz

THE NUMBERS MASON

Cppc numbers are yet again the same. Makes me wonder if they mean anything at all.


And I am pretty sure the trusty Nh-D14 is holding me back (at least partially). Left a window open and took the time to run down some benches while the house was still cold.



Spoiler: Better













Probably not great numbers considering the company, but better than I've seen so far on this system



Also, enabling snapshot polling lets you see per core vid at the expense of threading, but seems to alleviate a lot of clock stretching nonsense. Almost positive the trick (for me at least) is keeping ccd1 under 60° to hit 5.0+ single core.



Spoiler: Snapshot













This run finished with a 642 single core



Also, some guy on reddit posted a graph of temp/freq scaling for his cpu, pretty neat.

Gonna get a case set up with a 420mm aio in the next few days, maybe try out the new agesa.


----------



## eliwankenobi

Hey all,

Does anyone here have a 5900x that can't boot with IF1900 or above? 

Mine has a hard wall at 1866mhz... I even tried it on a B550 board, which are supposed to be better at achieving higher IF and same story.... so 3733mhz is my limit.


----------



## Bojamijams

Theo164 said:


> Daily settings tested with P95, aida64, occt, y-cruncher, LinpackXtreme, HKEPC, TM5 1usmus_v3 & [email protected] and lots of gaming
> Seems stable so far no ide reboots, full load reboots, BSOD, memory errors and/or WHEA
> 
> Ai Overclock Tuner [D.O.C.P. Standard]
> D.O.C.P. [D.O.C.P DDR4-3603 16-16-16-36-1.35V]
> BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
> Memory Frequency [DDR4-3800MHz]
> FCLK Frequency [1900MHz]
> 
> CPU Core Voltage [Auto]
> CPU SOC Voltage [Manual]
> - VDDSOC Voltage Override [1.03125]
> DRAM Voltage [1.40000]
> VDDG CCD Voltage Control [0.900]
> VDDG IOD Voltage Control [0.950]
> CLDO VDDP voltage [0.850]
> 1.00V SB Voltage [Auto]
> 1.8V PLL Voltage [Auto]
> 
> Precision Boost Overdrive [Advanced]
> PBO Limits [Manual]
> PPT Limit [W] [220]
> TDC Limit [A] [120]
> EDC Limit [A] [160]
> Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Auto]
> Curve Optimizer [Per Core]
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [16]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [24]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
> Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [30]
> Max CPU Boost Clock Override [150MHz]
> Platform Thermal Throttle Limit [Auto]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2482241
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some 4800 @ 1.3v static oc performance testing


Those are some amazing results! I'm curious which setting gives you a better score in 3dmark Timespy (your PBO vs your all core) if you have that benchmark.


----------



## VPII

I think I am pretty happy with my CPU, at present I am running all cores at negative 25 curve, I did so with a negative 0.0875vcore off-set but when running CTR 2.0 it would fail during diagnotic run. When running CTR 2.0 diagnostic with no changes in the bios, as such stock my CPU is classified as a Silver Sample, but when I did the run now with the -25 curve optimizer it shows that I have a Golden Sample.


----------



## ossimc

VPII said:


> I think I am pretty happy with my CPU, at present I am running all cores at negative 25 curve, I did so with a negative 0.0875vcore off-set but when running CTR 2.0 it would fail during diagnotic run. When running CTR 2.0 diagnostic with no changes in the bios, as such stock my CPU is classified as a Silver Sample, but when I did the run now with the -25 curve optimizer it shows that I have a Golden Sample.


you are pretty happy because of what exactly? by seeing random numbers in CTR? shouldnt you show us...maybe some benchmark results so we can relate to your happiness? lol^^

makes total sense that you get a better quality reading in CTR by setting a negative curve beforehand. CTR reads a lower VID then and doesnt "know" its not stock


----------



## BluePaint

I am actually not sure why curve undervoling should result in higher CTR rating because CTR sets a fixed voltage and clock speed for testing (curve settings should be deactivated in BIOS for CTR analysis). I am not sure how curve settings influence this, maybe it was actually a different setting. 

The rating is based on the lowest stable voltage (VID) for 4350 Mhz (reference frequency), which is why strong LLC will give better results, because with the same VID the actual voltage under test load will be higher and therefore more stable. Lower temps will also have a positive influence on rating, which is why comparing CTR results from different people is of limited use. It's more useful when testing multiple CPUs with the same settings/test conditions.


----------



## Zardoz

The FIT readings are taken before the manual OC goes into effect, so by showing a lower voltage and temp during initial cinebench run it spits out better numbers.

You're right about the bronze-gold rating being after the diagnostic. I would guess the curve/cppc numbers are weighted into the result since diagnostic only really tests how low voltage can go, not how high frequency can reach.

Stock mine spits out silver, but I've seen it spit out gold and bronze as well.


----------



## superuser_epic

eliwankenobi said:


> Hey all,
> 
> Does anyone here have a 5900x that can't boot with IF1900 or above?
> 
> Mine has a hard wall at 1866mhz... I even tried it on a B550 board, which are supposed to be better at achieving higher IF and same story.... so 3733mhz is my limit.


Same for me, I can not get over 1866 on a b550 Aorus Master.


----------



## superuser_epic

eliwankenobi said:


> Hey all,
> 
> Does anyone here have a 5900x that can't boot with IF1900 or above?
> 
> Mine has a hard wall at 1866mhz... I even tried it on a B550 board, which are supposed to be better at achieving higher IF and same story.... so 3733mhz is my limit.


I also tied on a b550m Aorus Pro -P


----------



## Zardoz

I did the chassis transpant I was planning to (RIP Nh-D14 and Haf XB Evo), kind of an ordeal as I thought I had bricked my gpu on first boot.

New setup is an Arctic Liquid Freezer II 420mm (rev 3 offset mount) that I massaged into Lian Li o11 Air with a 4.5" zip disc.

Ran down the same set of benches as my open window tests with very similar results.



Spoiler: Results - Cb20, Cpuz, Timespy, Realbench 2.43, Geekbench 5















I am absolutely convinced that there is a 60° wall for 5.0+ boost. Way easier to see with how much smoother the aio is for temperature changes. Single core boost more or less lived between 5020 and 5050 in cb20 sc. All core boost during cb20 mc was 4.62 and seemed to hold it.


Settings were about the same as previous posts I've made;

PBO limit 5.1ghz, ppt 225, tdc 140, edc 185, CO -30 on 2 best -25 ish on rest
Vcore - offset,'-', auto
LLC 6
Vrm freq 800


----------



## eliwankenobi

superuser_epic said:


> I also tied on a b550m Aorus Pro -P


I made a claim with AMD with this issue as well as the higher than expected temperatures at stock settings. AMD approved the RMA. I am sending it tomorrow. In the meantime... I am glad I still haven't sold my 3800x.


----------



## TheSortaHawaiian

Hi All!

I'm working on overclocking a 5900X via PBO2. Right now I am working on the curve with manual set stock PPT/TDC/EDC I've worked my way on the cores to -30 on all except one core at -14 and one core at -17, I seem stable with no crashes. But as I go back to look at my runs I seem to have higher C23/C20 scores at most the cores being at -25 and the two at -14/-17. The weird thing is other tests like Shadow of TR, CPUz (multi/single), Geekbench (multi/single) all seem to be a little higher/equal scores....

Does this seem right? Should it be that a lower curve (-30 vs -25) on "stable" cores should result in lower scores? I wanted to know people's thoughts before I move to start testing PPT/TDC/EDC or should I just move on with -30/-17/-14?

Extra info, at -30, -17/-14:
C23, ave of 5 runs: 21506.6
C20, ave of 5 runs: 21408.4
CPUZ Mult 5 runs: 9692.98, single: 3400.1

at -25, -17/-14:
C23, ave of 5 runs: 21408.4
C20, ave of 5 runs: 8370.2
CPUZ Mult 5 runs: 9753.36, single: 3412.8

I should also mention, my benchmark score increases were very noticable moving up through to -25 (-5 jumps) and when I hit -30 is where I saw a stall or reversal with C20/23's case.


----------



## Bojamijams

I've seen something similar. Great scaling on performance from -1 to -20 but after that, it seems to drop off/reverse. There's probably some error correction happening that is causing too low a voltage not to BSOD/restart/crash but require re-executing of the instruction which is what gives the lower score

I also don't think we fully understand PBO2 / Curve Optimizer. A lot of people here say that the best core should have the lower negative number and the worst cores should have a bigger one. But that is complete opposite of what AMD_Robert has said

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1358245965535264769
And honestly, that makes sense. On dual CCD chips, the second CCD is worse than the first, so it makes sense that the first CCD can have the bigger negative offsets since it is the better binned CCD. And that setting works the best for me too. If I try to give my second CCD lower than -10/-15 I will get errors on OCCT.


----------



## BluePaint

Might be clock stretching. 

Here something from Yuri Bubliy the CTR developer:
https://www.patreon.com/1usmus/posts

Adaptive clocking technology that dynamically adjusts cycle times (such as decreasing frequency) to withstand voltage drops without increasing voltage. Once the rolloff is detected and the magnitude is determined, the clock stretcher increases the clock period (i.e., decreases the frequency) to compensate.

PBO mode achieves the maximum stretch that is possible. That is, you cannot see it by looking at the effective frequency. AMD carefully hides this value. It means that 5100 MHz in PBO in reality can be 4950 MHz or even 4750 MHz.


----------



## jamie1073

Bojamijams said:


> I've seen something similar. Great scaling on performance from -1 to -20 but after that, it seems to drop off/reverse. There's probably some error correction happening that is causing too low a voltage not to BSOD/restart/crash but require re-executing of the instruction which is what gives the lower score
> 
> I also don't think we fully understand PBO2 / Curve Optimizer. A lot of people here say that the best core should have the lower negative number and the worst cores should have a bigger one. But that is complete opposite of what AMD_Robert has said
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1358245965535264769
> And honestly, that makes sense. On dual CCD chips, the second CCD is worse than the first, so it makes sense that the first CCD can have the bigger negative offsets since it is the better binned CCD. And that setting works the best for me too. If I try to give my second CCD lower than -10/-15 I will get errors on OCCT.


I agree. My 5900X performs best by having larger negative values on the best cores. I can only do a -10 on most of my CCD2 cores, two of them need to be a -8 or I eventually get a WHEA error randomly when it drops to idle and the error points to my core 11. I have to run my two best cores at the lowest negative, in my case -20 and the rest of CCD1 on -15. That gives me the best balanced results of multi and single core on benches. Still nothing like I have seen on here but I do not have time to keep rebooting, changing values, and testing just to get a few more points on a bench. I did get a better water block for my CPU and that scores better as it is cooling better than the previous one.


----------



## Sleepycat

TheSortaHawaiian said:


> Hi All!
> 
> I'm working on overclocking a 5900X via PBO2. Right now I am working on the curve with manual set stock PPT/TDC/EDC I've worked my way on the cores to -30 on all except one core at -14 and one core at -17, I seem stable with no crashes. But as I go back to look at my runs I seem to have higher C23/C20 scores at most the cores being at -25 and the two at -14/-17. The weird thing is other tests like Shadow of TR, CPUz (multi/single), Geekbench (multi/single) all seem to be a little higher/equal scores....
> 
> Does this seem right? Should it be that a lower curve (-30 vs -25) on "stable" cores should result in lower scores? I wanted to know people's thoughts before I move to start testing PPT/TDC/EDC or should I just move on with -30/-17/-14?
> 
> Extra info, at -30, -17/-14:
> C23, ave of 5 runs: 21506.6
> C20, ave of 5 runs: 21408.4
> CPUZ Mult 5 runs: 9692.98, single: 3400.1
> 
> at -25, -17/-14:
> C23, ave of 5 runs: 21408.4
> C20, ave of 5 runs: 8370.2
> CPUZ Mult 5 runs: 9753.36, single: 3412.8
> 
> I should also mention, my benchmark score increases were very noticable moving up through to -25 (-5 jumps) and when I hit -30 is where I saw a stall or reversal with C20/23's case.


Your scores seem low. With PBO Advanced, +200MHz, best 2 cores on CCX1 at -15, remainder at -20, CCX2 cores at -30, I was hitting 4.65GHz all core @ 1.37-1.41V, giving C23 scores of 23600. I was limited by temperature as I had set the thermal limit to 85ºC and the CPU was stuck at 85ºC the whole time.

Now I have stopped using PBO Advanced and started using CTR2.0 instead. I have it set to just 4.55GHz all core @ 1.250V which results in C23 scores of 22900-23000 and a maximum temperature of 82 ºC after about 10 minutes looping of C23.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> Your scores seem low. With PBO Advanced, +200MHz, best 2 cores on CCX1 at -15, remainder at -20, CCX2 cores at -30, I was hitting 4.65GHz all core @ 1.37-1.41V, giving C23 scores of 23600. I was limited by temperature as I had set the thermal limit to 85ºC and the CPU was stuck at 85ºC the whole time.
> 
> Now I have stopped using PBO Advanced and started using CTR2.0 instead. I have it set to just 4.55GHz all core @ 1.250V which results in C23 scores of 22900-23000 and a maximum temperature of 82 ºC after about 10 minutes looping of C23.


How much are you getting in cb20 with those ctr setting?


----------



## KedarWolf

shaolin95 said:


> How much are you getting in cb20 with those ctr setting?


----------



## Zardoz

jamie1073 said:


> I agree. My 5900X performs best by having larger negative values on the best cores. I can only do a -10 on most of my CCD2 cores, two of them need to be a -8 or I eventually get a WHEA error randomly when it drops to idle and the error points to my core 11. I have to run my two best cores at the lowest negative, in my case -20 and the rest of CCD1 on -15. That gives me the best balanced results of multi and single core on benches. Still nothing like I have seen on here but I do not have time to keep rebooting, changing values, and testing just to get a few more points on a bench. I did get a better water block for my CPU and that scores better as it is cooling better than the previous one.



Did you figure out your EDC worries? I noticed in Ryzen master you can change PPT TDC and EDC on the fly, but it maxes out at 200...


----------



## Sleepycat

shaolin95 said:


> How much are you getting in cb20 with those ctr setting?


I'm getting 8834 all core in CB20 with CTR 2.0 @ 4.55 GHz.

With PBO Advanced @ 4.65 GHz, CB20 was 9089.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

superuser_epic said:


> Same for me, I can not get over 1866 on a b550 Aorus Master.


Nothing you can do about it..but you can try above 1900 IF Clock..it works for me just needs higher voltage(SOC,VDDP,VDDG) to prevent all those WHEA errors...not worth it IMHO as it just gets hotter in my case..(though my previous 5800X was a beast and the best and cooler too..I just needed/preferred more cores..)

AMD did mention that 3600mhz is the sweet spot..(well, unless your aiming to get E-Peens, I would suggest you go RMA your CPU or sell it elsewhere) so I don't have much expectations, mine does have a good Curve as well so its still a win..


----------



## jamie1073

Zardoz said:


> Did you figure out your EDC worries? I noticed in Ryzen master you can change PPT TDC and EDC on the fly, but it maxes out at 200...


Yeah I can change the EDC to pretty much any value now that I dropped those two cores in CCD2 to a -8 or -5. I can drop my two best on CCD1 to -25 but they do not do any better than they do at -20 so I leave them at -20. I am going to play around more on my next day off now that I have a better water block, the TechN block dropped my CPU temps to around 6-7C lower than my old block, Corsair XC7. When I would run R20 or R23 multi core I would be in the low 80C range and now I am below 80C which helped my R20 scores compare to the old one. My chip is hitting 5.1 on two cores in HWInfo64 and when I run R20 SC it is hitting 4.9+ on those two core but my score is still only 625. So more playing just to see what a lower EDC will do.


----------



## Zardoz

jamie1073 said:


> Yeah I can change the EDC to pretty much any value now that I dropped those two cores in CCD2 to a -8 or -5. I can drop my two best on CCD1 to -25 but they do not do any better than they do at -20 so I leave them at -20. I am going to play around more on my next day off now that I have a better water block, the TechN block dropped my CPU temps to around 6-7C lower than my old block, Corsair XC7. When I would run R20 or R23 multi core I would be in the low 80C range and now I am below 80C which helped my R20 scores compare to the old one. My chip is hitting 5.1 on two cores in HWInfo64 and when I run R20 SC it is hitting 4.9+ on those two core but my score is still only 625. So more playing just to see what a lower EDC will do.


Sounds like you're limited by voltage if thermals are good and you can't get any more results with more negatives in CO. Still, running a numerically higher negative should allow for more power budget for your other cores during all core.

If you're hitting 5.1 effective clock in single core you should be scoring like 650+ though. You don't have a million background services bunging it up, or hwinfo set to like 50 ms polling do you?

Might be worth playing around with EDC in Ryzen Master just to see how your chip reacts. I noticed with stock settings I could pinch about 80 mhz all core out of it while running cpuz stress test. 

Shaolin95 mentioned earlier in the thread that running a low EDC worked better for them.


----------



## TheSortaHawaiian

Sleepycat said:


> Your scores seem low. With PBO Advanced, +200MHz, best 2 cores on CCX1 at -15, remainder at -20, CCX2 cores at -30, I was hitting 4.65GHz all core @ 1.37-1.41V, giving C23 scores of 23600. I was limited by temperature as I had set the thermal limit to 85ºC and the CPU was stuck at 85ºC the whole time.
> 
> Now I have stopped using PBO Advanced and started using CTR2.0 instead. I have it set to just 4.55GHz all core @ 1.250V which results in C23 scores of 22900-23000 and a maximum temperature of 82 ºC after about 10 minutes looping of C23.


Do you think these are low scores for just curve edits? I haven't started any other changes yet.


----------



## shaolin95

Sleepycat said:


> I'm getting 8834 all core in CB20 with CTR 2.0 @ 4.55 GHz.
> 
> With PBO Advanced @ 4.65 GHz, CB20 was 9089.


Sorry I meant single scores. Thanks


----------



## jamie1073

Zardoz said:


> Sounds like you're limited by voltage if thermals are good and you can't get any more results with more negatives in CO. Still, running a numerically higher negative should allow for more power budget for your other cores during all core.
> 
> If you're hitting 5.1 effective clock in single core you should be scoring like 650+ though. You don't have a million background services bunging it up, or hwinfo set to like 50 ms polling do you?
> 
> Might be worth playing around with EDC in Ryzen Master just to see how your chip reacts. I noticed with stock settings I could pinch about 80 mhz all core out of it while running cpuz stress test.
> 
> Shaolin95 mentioned earlier in the thread that running a low EDC worked better for them.


I have to play around more now that I have the new water block. I did play with the EDC values a bit but I think the thermals were limiting it. I have to kind of start all over now that the new block is installed. I have off Wednesday and Thursday so I will probably get it figured out. My chip does boost higher single core in stock settings but it really sucked all core, score was like 8100 multi.


----------



## zGunBLADEz

amd or asus mess up my power table with the new agesa... now my tweaked power table my main 2 active cores on idle are 0/1 instead of by design which are 1/5 on the first ccx which affect latency sensitive apps as is trying to use the 1st core instead of the fastest one.

Power plan would park and turn on cores as needed including 2nd ccx best cores which are core 9&11 which will be turned first than the rest of the the 2nd ccx in that order

it will do 1/5 then all of 1st ccx then it jumps to 9&11 as needed then if need all it would use the cores in order of "performance quality of the core" now it just go in order as cores...
Edit:
btw i just rolled back the bios to B550-I 1803 and yes its back to how i have it.. and how it should be.. 1&5 active on idle and all the other parked. This are the cores and cores usage according to be used 1st


----------



## ossimc

Hey guys.

So i now have two fully tweaked settings. 1. PBO(0mhz offset) with agressive curve and -0.05v offset on top 2. per CCX overclock 4,6/4,5 with 1.225vcore (1.206 after drop)

both fully stable. While PBO gives me better SC of course, CCX gives me better performance in modern Games while consumin way less power beauce of the lack of unnecessary boost with high vcore. Ok nothing new here...we all know that.

But how can i get the same low idle power draw(and light task like watching a youtube video) with CCX OC? somehow PBO is always a bit less in idle draw


----------



## drkCrix

Good day all,

Just received my 5950x and I am looking to maximize the chip as best I can. 

When looking at PBO I noticed some odd behavior.

If I left the PBO settings at stock, both CCXs would boost the same (effective clock)

If I changed the EDC value I would see that CCX0 would boost up but CCX1 would lag behind by a few hundred Mhz. The CCX effective clock would sync back up if I put the EDC to 200

Is this know behavior or is there something strange going on?

Cheers,

Chris


----------



## MikeS3000

drkCrix said:


> Good day all,
> 
> Just received my 5950x and I am looking to maximize the chip as best I can.
> 
> When looking at PBO I noticed some odd behavior.
> 
> If I left the PBO settings at stock, both CCXs would boost the same (effective clock)
> 
> If I changed the EDC value I would see that CCX0 would boost up but CCX1 would lag behind by a few hundred Mhz. The CCX effective clock would sync back up if I put the EDC to 200
> 
> Is this know behavior or is there something strange going on?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris


If you have a Gigabyte board that is typical behavior. I tested my 5900x in an MSI board and clocks were uniform between CCX's. Try EDC at motherboard limit and they clocks should be the same.


----------



## drkCrix

Sorry I missed putting that in. This was on a X570 Tomahawk with the latest MSI Beta BIOS


----------



## Lobstar

Finished prepping my 5950x for my optimus foundation block. It started out pretty warped.








And now it looks like this:








It took about 3 hours total progressing from 400 to 2000 grit sand paper. I wet sanded the entire time alternating method between 4 sets of 10 strokes vertically with a 90 degree rotation then 4 sets of 4 figure-eights each with a 90 degree rotation.


----------



## JohnnyFlash

Lobstar said:


> Finished prepping my 5950x for my optimus foundation block. It started out pretty warped.
> View attachment 2485260
> 
> And now it looks like this:
> View attachment 2485261
> 
> It took about 3 hours total progressing from 400 to 2000 grit sand paper. I wet sanded the entire time alternating method between 4 sets of 10 strokes vertically with a 90 degree rotation then 4 sets of 4 figure-eights each with a 90 degree rotation.


That's courage, goodbye warranty. 

Please keep us updated, I'm deciding on my my loop setup as well.


----------



## Lobstar

JohnnyFlash said:


> That's courage, goodbye warranty.
> 
> Please keep us updated, I'm deciding on my my loop setup as well.


I've never had to warranty a CPU so I'm not too concerned. I de-lidded my 6700k and that was always fine. I pencil modded my old AMD chips back in the day too. And if something happens I can just move my 3950x from my server back to the gaming PC and put the 3700x back in the server.


----------



## ESRCJ

I'm curious to know if anyone else has experienced an all-core frequency "wall" with their CPUs. My 5950X seems like a pretty solid sample, as I've been running 4.7GHz all cores at 1.22V using Realbench 2.56, OCCT with AVX2, CBR23 loops, and my own workloads to test stability. The voltage steps for each 100MHz seem quite reasonable up to 4.7GHz. However, 4.8GHz is extremely problematic for me. I can sometimes run CBR23 at 4.8GHz all cores at 1.26V, but it's definitely not stable. Even as I keep increasing the voltage, it doesn't become stable. The behavior at 1.31V is identical to the behavior at 1.26V: I can run CBR23 a few times, but it'll eventually crash after enough runs. At 1.26V, peak temps on my hottest CCD is about 83-85C with the fluid temp of my CPU loop at 24-26C. At 1.31V the hottest CCD peaks at 91C and the CPU is incredibly inefficient at this point. 

So basically, 4.8GHz seems to be a wall for my CPU. I can throw plenty of voltage at it, but that doesn't matter. Most of the time when it crashes, I get a "CPU over temperature error," which seems to be a false positive. So has anyone else experienced such behavior at a particular frequency? I've messed around with just about every relevant BIOS setting I can to see if something else could be the culprit, but zero luck. I've basically concluded that my CPU simply can't manage a stable 4.8GHz all cores, which is disappointing since it can manage 4.7GHz at pretty low voltages.


----------



## lDevilDriverl

Lobstar said:


> Finished prepping my 5950x for my optimus foundation block. It started out pretty warped.
> View attachment 2485260
> 
> And now it looks like this:
> View attachment 2485261
> 
> It took about 3 hours total progressing from 400 to 2000 grit sand paper. I wet sanded the entire time alternating method between 4 sets of 10 strokes vertically with a 90 degree rotation then 4 sets of 4 figure-eights each with a 90 degree rotation.


have same WB and 5950x too. Would be great to know difference it temps) Please let me know)


----------



## VPII

ossimc said:


> you are pretty happy because of what exactly? by seeing random numbers in CTR? shouldnt you show us...maybe some benchmark results so we can relate to your happiness? lol^^
> 
> makes total sense that you get a better quality reading in CTR by setting a negative curve beforehand. CTR reads a lower VID then and doesnt "know" its not stock


Okay sorry for my late reply. Now I understand this maybe not the best, but I am pretty happy with it as is. Had a ton of issues with my setup yesterday where it will not even start up and then all of a sudden it started up. Unstalled the app I installed when it happened and now seem to be all good.


----------



## thigobr

I finally got a working 5950X and started working with Curve Optimizer...

On second CCX any core will work with >= -20 offset. On first CCX most cores will do -12, the 3rd/4th best -8, the best core -6, and weirdly the 2nd best core won't work even with -1 offset!

Anybody has seen this behavior before?


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

thigobr said:


> I finally got a working 5950X and started working with Curve Optimizer...
> 
> On second CCX any core will work with >= -20 offset. On first CCX most cores will do -12, the 3rd/4th best -8, the best core -6, and weirdly the 2nd best core won't work even with -1 offset!
> 
> Anybody has seen this behavior before?


this was my 5900x behaviour as well..2nd CCD is crap and 1st one does great on CO..also I am limited to 3733 IF Clocks..so I sold it...too much of a pain..


----------



## JohnnyFlash

thigobr said:


> I finally got a working 5950X and started working with Curve Optimizer...
> 
> On second CCX any core will work with >= -20 offset. On first CCX most cores will do -12, the 3rd/4th best -8, the best core -6, and weirdly the 2nd best core won't work even with -1 offset!
> 
> Anybody has seen this behavior before?


Yep, it's normal; not all cores are created equal. They also tend to match a slightly weaker CCD1 to improve yeilds.

Intel is the same, I can get 300MHz more at the same voltage with two cores disabled on my 8750H. Intel just doesn't give you the option to tweak by core.

The holy grail would be allowing per-core manual overclock.


----------



## ESRCJ

JohnnyFlash said:


> Yep, it's normal; not all cores are created equal. They also tend to match a slightly weaker CCD1 to improve yeilds.
> 
> Intel is the same, I can get 300MHz more at the same voltage with two cores disabled on my 8750H. Intel just doesn't give you the option to tweak by core.
> 
> The holy grail would be allowing per-core manual overclock.


Per-core overclocking is supported on X299. I honestly never bothered with it outside of a little experimentation since it's a lot of work tuning 18 cores separately for a very small performance improvement over an all-core OC. The largest gains would be in single-threaded applications.


----------



## JohnnyFlash

ESRCJ said:


> Per-core overclocking is supported on X299. I honestly never bothered with it outside of a little experimentation since it's a lot of work tuning 18 cores separately for a very small performance improvement over an all-core OC. The largest gains would be in single-threaded applications.


There's a 450MHz delta between my best and worse core at a given fixed voltage. I would welcome it.


----------



## Asmodian

I have been running -22 all core on the Curve Optimizer and a -62.5mV voltage offset for the last two weeks. It seems stable, zero issues at these settings so far, but it will be a lot longer before I really trust it since stability testing the curve optimizer is tricky unless it is very unstable (-25 crashes fast enough to be sure it doesn't work). -75mV causes lower performance in Cinebench r20. A non-zero core offset also seems to hurt performance, I am not sure why. This is with a 200A EDC. Peak core effective clock reported in HWiNFO was 4999.6 MHz during Cinebench single core.

Any suggestions or comments? Thanks. 
































Time Spy CPU score: 16662








I scored 20 719 in Time Spy


AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 65536 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com





Time Spy Extreme CPU score: 9886








I scored 10 905 in Time Spy Extreme


AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 65536 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## JohnnyFlash

Asmodian said:


> I have been running -22 all core on the Curve Optimizer and a -62.5mV voltage offset for the last two weeks. It seems stable, zero issues at these settings so far, but it will be a lot longer before I really trust it since stability testing the curve optimizer is tricky unless it is very unstable (-25 crashes fast enough to be sure it doesn't work). -75mV causes lower performance in Cinebench r20. A non-zero core offset also seems to hurt performance, I am not sure why. This is with a 200A EDC. Peak core effective clock reported in HWiNFO was 4999.6 MHz during Cinebench single core.


If you're using the offset, you're opening yourself up to clock stretching, which is why it's hurting performance. Stick to just core optimizer and take your time. If you think it's stable, run core cycler overnight, or for 24 hours if you can. 

Whatever best setting passes that overnight, reduce all cores by 1 and that's your 24/7.


----------



## KedarWolf

JohnnyFlash said:


> If you're using the offset, you're opening yourself up to clock stretching, which is why it's hurting performance. Stick to just core optimizer and take your time. If you think it's stable, run core cycler overnight, or for 24 hours if you can.
> 
> Whatever best setting passes that overnight, reduce all cores by 1 and that's your 24/7.


Their single-core and multicore is quite good for -22. I'm not sure using an offset is actually hurting performance for them.

Let me test my multicore with and without the same offset. bbiab.

I gained close to 100 multicore R20 points using a .065 offset.


----------



## KedarWolf

JohnnyFlash said:


> If you're using the offset, you're opening yourself up to clock stretching, which is why it's hurting performance. Stick to just core optimizer and take your time. If you think it's stable, run core cycler overnight, or for 24 hours if you can.
> 
> Whatever best setting passes that overnight, reduce all cores by 1 and that's your 24/7.


Actually, I think you're right. With an offset getting unexplained lag in games and Windows.


----------



## JohnnyFlash

KedarWolf said:


> Actually, I think you're right. With an offset getting unexplained lag in games and Windows.


Glad you figured it out. They made CO to replace offset because of the clock stretching everyone was getting on Zen2.

These are tricky chips, I ending up going to a per-ccx manual overclock for my uses.


----------



## Asmodian

KedarWolf said:


> Actually, I think you're right. With an offset getting unexplained lag in games and Windows.


Clock stretching isn't going to cause unexplained lag in games or Windows, is it?

That doesn't make sense to me since clock stretching is a very short time period thing, something that happens on timescales completely below detectable by humans. I don't notice any downside due to my negative offset until I set it a bit higher, when it starts to harm performance in benchmarks.



JohnnyFlash said:


> Glad you figured it out. They made CO to replace offset because of the clock stretching everyone was getting on Zen2.


Is there some objective test I could do to detect issues with clock stretching? I assumed performance in benchmarks or similar would be able to detect clock stretching and that is the only context I see it discussed in. If it doesn't hurt benchmarks what else do I need to check?


----------



## KedarWolf

Asmodian said:


> Clock stretching isn't going to cause unexplained lag in games or Windows, is it?
> 
> That doesn't make sense to me since clock stretching is a very short time period thing, something that happens on timescales completely below detectable by humans. I don't notice any downside due to my negative offset until I set it a bit higher, when it starts to harm performance in benchmarks.
> 
> 
> 
> Is there some objective test I could do to detect issues with clock stretching? I assumed performance in benchmarks or similar would be able to detect clock stretching and that is the only context I see it discussed in. If it doesn't hurt benchmarks what else do I need to check?


Might have been I had my offset too low, but with the CPU voltage on Auto, no more Windows and game lag. I mean it was quite bad.


----------



## Asmodian

KedarWolf said:


> Might have been I had my offset too low, but with the CPU voltage on Auto, no more Windows and game lag. I mean it was quite bad.


Very interesting, I wonder what it is from. If it was very obvious at least I know mine (probably) isn't doing it.  

I wish it just crashed, overclocking is so hard when the CPU does this weird auto-downclocking (sleeping?) with voltage being too low.


----------



## KedarWolf

Asmodian said:


> Very interesting, I wonder what it is from. If it was very obvious at least I know mine (probably) isn't doing it.
> 
> I wish it just crashed, overclocking is so hard when the CPU does this weird auto-downclocking (sleeping?) with voltage being too low.


I lowered the offset to .0625 and no more Windows or game lag. Multicore R20 is still nearly 100 points faster.


----------



## Asmodian

KedarWolf said:


> I lowered the offset to .0625 and no more Windows or game lag. Multicore R20 is still nearly 100 points faster.


That is exactly the same offset I found. At first I thought it was -0.050V because -0.075 caused slowdown, but after testing finer steps I think -0.0625V is the optimal (for my CPU?).

Leaving it on Auto seems a little intense, 1.5V seems high even though it is stock. I like how the offset lowers the power/heat for multicore too.


----------



## KedarWolf

Asmodian said:


> That is exactly the same offset I found. At first I thought it was -0.050V because -0.075 caused slowdown, but after testing finer steps I think -0.0625V is the optimal (for my CPU?).
> 
> Leaving it on Auto seems a little intense, 1.5V seems high even though it is stock. I like how the offset lowers the power/heat for multicore too.


With a .0625 offset OCCT is 15C cooler AVX2 Extreme preset and I gain close to 100 points in R20 multicore.


----------



## Timur Born

Trying negative Vcore offset is one of the first things I am looking at with my 5900X. I am less worried about temperatures, but about power usage. At idle my 5900X system draws 10-15 watts more from the wall than my 9900K system, using the same components and a lesser number of fans.

In WoW Shadowlands the 5900X systems draws 50-60 watts more power than the 9900K system displaying the same scenes at same 60 fps and same graphics settings while using the same GPU. About 45-50 watts is from increased CPU package power compared to the 9900K.

First impression of the 5900K is a bit of a let-down, because the increased power usage does not correspond to increased performance yet.

- I was mostly hoping for around 20% decrease in load time for single-threaded Lua scripts (WoW and Fantasy Grounds), but the load times are practically the same.

- My highest multi-threaded load is using Topaz Gigapixel AI to up-sample images to enormous size (short of the 32k px limit). But due to this kind of image software not being able to make full use of parallelization I only get around 28% more performance out of the 50% more cores, higher IPC and much larger L3 cache (9900K vs. 5900X).

- On the plus side, flipping and searching through large/multiple image heavy PDF files seems to be about 20% faster now. Opening very large ZIP/Deflate compressed TIF files (single-threaded) is faster, too.

We will see if mild overclocking can improve on that first impression, but I expected a bit more out of the box.


----------



## JohnnyFlash

Timur Born said:


> Trying negative Vcore offset is one of the first things I am looking at with my 5900X. I am less worried about temperatures, but about power usage. At idle my 5900X system draws 10-15 watts more from the wall than my 9900K system, using the same components and a lesser number of fans.


Do not use offset, use curve optimizer if you're going that route. Curve optimizer is pass/fail, offset will cause the chip to clock-stretch.


----------



## Timur Born

I will start with the offset to check if it makes any difference in wattage. The most shocking figure is the extra 50-60 watts (185w vs 245w) compared to the 9900K system, running the very same load. And that's with the 9900K only being allowed C3 via BIOS and the 5900X being allowed even deeper C-states.


----------



## Senniha

HyperC said:


> feels like a milestone but I finally hit 700 single core, Never rebooted a pc so much in my life... Think I gained 5 more gray hairs in my beard and a pissed off wife..
> View attachment 2474480


Its been late to asked for a post before 4 months but I want to know if you were having WHEA errors back then with agesa 1.1.0.0 and which version windows you were running.With latest windows IF has problems with OC and I have many errors with this agesa.Im running x370 and AMD block the beta bios do it's impossible to get any update on the future.


----------



## Timur Born

Using an offset of -0.0625 V decreased my WoW test-load by about 10 watts tops, still 50 watts more than the 9900K system for doing the same thing. Idle power isn't really affected, but that was expected.


----------



## JohnnyFlash

Timur Born said:


> Using an offset of -0.0625 V decreased my WoW test-load by about 10 watts tops, still 50 watts more than the 9900K system for doing the same thing. Idle power isn't really affected, but that was expected.


I'm still curious why you're using offset and not curve optimizer? Curve optimizer does the same thing, but on a per core basis, which gives better results.


----------



## thigobr

Each point in the Curve Optimizer corresponds to ~3-5mV according to some slides shared by AMD. A full -30 CO setting should result in between -0.150V and -0.090V voltage change.


----------



## Asmodian

thigobr said:


> Each point in the Curve Optimizer corresponds to ~3-5mV according to some slides shared by AMD. A full -30 CO setting should result in between -0.150V and -0.090V voltage change.


I don't see any change in the max voltage when adjusting the curve optimizer. The only way to lower the peak voltage is to use an offset.

What am I missing?


----------



## JohnnyFlash

Asmodian said:


> I don't see any change in the max voltage when adjusting the curve optimizer. The only way to lower the peak voltage is to use an offset.
> 
> What am I missing?


Are you getting the same peak clock speed as well? If so, something in the BIOS is not setup right.


----------



## Timur Born

I am using offset, because it is a fast way to test things (wattage). In my MSI UEFI there is another option that (by name) allows to only lower the peak voltage instead of applying an overall offset. This could be useful. But at this point I was interested in power draw.

Overall I might be most interested to increase single-threaded Lua interpreter performance, as this is the biggest disappointment yet while being the one thing that keeps me waiting for over half a minute whenever I start Wow or Fantasy Grounds (VTT).


----------



## BluePaint

Asmodian said:


> I don't see any change in the max voltage when adjusting the curve optimizer. The only way to lower the peak voltage is to use an offset.


CO doesnt reduce max voltage because it is using primarily temps and power as limiter but it reduces voltage for a given clock speed and should raise avg clock.


----------



## SuprUsrStan

Alright so here's my overclocking experience.

CPU: 5950X
Cooler: 280mm Alphacool XT45 & EK Magnitude Waterblock
Motherboard: Crosshair VIII Impact
Memory: 32GB Dominator Platinum 3600Mhz CL18

I feel like I've got a decent good chip that performs consistently well across the board. I've fiddled around with PBO, as well as the curve optimizer but ended up settling on a simple PBO configuration. With only PBO enabled and a Scalar of 5X, my chip will hit 4.5 to 4.55 Ghz across all cores and hold them in R20/R23. This is with auto on just about all of the other adjustments including voltage. On single core tests, it will hit and stay at 5.0Ghz, Two Cores at least 4.9Ghz and Four cores at 4.75Ghz. This performance seems excessively easy to achieve with just enabling PBO and a scalar adjustment. Temps are usually stable between 82 to 85 degrees C on all core tests, about 65C or less on single core test.

However, further tweaking does not achieve any appreciable increase in performance. When I set the offset to 200Mhz, the system will recognize that the OC scheme goes from PBO to "Auto Overclock" according to Ryzen Master and I'll sometimes lose performance. Small adjutments may result in a overall lower all core boost of 4.3Ghz or 4.4Ghz A negative offset of 20 on all cores seems to match the PBO performance giving me about 4.52Ghz on all cores and again about 5.02 on a single core. At a negative 25 on all cores will result in clear instability across the system. I have not tested the negative 20 offset in all stability scenarios and various single to multi core loads so I'm not positive on stability. A negative 15 should be stable but again, the performance is really close to just a standard PBO. I have not invested the time in per core offsets in the curve optimizer, I'm sure if I do, I could probably eek out a little bit more performance but that leads to my conclusion.

With how well PBO performs out of the box and it's almost guaranteed stability at the temps I'm seeing, I find very little incentive to do further adjustments, curve optimizer, and stability testing to try to match or gain that little bit over what PBO brings to the table. I have even less desire to try my hand at the PBO/Manual Overclock hybrid overclock.

Thoughts?
























EDIT: I think the CB bench could have been higher if I were to tighten the timing of my memory up from CL18.


----------



## GribblyStick

Might seem like an obvious question, but what do you guys use to stress the CPU temperature wise?
I tried blender (Classroom/BMW), prime 95 and AIDA and none of those go above 55 degrees, but I know it can get hotter since those all only push up less than 4600.
During 3dmark it went into the 70ties, but there isn't there something better to test that, something that loops and reliably heats it up? Heaven benchmark also left it around the 55 ballpark.


----------



## Sleepycat

GribblyStick said:


> Might seem like an obvious question, but what do you guys use to stress the CPU temperature wise?
> I tried blender (Classroom/BMW), prime 95 and AIDA and none of those go above 55 degrees, but I know it can get hotter since those all only push up less than 4600.
> During 3dmark it went into the 70ties, but there isn't there something better to test that, something that loops and reliably heats it up? Heaven benchmark also left it around the 55 ballpark.


Cinebench R20 or R23 have been able to push my temperatures up.


----------



## GribblyStick

Ah right, forgot to mention cinebench, same thing there in the 50ies, but I only tried R20, let me check R23.

--update
nope same thing. Ran a few minutes of R23, same behavior- then for comparison, just launching 3Dmark made one CCD go up to 70 degrees.


----------



## Asmodian

GribblyStick said:


> nope same thing. Ran a few minutes of R23, same behavior- then for comparison, just launching 3Dmark made one CCD go up to 70 degrees.


That is very odd, Cinebench give me higher peak temps on the CCDs than 3Dmark does, r20 seems slightly higher than r23.


----------



## BluePaint

GribblyStick said:


> Ah right, forgot to mention cinebench, same thing there in the 50ies, but I only tried R20, let me check R23.
> 
> --update
> nope same thing. Ran a few minutes of R23, same behavior- then for comparison, just launching 3Dmark made one CCD go up to 70 degrees.


Whats the voltage and power usage during koad?


----------



## Sleepycat

GribblyStick said:


> Ah right, forgot to mention cinebench, same thing there in the 50ies, but I only tried R20, let me check R23.
> 
> --update
> nope same thing. Ran a few minutes of R23, same behavior- then for comparison, just launching 3Dmark made one CCD go up to 70 degrees.


What cooler are you using again? Maybe it is taking all the heat away.


----------



## GribblyStick

Spoiler: Temps



Temps after a run of R23:









temps after opening 3d mark immediately afterwards:









after running timespy:









Timespy:













Spoiler: power/voltage



during R23:











Cooled by a custom water loop. (aquacomputer cuplex kroys next vario)
This block allows you to do some adjustments after mounting, to better adapt to your particular IHS.
So on the one hand I was looking for a stable sustained load in order to configure that.
They've measured up to 2 degrees improvement but I have no idea how to do it. Any load I put on it just naturally fluctuates enough to where I had no idea if I was improving or worsening temps.
I legitimately can't tell if it's working, but it makes sense on paper at least.

The other thing I wanted to do was simply get it hot to gauge the mount/loop is working fine. I am still working on getting the flow up, it's not where I want it to be atm.
But I can't tell what the max temperature is if I can't reliably trigger it, well apart from that peak when launching 3dmark, but that's not reliable, it doesn't always go that high.
Temps are overall fine I would say, but since I would do mostly games, it would be nice to push single threaded loads which seem to get hotter.
I have yet to play with CO, I would like to get a baseline first.

That said, I am a little worried at how much hotter CCD1 gets, 6+ degrees seems a lot.


----------



## BluePaint

CPU PPT maximum is only 140W and voltage 1.17v under load which is why temperatures are low and the CPU frequency is limited. With enhanced power target CB can go over 250W @ 1.3v @ 4600+Mhz. Then u will also see higher temps, probably around 80C with your cooling.

Otherwise u might see short temp spikes from 1.5v and 5+ Ghz in single core boosts.


----------



## PJVol

GribblyStick said:


> Ah right, forgot to mention cinebench, same thing there in the 50ies, but I only tried R20, let me check R23.


You're powah and current restricted atm, and so, wasting time worrying. Just give it more (set PBO limits to enable, or motherboard, or set them manually to something like 200/150/200) and give it a try.


----------



## GribblyStick

Sorry if that wasn't clear, I wasn't trying yet to overclock, just seeing how the base behaves.
That said (already posted in the ryzen stability thread) but I'll post it here too, one thing that is not clear to me is the pbo limits. I have seen gamernexus set these to motherboard limits, which are way beyond what the FUSE limits are. Assuming Fuse limits are indeed a thing, then why are people talking about different settings for TDP,PPT,EDC? You could set set everything to max and the chip would still not be at risk? Might thermal throttle at worst, but then you could lower TDP until it stops, and that would still not risk damaging the CPU


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

@GribblyStick when I had my 5900x (a rubbish one) your current temps are just my temps when I am using a 200w PPT limit for PBO..that is already boosting to 4.6ghz all core sustained load and a 5.05ghz Single core load..if you want to see how effective your cooling is, better do a 200W TDP limit via PBO on that chip and see how it cools it down, you don't have to worry with any risks since these chips will throttle the performance down when you are already getting near the Thermal limit set (92c) or you can manually set a lower limit than what is advertised in the same PBO menu..


----------



## Timur Born

Is it normal for CCX quality to differ so much on a single CPU (5900X)? The best core of CCX 2 is worse than the worst core of CCX 1. Is this lottery or done on purpose by AMD?


----------



## JohnnyFlash

Timur Born said:


> Is it normal for CCX quality to differ so much on a single CPU (5900X)? The best core of CCX 2 is worse than the worst core of CCX 1. Is this lottery or done on purpose by AMD?
> 
> View attachment 2489495


It's pretty common, that is more drastic than most from what I have seen though. As long as one CCD hits the top turbo numbers, then it's within AMD's spec.

You can use affinity codes to manually assign cores on launch for games and such.


----------



## Timur Born

Assigning affinities is not necessary from what I have seen. Windows 10 (Thread Scheduler) does this by itself when CPPC is active in BIOS, putting high load on the strongest cores and low background load on the weakest (1909 and 20H2 tested).


----------



## JohnnyFlash

Timur Born said:


> Assigning affinities is not necessary from what I have seen. Windows 10 (Thread Scheduler) does this by itself when CPPC is active in BIOS, putting high load on the strongest cores and low background load on the weakest (1909 and 20H2 tested).


That is true if you're not a heavy user. If you're encoding a HEVC movie and want an emulator to use your best cores for instance, you have to manually set it.


----------



## Timur Born

If you are running both at the same time then maybe. Windows will still put the most demanding threads on the strongest cores. You might be better off setting process priorities instead of affinities then.


----------



## GribblyStick

Timur Born said:


> Is it normal for CCX quality to differ so much on a single CPU (5900X)? The best core of CCX 2 is worse than the worst core of CCX 1. Is this lottery or done on purpose by AMD?
> 
> View attachment 2489495


you are not alone, 5900x:


----------



## Asmodian

This is definitely intentional, the three X950X CPUs I have had all had much better cores on CCD0 than CCD1. It also makes a lot of sense given how the products work at stock.

Loads with a low thread count can boost higher on the higher quality cores but if all cores are loaded it would melt if run that fast (frequency is the biggest factor in power/heat), so it couldn't run the second CCD faster even if it was higher quality.


----------



## JohnnyFlash

Timur Born said:


> If you are running both at the same time then maybe. Windows will still put the most demanding threads on the strongest cores. You might be better off setting process priorities instead of affinities then.


An emulator like Cemu for instance wouldn't be as heavy a load per core as an HEVC thread though. Nor would a game.


----------



## Timur Born

But every time the Cemu or game threads max out their core Windows will automatically schedule them to a "good" core. By using fixed affinities you are then keeping other high load threads off the good cores when they would otherwise be free for use. I think that CPU priorities would serve you better then.


----------



## Timur Born

After lots of fiddling, testing, analyzing, measuring and wrapping my head around the whole thing I think that I now understand the mechanics and interoperability of PBO, Curve Optimizer, Vcore (offset), (maximum) frequency limit vs. single-core + multi-core performance.

The only thing that still confuse me are:

- The EDC (215 A) limit permanently hitting 100% during sustained load that is not even close to the TDC limit (210 A) or measured current (130 A).

- Some power read-outs of HWinfo that seem like either HWinfo errors of sensors reporting wrong values, specifically "Package Power" vs. "Core+SoC Power" (20 watts lower than Package Power) vs. PIn/POut (lower than Package Power).

Overall I am not convinced that messing with all these settings is worth over just enabling PBO in BIOS with either the AMD or mainboard preset. Even with CO offsets of -30 and a slight voltage bump (AMD overclock preset) the CB20 sustained multi-core increases only by 3.5 - 5% (average 4.65 - 4.7 Ghz vs. 4.5 Gz). And then you have to do stability tests.

Sustained single-core improvements (of maybe 2-3%) are even harder to achieve, because you have to use negative CO on the "best" cores, which are likely already running closer to the edge to begin with. This is where silicon lottery comes in again, which is what overclocking mostly is about anyway.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Back on track with a new 5900x chip..woooohoo..


----------



## GribblyStick

This is a screen from tm5.
I though I was getting clock stretching, but isn't clock stetching only when effectiuve is lower than "core" clock?
Or is this just a a polling issue?


----------



## Timur Born

I did some tests with negative Vcore offset, lowered clock multipliers during sustained load could easily be measured via average (don't look at max).


----------



## GribblyStick

The following values are after a run of RC23, about 21500 points
I'm unsure where to go from here. The clock stretching is more apparent indeed on the averages. 
VID & core are around 1,260 so there is still a lot of room until 1.5 there.
I could add some positive vcore and increase overdrive a bit but I don't think that would have much of an effect.
PPT is maxed the whole time, I could try increasing that.
Or would I just better to try a per core CO?

BIOS settings on google drive
in short though:
5900x on custom water loop, Crosshair 8 hero wifi
PPT/TDC/EDC: 175/145/400
CO all core NEGATIVE 30
cTDP/Packlacge power limit : 400
Boost override:150
vcore offset: 0,050 POSITIVE
LLC Auto

BIOS 3302 / SMU 56.46.0

note that I didn't "arrive" at these values, I simply picked that as an arbitrary starting point from various replies/threads.


----------



## Timur Born

Just setting PBO to "Enabled" without any further tinkering already reaches a CB23 score of 22400, even without increasing the CPU priority of CB23. "Enabled" sets PPT to 500 W, TDC 210 A and EPC 200 A. Using "Advanced" + "Motherboard" instead changes these slightly to 500 W, TDC 210 A, EPC 215 A.

As I wrote before, even with CO tinkering and slight overvoltage gains are less than 5%. And that is without stability testing. So it's quite a lot of effort for not too much of a gain over the AMD presets (on my board at least).


----------



## GribblyStick

Tried setting motherboard limits (PPT/TDC/EDC 400/255/200) without CO and only PBO /200HZ boost: 21924 points, but it gets a lot hotter. At around 75 with higher VID of 1,3 and core 1,33.
Effective clocks seem slightly lower but the averages went up by roughly 100.
EDC maxes out as expected at 200, PPT around 200, TDC 127

--- udpate
with 400/255/600 , 200 boost, 0,5 offset
but back on CO all core negative 30
I am back down to around 1,25 VID/Core
around 66 degrees average

this time 22068 points
( and still got clock stretching)


----------



## Timur Born

Negative offset will decrease average sustained clock-rate in return for less current/wattage. In one of my tests "Auto" Vcore vs. -0.05 V offset decreased the average multiplier on a CB20 run from 46.6 to 46.3, even when both hit a maximum of 46.75 Ghz. Current decreased from 133 to 130 A and power from 179 to 175 W.

Negative CO tells the CPU to use higher multipliers at a given voltage, once you hit -30 you need to increase Vcore to get higher sustained clocks (or even stability for the negative CO setting). HWinfo offers a reading for "Frequency Limit - Global". This will tell you the maximum CPU frequency possible at the time of the reading. The reasons for said limit can be manyfold (like how many cores are in deep sleep, current, temps, voltage).

And to underline: If you want higher single-core performance then you need negative CO on the "best" performing cores. If you want higher multi-core performance you need negative CO on the worse performing cores. Both possibly combined with higher VCore, depending on your goals.


----------



## GribblyStick

I thought positive offset was to push up vcore again? I was thining of pushing that higher.
You want to keep it on auto for CO and PBO top work no?


----------



## Timur Born

Indeed, negative CO tells the cores to clock higher at a given Vcore (or maybe the other way around, but I favor the first view), positive offset pushes VCore higher. First you tell the cores to clock higher for the voltage they got and then you give them more voltage to clock even higher (or at least stay stable).

From what I saw yet gaining over 3.5% (compared to BIOS preset PBO + VCore settings) seems hard to achieve and everyone has to decide if that is even worth the effort. Single-core is even worse, because even when you find a core that is better than the supposed "best" cores then you still have to get the Windows scheduler to make use of those other "non-best" cores for single-thread tasks and the possible gains seem even smaller compared to just enabling PBO at stock setting and be good.

I pumped 200 A through my 9900K, so there is still a lot of headroom in that department with the 5900X. But at least the Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360 + 2x extra 140 mm fans on the radiator hit the 90°C limit at one point while running at 100% pump (3000 rpm) + fans. The cooler plate and pump just cannot get the heat away fast enough while the radiator isn't even warm to the touch.

For comparison:

Using PBO Advanced + "Mainboard" with VCore "AMD Overclock" gets me CB23 scores of about 1612 SC + 22600 MC. Using PBO Enabled + Vcore "Auto" isn't much worse.


----------



## PengusPelp

Has anyone ever tested to see if you can shift your per core optimizer by setting the _all-core curve optimizer value at the same time?_ The other day I was thinking about how it’s super odd that you have to clear both sets of settings to fully disable Curve Optimizer for CTR. If the motherboard activates those settings when they’re “disabled”, is there any chance you can use that to create a wider range of curve values?

As an example, my current maxed out curve settings are: (all negatives)
20
30
16
21
23
17
18
12

30 all cores on CCX2

Sadly those 30s are limited by the hard limit imposed on those settings, but if I could apply a -12 all-core curve optimizer to shift the baseline so my best cores is at 0. Alternatively what if I set the all-core offset to something like -20 and pushed the best cores to a positive value?

All-Core-12-30Core 0-8+10Core 1-180Core 2-4+14Core 3-9+9Core 4-11+7Core 5-5+13Core 6-6+12Core 7-0+18CCX 2-180

This would open up so much room for OC potential. Anyone played with these values? Sadly I’m away from home for the next week and I can’t test it myself .

Side note - I might not have explained why shifting the curve would make a significant difference, so lmk if I should break it down in better detail.


----------



## ChrisZski

just got my 5900x booted for the first time, thanks for the plethora of info!


----------



## Timur Born

Set VCore back to "Auto" (was AMD Overclock), PBO to simply "Enabled" (was Advanced -> Mainboard) and max frequency boot to "Auto" (was 200 MHz). Cinebench 23 multi-core score is about 22500. So this is my baseline that would have to be beat by overclocking via Core Optimizer + voltages


----------



## BarrettDotFifty

Bojamijams said:


> I also don't think we fully understand PBO2 / Curve Optimizer. A lot of people here say that the best core should have the lower negative number and the worst cores should have a bigger one. But that is complete opposite of what AMD_Robert has said


This is confusing AF. My 5900X won't do below -1 on the best core of the first CCD, yet it does -30 no issues on all cores on the second CCD, which are seemingly worse-binned as the clocks suggest.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

GribblyStick said:


> vcore offset: 0,050 POSITIVE


Why did you put a positive offset when you could have just reduced the Curve Optimizer values??? 🤔


----------



## Asmodian

BarrettDotFifty said:


> This is confusing AF. My 5900X won't do below -1 on the best core of the first CCD, yet it does -30 no issues on all cores on the second CCD, which are seemingly worse-binned as the clocks suggest.


Weird, I can definitely use a more negative curve offset on my best (scheduler preferred) cores than my worst cores.

Cores that aren't preferred don't crash as often but if I set them too low (more negative) I do see crashes eventually. I cannot run -30 on any of the cores in my 5950X, at least not with a -0.05 V offset at the same time. I haven't actually tried every single core at -30 by itself, but they mostly start crashing reliably around -24 to -25 with the worst cores needing -20.


----------



## dansi

what IF FCLK are 5950x getting these days? 1900 possible?


----------



## GribblyStick

kairi_zeroblade said:


> Why did you put a positive offset when you could have just reduced the Curve Optimizer values??? 🤔


The idea is to move the curve as much as possible with negative CO and then add positive offset to reach a higher point in the shifted curve (thus higher frequency)
So far my best reported boost clock by 3dmark was 5158 .Not that it has any bearing on effective clock, but it also gave me the highest score of 15i143 so I guess there is some relation. most all core I have seen like that was about 4700, but I haven't quite been able to reproduce these values since trying different things

I have tried using a negative offset on top of negative co, but that only reduced clocks (CO was already maxxed out at 30).
Gave me fairly close score though at much lower temperatures, but I wasn't able to do anything to push it higher up. Tried setting scalar to 10 but it had no effect.

Also tried a positive offset of 0,1 but that was worse than 0,05, so I'm trying to find the sweet spot of offset, but any positive offset is (slightly) better than no offset. will also need to try different boost values, I believe I got better results at 150 boost but I didn't write them down.
I started testing an allcore OC but even at 1,2V Core, 4400 one core was producing errors in prime95, so I didn't bother trying higher values, figured that core would be holding the others back too much to make manual OC worth it.

So yea, right now I'm around 0,05 positive offset, -30 all core CO (except that one at -20), 200 boost and Auto scalar,
Scalar doesn't seem to do squat, if anything I usually loose performance.


----------



## 050

Hi all, currently running a 9900k at 5-5.2ghz and I primarily play world of warcraft which is single-thread limited. I get ~1330 in Cinebench r23 so I am curious about the potential for better single threaded performance if I switch to a 5950x. I am currently using 64gigs of 3200mhz 16-18-18-36 ram so I am debating if that would substantially hold me back if I did upgrade/switch to a 5950x. 3600mhz 16-16-16-36 trident z neos would run me ~$600 for 64 gigs - Does that seem worthwhile? Or is there a better "sweet spot" these days in 5950x ram? I understand that it is tough to hit 2000 on a clock for "1:1" operation for 4000mhz kits.

I'd be looking at msrp for the 5950x (~$800) and then probably ~$200-600 for a motherboard (depending on availability) so I'd reuse my 3200mhz ram if the difference is minimal.

The big question too is - Since you all have worked with and tinkered with overclocking the 5900x/5950x, do you find there are major stability issues/showstoppers I should consider or do they operate as well as the reviews online suggest? I do understand the IPC increase though going from 5-5.2ghz on the 9900k -> 4.6-4.8ghz on the 5950x feels like a "step back" weirdly.


----------



## Timur Born

(WoW) Lua scripts/addons do not seem to benefit from Zen 3 IPC/cache improvements as far as I can tell yet. So the question is what improvements you hope for in WoW by going from the 9900K to 59x0X?


----------



## 050

Timur Born said:


> (WoW) Lua scripts/addons do not benefit from Zen 3 IPC/cache improvements as far as I can tell yet. So the question is what improvements you hope for in WoW by going from the 9900K to 59x0X?


Well, as it stands I can see that the last core (thread) on my 9900k is the limiting factor most of the time in my wow performance. My hope was that higher single core performance would allow wow to be more gpu-limited or more consistently fps capped by the display. Overall there isn't so much a "problem" with the way wow runs now, more so that I am curious to mess with 5950x overclocking since I have not previously had an AMD cpu and would like to learn how to work with them, hopefully picking up some performance improvements in the process. I will have to think on if that's worth the ~$1200+ for the 5950x and a motherboard. 

Did you find that there switch from a 9900k to a 59x0X resulted in much of a performance boost? I saw you said that the load times didn't really improve but is in-game FPS higher/smoother? (And what frequency does the 5900x typically run for you while in wow? I always see thread 16 on the 9900k being used as the "main" wow thread that sits at 100% except in gpu limited areas, does windows handle allocating that thread to the best (fastest) core well on the 5900x?)

Thanks for the info!


----------



## PengusPelp

kairi_zeroblade said:


> Why did you put a positive offset when you could have just reduced the Curve Optimizer values??? 🤔


Curve values aren't just adjustments to voltage, it's a change in voltage AND frequency at given voltage *increments*. Applying a positive offset and a negative curve offset does not cancel itself out, rather it changes the mapping between voltage and frequency (hitting a given frequency at a lower voltage) then adds a fixed amount of voltage on top. The net effect of these two changes is getting higher frequencies at a similar voltage.

In case it's not abundantly clear, it might be worth mentioning that Curve Optimizer does not set per-core(/all-core) voltage offset, rather it allows you to set a per-core VF curve (there's a good reason it's called *Curve* Optimizer  ). It's kinda like the VF Curve tool in MSI Afterburner/EVGA Precision


----------



## Timur Born

At 1280 px resolution and details at 1 (lowest) my 2070S' GPU load measures at 55% (OCed for this test) and around 350 fps (looking at a wall, all addons disabled). At the same time not a single CPU core hits 100%. So whatever caps the frame-rate cannot be measures as full load. Consequently the CPU clocks stay lower than max, as the CPU is not fully loaded anyway.

I am using a 60 Hz display and either use frame-limiting or VSync, so during normal gameplay my GPU isn't taxed and usually even power/temp-capped via MSI to keep temp and noise down.

If you are seeing 100% load for WoW then you should try to disable all addons just for testing first, because often addons are the main culprit for fps drops on strong hardware.

And yes, Windows handles putting high load threads on "better" cores with Zen 3 (when "CPPC" is enabled in UEFI).

In my short tests DirectX 11 was fastest, followed by DirectX 12 and then DirectX 11 Legacy.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

PengusPelp said:


> The net effect of these two changes is getting higher frequencies at a similar voltage.


so in short more heat..I think this depends on how the AIB partners do it with their BIOS..I don't seem to see/feel the increased frequency when I am trying a positive offset and a negative curve setting..all I see is heat..seems I have to check it out more once I get lower ambient temps, I am currently at a scorching 33-36c ambient..


----------



## GribblyStick

One thing I just don't get is how the PBO limits work
Best score I got so far with highest clocks was on stock settings, running R23 around 80 degrees.
22434.

I was hitting the limits and my 3d mark was below 15k, so I thought I could maybe push the limits a little bit to get it over the edge.
All that did was push effective currents, without actually changing anything in terms of score or frequency.
I actually get less score in R23 at the same temperatures.


----------



## GribblyStick

Just wanted to drop this here, because it somewhat blew my mind and also confirmed what I was seeing.
Lowering limits increases performance
Good to know I wasn't going mad


----------



## KedarWolf

Got this today.


----------



## BarrettDotFifty

GribblyStick said:


> Lowering limits increases performance
> Good to know I wasn't going mad


This is also discussing the similar thing and has a lot of potential explaining of why this is the case if anyone is interested.
On my 5900X, the sweet spot seems to be 130A EDC. Anything lower or higher decreases performance.


----------



## Lobstar

Someone told me I was overclocking my 5950x wrong so I'm taking a stab at this curve stuff. I reset my bios to defaults, popped in my ram voltage and some supporting voltages I'll most likely need when I start re-tweaking my ram. I then proceeded to work my way down each core in increments of -5 according to other posts. With a vcore offset of -0.0625 I managed to get every core to -30 except 8 (-28) and 12 (-27). I checked my effective clocks and on CCD1 they are all matching the core clocks at 4600. CCD2 is about 5mhz lower effective clocks than reported. These clocks are when running Cinebench r23. Where do I go from here? Should I have started with more negative vcore offset? How can I get my clocks higher? I'm using the motherboard limits for PBO on my Dark Hero.


----------



## KedarWolf

Deleted


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf said:


> Got this today.
> 
> View attachment 2490620


Improved my score by a decent margin.


----------



## 050

KedarWolf said:


> Improved my score by a decent margin.
> 
> View attachment 2511286


Higher than 100.00% of results, now that is a pretty thing!


----------



## KedarWolf

050 said:


> Higher than 100.00% of results, now that is a pretty thing!


Some beat me earlier today with a 12.06 score.


----------



## Hale59

😂😂😂😂


----------



## MyUsername

Not stable, nice fclk though.


----------



## Henry Owens

Finally took the time to zero in my power limits. After running cinebench many times while changing each limit slowly until scores stopped increasing I settled on 
PPT 235 TDC 155 EDC 140 
+200 -30 all core 
Getting roughly 23k on R23 
Increasing edc actually started reducing scores 
About 80c while running small ffts


----------



## JohnnyFlash

Henry Owens said:


> Finally took the time to zero in my power limits. After running cinebench many times while changing each limit slowly until scores stopped increasing I settled on
> PPT 235 TDC 155 EDC 140
> *+200 -30 all core*
> Getting roughly 23k on R23
> Increasing edc actually started reducing scores
> About 80c while running small ffts


You're getting no WHEA errors or stability issues at that setting?


----------



## Sleepycat

I noticed CTR 2.1 is able to show which 6 of the 8 cores are working in the 5900X. (edit: I meant which of 6 of the 8 cores were active on each CCX)
Also, I'm now running 4.700 / 4.650 @ 1.225V to get a CB R23 score of 23656. Passes 1 hour of OCCT Extreme Large (1.200V gives OCCT errors) and no WHEAs since using this setting. PPT/TDC/EDC is 200/140/160.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Sleepycat said:


> I noticed CTR 2.1 is able to show which 6 of the 8 cores are working in the 5900X.


you got me lost here..the 5900x is a 12core right?? so is it 6 of the 12?? (its a 2 ccd with 6 cores each, where did 8 come from??)


----------



## Asmodian

kairi_zeroblade said:


> you got me lost here..the 5900x is a 12core right?? so is it 6 of the 12?? (its a 2 ccd with 6 cores each, where did 8 come from??)


The 5900X uses the same 8-core chiplets as all the Zen3 CPUs. CTR 2.1 shows you which two cores have been disabled (or which 6 are active) in each CCD, it isn't always the same cores disabled. They disable the bad or lower performing cores.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Asmodian said:


> The 5900X uses the same 8-core chiplets as all the Zen3 CPUs. CTR 2.1 shows you which two cores have been disabled (or which 6 are active) in each CCD, it isn't always the same cores disabled. They disable the bad or lower performing cores.


CTR says I have a 2 ccd with 6 each..so it means mine is going to be a 5600x incase there's a bad ccd unit??


----------



## Asmodian

Two cores are disabled in each of your CCDs. This was done before they were even packaged. If something goes wrong when packaging them, and one doesn't work, AMD will sell it as a 5600X, but that isn't what I was talking about.

I have a 5950X so I cannot get a screenshot, but there should be some way to tell which of the eight cores were disabled in each CCD.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Asmodian said:


> but there should be some way to tell which of the eight cores were disabled in each CCD


I see...


----------



## Asmodian

kairi_zeroblade said:


> I see...


Or I could be totally confused by @Sleepycat 's statement. I cannot rule that out.


----------



## Henry Owens

N


JohnnyFlash said:


> You're getting no WHEA errors or stability issues at that setting?


No whea or any stability issues, can stress test it forever with no problems. Also running 4x8gb ram 3800 cl14 1900flck As well as no random low load instability. I believe the professor still isn't the greatest just due to it not boosting to 5 often or above.


----------



## Sleepycat

kairi_zeroblade said:


> you got me lost here..the 5900x is a 12core right?? so is it 6 of the 12?? (its a 2 ccd with 6 cores each, where did 8 come from??)


Oops, I meant which 6 of the 8 cores in each CCX were active (hence which 2 were disabled from the factory).
Based on cores 1 to 16, mine has cores 4 and 6 disabled on CCX1, and cores 11 and 13 are disabled on CCX2.


----------



## Sleepycat

Asmodian said:


> Or I could be totally confused by @Sleepycat 's statement. I cannot rule that out.


So sorry! You were right, I worded my post very badly.


----------



## Sleepycat

kairi_zeroblade said:


> CTR says I have a 2 ccd with 6 each..so it means mine is going to be a 5600x incase there's a bad ccd unit??


You can use the boost tester function in CTR 2.1 to see the CPU topology which reports your enabled cores on each CCX.


----------



## GribblyStick

Sleepycat said:


> I noticed CTR 2.1 is able to show which 6 of the 8 cores are working in the 5900X. (edit: I meant which of 6 of the 8 cores were active on each CCX)
> Also, I'm now running 4.700 / 4.650 @ 1.225V to get a CB R23 score of 23656. Passes 1 hour of OCCT Extreme Large (1.200V gives OCCT errors) and no WHEAs since using this setting. PPT/TDC/EDC is 200/140/160.
> 
> View attachment 2511910


Which settings is this? just PBO enabled?
I started at per core CO -30 on all ,and have been going down over the last few weeks running prime 95 overnight ever day almost.
There is always some core that stops (rounding error, never a crash) and it's always a different one. 

But even at -30 +0,6 offset the best score I got was 22670. Nowhere near what you have here.


----------



## dansi

Tuning 5900x seems easier than 3900x on f33j. As in no hard locks requiring clear cmos.

I can run r23 at 1966 IF 1.1.1 but my old 3200 rams are holding me back, the auto timings are bad.

Whats good voltages can i undervolt? I used to undervolt the 3900x to maintain higher boost clocks. For 5900x, have left all voltages on normal with just CO at -10 all cores.

Temps are 4-5 degree c higher on 5900x. Seems to run r23 at 4.4ghz all cores, is that ok?


----------



## Sleepycat

GribblyStick said:


> Which settings is this? just PBO enabled?
> I started at per core CO -30 on all ,and have been going down over the last few weeks running prime 95 overnight ever day almost.
> There is always some core that stops (rounding error, never a crash) and it's always a different one.
> 
> But even at -30 +0,6 offset the best score I got was 22670. Nowhere near what you have here.


This is with CTR. It overrides PBO and CO since you are setting the clockspeeds for CCX1 and CCX2 and the voltage.

When I was using PBO+CO a few months back, I ran corecycler and found my best core actually needed a positive 5 to CO! Previously I was running it with negative 15, no issues in general, but would get an occasional crash in FS2020 under a specific situation. Identifying and changing it to positive 5, ALL crashing went away.


----------



## Henry Owens

Sleepycat said:


> This is with CTR. It overrides PBO and CO since you are setting the clockspeeds for CCX1 and CCX2 and the voltage.
> 
> When I was using PBO+CO a few months back, I ran corecycler and found my best core actually needed a positive 5 to CO! Previously I was running it with negative 15, no issues in general, but would get an occasional crash in FS2020 under a specific situation. Identifying and changing it to positive 5, ALL crashing went away.


So core cycler is a program to find bad cores?


----------



## BluePaint

yes


----------



## GribblyStick

Hmm, I was getting a bit suspicious wit5h my CO values and I tried running with both PBO and CO disabled. and I am still getting failed prime95 runs.
I fear something my have broken. I have a suspicion it might have to do with fmax , because when I turned that on all my frequencies boosted to the max basically and stayed there. Effective Clocks I mean. According to HWINFO it got hot but I was still within limits, then it shut down for temperature reasons, but it could be anything. RMAs don't cover PBO/CO I imagine?


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

GribblyStick said:


> RMAs don't cover PBO/CO I imagine?


If its considered as self induced/inflicted damage then I think its not covered by warranty policies..however, if they find your CPU still runs fine on default settings, its just gonna get back to you..


----------



## Henry Owens

GribblyStick said:


> Hmm, I was getting a bit suspicious wit5h my CO values and I tried running with both PBO and CO disabled. and I am still getting failed prime95 runs.
> I fear something my have broken. I have a suspicion it might have to do with fmax , because when I turned that on all my frequencies boosted to the max basically and stayed there. Effective Clocks I mean. According to HWINFO it got hot but I was still within limits, then it shut down for temperature reasons, but it could be anything. RMAs don't cover PBO/CO I imagine?


Double check your memory/ up memory voltage.


----------



## GribblyStick

I'll try running optimized defaults tonight., see what that gives. My memory was fine before. ran overnight tm5, prime, ycruncher was stable.
But just in case, It should run cleanly on default settings.


----------



## Sleepycat

Henry Owens said:


> So core cycler is a program to find bad cores?


Yeah, you set the voltage (either using Curve Optimiser or use CTR 2.1 and set it to Px High (best 2 cores on CCX1), Px Mid (remaining cores on CCX1) and Px Low (cores on CCX2)).

Then run corecycler and it will test each core using Prime95, cycling through each core individually and report back which ones had errors, while continuing to test those that didn't have any errors. Quite a good tool, but be aware you will be running those single cores at high voltages for a few hours. Some people run overnight, I prefer to run it for shorter durations per cycle as my usage is not mission critical.


----------



## Henry Owens

Oh I see, that seems good. Is there any good guides to get my memory timings down? Right now I'm at 3800 from the ryzen dram calculator and dropped down to cl 14 but I think my other timings might be high


----------



## Sleepycat

Henry Owens said:


> Oh I see, that seems good. Is there any good guides to get my memory timings down? Right now I'm at 3800 from the ryzen dram calculator and dropped down to cl 14 but I think my other timings might be high


The dram calculator is reasonably good. Easiest would be to post your zentimings and others can chime in to help.

Also, my guide on the 3 Px profiles are for the paid version. If on the free version, Px High are used only for your 2 best cores. The rest will use the P2 profile for the free version, not Px Mid and Px Low.


----------



## DrGoku4star

DO NOT USE +200 MHz with a aggressive curve optimizer. you will lose performance setting it to the max 9 times out of 10. ive found through alot of testing that +50 - +100 seems to be the sweet spot.


----------



## DrGoku4star

Pentium4 531 overclocker said:


> Canadian distributors be like that. I ordered a launch day 5900X at 10:29 in the morning at got my CPU 2 weeks after my friend who ordered at like 5PM. Canada Computers is just like that unfortunately.
> 
> My chip from Dec 23rd is pretty poggers. im still testing but it just ran 50MHz boost -30 all core CO. So far no instability issues. Hoping to turn up that boost clock and see where my cores decided to poo out at.
> 
> Currently boosts to 4.5GHz all core (hits thermal limit), and 4.9GHz single core (occasionally goes 5ghz in random desktop stuff, but that isnt really doing much for performance).
> View attachment 2473867


Looks like you're hitting the power limit. i can get my 5900x to 4.6 sustained all core with pbo and curve optimizer. Try - PPT 210 TDC 130 EDC 185. open ryzen master when benching and see what which one is at 100% You want EDC to be the only one at 100% but dont go higher on the EDC as the cpu will always take more, but you'll be past the point of diminishing returns past 180.


----------



## BarrettDotFifty

On my 5900X, the "best" core doesn't wanna do any negative offset, while all the others (except 2nd best) do as much as -30 without any errors and linear performance increase. Anyone having similar experience?

PPT: 165W
TDC: 125A
EDC: 130A

scalar: auto
freq boost: +50 MHz


----------



## Sleepycat

BarrettDotFifty said:


> On my 5900X, the "best" core doesn't wanna do any negative offset, while all the others (except 2nd best) do as much as -30 without any errors and linear performance increase. Anyone having similar experience?
> 
> PPT: 165W
> TDC: 125A
> EDC: 130A
> 
> scalar: auto
> freq boost: +50 MHz
> 
> View attachment 2512373


My best core needs +10 offset!


----------



## MadGoat

I'm still dialing in my curve, but so far I have -5 on my 2 best cores per ccx and -15 on all others.


----------



## Pleskac

After some time playing with the curve I found out that the second CCD is much more efficient, but simply doesnt clock as high. The second CCD works fine with -25 curve on all cores and some could do even better I think. The CCD1 can even run cinebench with -30, but thats about it its not stable with it at all.

On CCD0 its quite different, there is maybe one core that will do -20 stable, others seems like they will need -5,-10,-15. But they all clock higher than all cores on CCD1, so it makes sense they need the voltage more. I cant even get to windows when I set the worst core on this ccd to more than -5.

Both CCD are clearly very different, the first is for high performance bursts and can keep the advertised 4.8ghz boost clock on single thread and the second is nowhere near that even when I am maxing just one thread but its overall more efficient.

In the SSE test with single thread my cores keep clocks around this.
CCD0 (single core) 4,7-4,8ghz
CCD1 (single core) 4,6-4,7ghz

These values are "effective clock" from hwinfo during the test, so not just a blip but really sustained speed. The best 2 cores are usually slightly above 4.8ghz, then two hit 4.77 and then it falls off. 
I had 3600x before this and I could hit 4.4ghz on some cores, but that was usually just for a blink of eye and no more. I am getting similar jumps on this but it can go up to 5ghz in similar situations, so thats pretty nice improvement.

Btw I am using B550 tomahawk with PBO enabled with motherboard limits and +50mhz max boost. I am currently using Noctua NH-U12S. Tomorow I will get NH-D15S, so I hope it will get only better.


----------



## Henry Owens

DrGoku4star said:


> DO NOT USE +200 MHz with a aggressive curve optimizer. you will lose performance setting it to the max 9 times out of 10. ive found through alot of testing that +50 - +100 seems to be the sweet spot.


You might be on to something


----------



## GribblyStick

OK seems memory did have an effect, or some other config I changed. I now ran 14 hours of blended prim 95 on all core CO -30 with PBO enabled and I got no errors.
Only had to reduce core 7 to -15( or 20 not sure anymore) and 9 to 25. but everything else is on auto, so still plenty of stuff that could cause issues, least I'm not looking an rma.


----------



## Pleskac

GribblyStick said:


> OK seems memory did have an effect, or some other config I changed. I now ran 14 hours of blended prim 95 on all core CO -30 with PBO enabled and I got no errors.
> Only had to reduce core 7 to -15( or 20 not sure anymore) and 9 to 25. but everything else is on auto, so still plenty of stuff that could cause issues, least I'm not looking an rma.


I dont see why you would RMA the chip when it can do -30 ?!  You should not do that, my CCD1 can run at -30 as well on all core tests where all cores run at slower speed. But when I test the cores one by one with just one thread some of them are unstable even at -15 or -20, because they boost to max clock they can. You should use the core cycler and not all core tests, because your clock speed will be very much limited by temperature of the chip with all core prime95. If you test just one core at time it will boost higher because you dont hit all pbo limits and then it might show which core is actually unstable. I am running the tests for 3 days already and still lowering limits for some cores.


----------



## GribblyStick

That was in relation to a previous comment. My memory was stable but whatever I changed trying to overlock CPU changed that and I was getting error even on pbo disabled. After spending weeks reducing CO. Now starting over with default settings, I was able to at least run prime 95 (for now 30+ hours) without error. As you say, that's not the whole story most likely, but at least I have something that looks stable for now at much higher settings.


----------



## KedarWolf

I fine-tuned my Curve Optimiser settings.

This passes Core Cycler 4-1344 FFTs. I'm thinking my CPU is a decent sample.


----------



## PJVol

KedarWolf said:


> I'm thinking my CPU is a decent sample


a nice bonus in the form of seemingly the best performant Core 0 ?


----------



## KedarWolf

PJVol said:


> a nice bonus in the form of seemingly the best performant Core 0 ?


A perfect CPU will do all 30s but your best cores need lower offsets.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

I might upgrade to a 5900X, but want to know if I should wait for the B2 stepping. Does anybody know why there is a new stepping and if it will improve stability? My Zen3 Laptop gets the occasional BSOD whereas my 10700k does not, so this is a legitimatize concern for me.

AMD confirms B2 stepping for Ryzen 5000 series brings no functionality or performance improvements - VideoCardz.com


----------



## iraff1

I see a lot of users using Curve optmizer to undervolt the cores and get more boosts, but why are you adding +volts offset to vcore? Does this mean the threads which due to the undervolt from curve optimizer get their "voltage back" from the offset set on the vcore meaning they can boost higher?

I tried a positive offset on my vcore and the only result was higher temps, no better single thread performance, in fact... i tested a negative 0.50mv offset on the vcore and the result was lower temps and the same single thread + multi thread performance in cinebench r20.

So can anyone please explain to me why you are doing positive offsets for vcore, what is the supposed benefit of doing this? Also with a positive vcore voltage offset my max is over 1.5v , is this safe long term for a 5950x?

EDIT: And does it mean that if you give vcore a positive offset that your potential to go lower on the curve optimizer values for cores that may not have been stable before at default vcore with a negative value? Example my core 2 won't go any kower than -5, with a +.0.250mv vcore offset could i potentially reach -10 or more with this core in the curve optimizer, is that the idea?


----------



## HyperC

Senniha said:


> Its been late to asked for a post before 4 months but I want to know if you were having WHEA errors back then with agesa 1.1.0.0 and which version windows you were running.With latest windows IF has problems with OC and I have many errors with this agesa.Im running x370 and AMD block the beta bios do it's impossible to get any update on the future.


Sorry dude I just Signed in Very late response, ever bios has been different for the most part or they take 4 steps back, not really sure anyone AIB knows what is going on I haven't really tried pushing my FLCK anymore and pretty much gave up OCing the system since... But no i wasn't per that post to answer you


----------



## thigobr

I decided to revisit older BIOS after comparing some benchmark results with the latest AGESA 1.2.0.2 against older UEFIs. I flashed the A82 for my board that uses AGESA 1.1.0.0, re-tuned Curve Optimizer and as a result I am seeing higher single core boosts and benchmark numbers as well. All core load performance not much different but there's a clear difference in low core count boost frequency and performance.

E.g. CPU-Z single core over 700 points and frequency >5GHz is only reached with older AGESA. With 1.2.0.2 I can barely get 680 points and reach 4900MHz... Another thing I see with older AGESA is that with simple loads (boost tester) setting PBO frequency override actually increases the Effective Frequency while with the newer AGESA the CPU never really gets closer to the frequency + override (e.g. 5050 boost + override 100MHz -> 5150MHz). AGESA 1.2.0.2 caps the max frequency for my CPU at 5082MHz no matter what boost override I set if above 50MHz...

PS. I just finished testing CoreCycler and the CPU is actually stable with higher boosts. Anybody knows how to get boost back with newer AGESAs?

Anybody seeing this behavior?


----------



## Timur Born

Single core performance is controlled by the "fastest" core(s). Negative CO offset can boost that, but the fastest core on my 5900X runs into errors at -10 already (maybe even earlier if I tested more thoroughly).

All-core performance is controlled by the "slowest" core(s). Negative CO offset to bring these closer to the faster cores enabled all cores to run faster. On my 5900X the slowest cores at -30 still cannot match the fastest ones, though.

Low core performance is a special case, even when only 2 cores are active. The slowest active core dictates the global frequency limit, aka pull the fastest active core(s) down to its clock-rate. Running the 2 fastest cores concurrently (2+3 on my 5900X) results in higher clock-rate on _both_ active cores than running the fastest + slowest cores concurrently (2+10 on my 5900X).

CPPC both helps and hinders to get the fastest possible cores working concurrently. It helps, because Windows schedules threads to run on the fastest cores first. It hinders, because Windows schedules background threads to run on the slowest core, which then may become too active sometimes and thus slow down faster cores again.


----------



## Audioboxer

With the 5950x back in stock here and even a small sale on just now, just joined the club. About 4 months after getting my watercooling setup sorted and we're going to have to do a drain and refill 

Upgrading from a 3900xt, excited to see AMD improving single core and what seems to be pretty decent overclocking and tweaking on the 59xx range.

I'll need to do my homework on what the curve optimizer is compared to how things worked on the 3900xt. I have just watched this video and it seems like the CTR software might be quite good with these new chips 




Never really felt like it was needed on last gen, other than some stability testing for manual OC.


----------



## blackzaru

Hello people!

I'm trying my luck here, because I found none anywhere else. I'm trying to figure out, how, in the name of ZEUS, I am, somehow, 2000 to 3000 points away from some people's CPU Score, on Timespy, with my 5950X.

Let me elaborate a bit: I'm currently using the exact same settings (or so, I've checked as much as I could), as several other users, and currently am sitting on a 16456 pts CPU score. Meanwhile, those users are sitting on 18500-19000 pts CPU scores. After a lot of looking at scores, a lot of people seems to be in my situation, where, despite everything being near-identical, their CPU score is much much lower.

So, here are the things I did to improve the score, and the general settings around it:

Disabled SMT (boosted the score from 15000 to 16000 points), given that Timespy uses very few threads.
All core OC of 4.9GHz on the first die, 4.8GHz on the second (don't worry, those are benching runs only, and, there doesn't seem to be any clock stretching)
Memory at 3866MHz (Flck at 1933MHz) 14-14-14-14-26-42 (4 sticks of Samsung B die)
Running on an Asus X570 Dark Hero, with an Evga 1600 T2 power supply (so, power delivery ain't really a problem)
Windows power management on "performance mode"
This is cooled by an Optimus AMD Foundation cpu block with two 60mm thick 360mm radiators... So the CPU did not even surpass 65 degrees in any of the several runs I did.
Now, I am a bit at a loss for a reason for the low CPU score. I mean, with nearly identical setups getting over 2000 points more, with the same settings, I must be missing something, somewhere, but what?

Thanks for any help.


----------



## Asmodian

That is very odd. I get 17733 Timespy CPU score with only a PBO+curve optimizer overclock (SMT disabled) running 1800 fclk, and it is pretty hot in here (water just over 28°C). I have the same motherboard and I even have a -0.05V offset on the CPU voltage.








I scored 20 914 in Time Spy


AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com





Maybe compare scores with an 1800 fclk?

I assume you have this power management stuff disabled too?

Advanced\AMD CBS\NBIO Common Options\SMU Common Options
APBDIS: 1
DF Cstates: Disabled
Fixed SOC Pstate: P0
CPPC: Enabled
CPPC Preferred Cores: Enabled

Edit: I don't think it has anything to do with APBDIS, setting it back to auto didn't reduce my scores at all. Very confusing!








I scored 20 955 in Time Spy


AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## blackzaru

Asmodian said:


> That is very odd. I get 17733 Timespy CPU score with only a PBO+curve optimizer overclock (SMT disabled) running 1800 fclk, and it is pretty hot in here (water just over 28°C). I have the same motherboard and I even have a -0.05V offset on the CPU voltage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 20 914 in Time Spy
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe compare scores with an 1800 fclk?
> 
> I assume you have this power management stuff disabled too?
> 
> Advanced\AMD CBS\NBIO Common Options\SMU Common Options
> APBDIS: 1
> DF Cstates: Disabled
> Fixed SOC Pstate: P0
> CPPC: Enabled
> CPPC Preferred Cores: Enabled
> 
> Edit: I don't think it has anything to do with APBDIS, setting it back to auto didn't reduce my scores at all. Very confusing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 20 955 in Time Spy
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com



Tried it, my score moved a little, but not much. Still in the 16 000 pts.


----------



## blackzaru

Did a fresh install and started back from scratch: https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/63115578 
18350 points. 
I don't know what it was, but it was severely holding back my score.


----------



## VPII

blackzaru said:


> Did a fresh install and started back from scratch: I scored 0 in Time Spy Custom
> 18350 points.
> I don't know what it was, but it was severely holding back my score.
> 
> View attachment 2515410


I seriously do not understand how you able to get this score with PBO. I barely get 16k cpu score when using PBO with a -24 all core curve optimizer. I have tried various means, I reach just over 17k cpu score when I manually overclock my CPU to 4.7ghz.

I just realised one thing, if I disable SMT my cpu score jumped up by about 1000 points


----------



## blackzaru

VPII said:


> I seriously do not understand how you able to get this score with PBO. I barely get 16k cpu score when using PBO with a -24 all core curve optimizer. I have tried various means, I reach just over 17k cpu score when I manually overclock my CPU to 4.7ghz.
> 
> I just realised one thing, if I disable SMT my cpu score jumped up by about 1000 points


Yeah, as I had previously stated, specifically for Timespy, disabling SMT on a 5950X can boost your score by roughly a 1000 points.

However, in my case, it seems like my windows install had hella troubles with that bench in particular. Might be due to the log or registry filled with previous mem OC errors... Who knows?


----------



## VPII

blackzaru said:


> Yeah, as I had previously stated, specifically for Timespy, disabling SMT on a 5950X can boost your score by roughly a 1000 points.
> 
> However, in my case, it seems like my windows install had hella troubles with that bench in particular. Might be due to the log or registry filled with previous mem OC errors... Who knows?


Well for me to get 18000 to 18200 cpu score my cpu need to run at manual 4750mhz. I'll try PBO now to see the difference.


----------



## VPII

blackzaru said:


> Yeah, as I had previously stated, specifically for Timespy, disabling SMT on a 5950X can boost your score by roughly a 1000 points.
> 
> However, in my case, it seems like my windows install had hella troubles with that bench in particular. Might be due to the log or registry filled with previous mem OC errors... Who knows?


Just tried PBO and highest I am getting is around 17800 to 17900 CPU score.


----------



## Audioboxer

VPII said:


> I seriously do not understand how you able to get this score with PBO. I barely get 16k cpu score *when using PBO with a -24 all core curve optimizer*. I have tried various means, I reach just over 17k cpu score when I manually overclock my CPU to 4.7ghz.
> 
> I just realised one thing, if I disable SMT my cpu score jumped up by about 1000 points


I'd recommend giving Corecycler a go if you haven't to 100% make sure that is stable CoreCycler - tool for testing Curve Optimizer settings

When I first got my 5950x I fired in -20, then -25 all core and was booting fine and even benching. On closer inspection, out of my top 4 cores, I'm currently at -15 on 3 and -5 on one. Yes, -5. It was a 2nd best core as well. The rest are on -25 still.

I've still to optimise the other best 3 cores, I haven't tried them higher than -15 with Corecycler and I might be able to push some of the rest on -25 higher. Point is though you could have an unstable core pulling your clocks down without even necessarily knowing it (no crashing). That one core for me was failing until I dropped it right down to -5.

My PBO settings are 270 PPT, 150 TDC, 190 EDC. I have +100 on mhz boost.

Sorry for jumping in if you're 100% stable and all that, just thought I'd throw some potentials up for lower performance when I seen you say -24 all core.


----------



## Timur Born

Negative CO offset on fast cores does not improve your multi-core performance, but only single-core and low-core situations. Multi-core clock-rate is limited by the slowest currently active core.


----------



## Timur Born

Here are some CB23 comparison numbers to demonstrate that diminishing returns result in increasing wattage being of rather limited use:

Stock: 21640 (134 W)
CO (PBO limits stock!): 22220 (132 W)
4600 fixed: 23450 (174 W)

5.5% more performance at the cost of 32% more power consumption. Ouch!

To reach the "4600 fixed" score via PBO limits I have to increase Scalar, performance and load are the same then (+2W for PBO).


----------



## blackzaru

Timur Born said:


> Here are some CB23 comparison numbers to demonstrate that diminishing returns result in increasing wattage being of rather limited use:
> 
> Stock: 21640 (134 W)
> CO (PBO limits stock!): 22220 (132 W)
> 4600 fixed: 23450 (174 W)
> 
> 5.5% more performance at the cost of 32% more power consumption. Ouch!
> 
> To reach the "4600 fixed" score via PBO limits I have to increase Scalar, performance and load are the same then (+2W for PBO).


It's definitely not 4.6GHz fixed... Unless you have a 5900X...

For measure, 4.65GHz fixed on Cinebench R23 results in this (my result), I had to fetch it back from a Reddit post from a while:


----------



## Timur Born

Yes, 5900X here. The main point remains, diminishing returns make overclocking Zen 3 hardly worth the power consumption and stability efforts, unless you are just trying to break some records.


----------



## Bart

VPII said:


> I seriously do not understand how you able to get this score with PBO. I barely get 16k cpu score when using PBO with a -24 all core curve optimizer. I have tried various means, I reach just over 17k cpu score when I manually overclock my CPU to 4.7ghz.


Ditto bro, I resemble this remark, LOL! I can't break 16K CPU score in Time Spy, but I'll get over 30,100 in Cinebench R23, and that's repeated loops to heat soak the thing as much as possible. I have no idea what to believe as far as how good (or not good) my 5950X is performing.


----------



## rdr09

Know im late to the party but i bought a 5900 for 645$ new. Looking forward to share my results paired with a AurosB550M Pro.


----------



## Bart

Audioboxer said:


> I'd recommend giving Corecycler a go if you haven't to 100% make sure that is stable CoreCycler - tool for testing Curve Optimizer settings


Has anyone else tested this tool? I tried it, but running the prime 95 stock test results in my best core failing all the time, even at stock settings, which is a little bizarre.


----------



## Asmodian

Bart said:


> Has anyone else tested this tool? I tried it, but running the prime 95 stock test results in my best core failing all the time, even at stock settings, which is a little bizarre.


I have used it a lot, it works really well for me. I was able to tune all my cores' curves to within +/- 1 and it is super reliable, if I subtract 1 on the curve for all my cores they all fail the test a some point in an overnight run but if I use my current settings I never see an error. With a -0.05V offset I can use slightly lower curve offsets (higher negative), but I also lose the top one or two frequency steps. My best core can only run -9, but one core can do -29 (the best core still hits higher frequencies).

Some CPUs do need a positive offset on their best core to pass the default Prime95 test, it is not that bizarre because AMD's PBO pushes the silicon near its limits by default, but Prime95 is a pretty extreme stability test too.


----------



## jacknhut

I used CTR 2.1 RC5 to tune my 5950x to 5 Ghz on the 2 fastest cores at 1.375V for light threaded applications and 4.65 Ghz for multithreaded applications at 1.25V and called it a day. No point in pushing it to 5.1 - 5.2 Ghz and push the voltage to the extreme 1.5V or higher for some unnoticeable gain if any. Temperature stays in the 60s as well at 5Ghz 1.375V in a 30s ambient temp room.


----------



## rdr09

Got my 5900 installed and ran Cinebench 20 to see how high the cpu temp goes at optimized default cooled by Fuma2. Gonna run a loop see where it ends up.


----------



## AyeYo

Is there a consensus for CO as to whether best or worst cores should be lowest offset? Someone mentioned awhile back in this thread and it makes perfect sense to me that best cores should actually be highest offset, because a good core should be able to clock higher with less voltage. Why do so many people seem to be doing it the opposite way?


----------



## Asmodian

AyeYo said:


> Is there a consensus for CO as to whether best or worst cores should be lowest offset? Someone mentioned awhile back in this thread and it makes perfect sense to me that best cores should actually be highest offset, because a good core should be able to clock higher with less voltage. Why do so many people seem to be doing it the opposite way?


While that does make sense, the cores all have custom curves already which we are modifying with the CO offsets. The best cores have more aggressive curves at stock so you usually cannot offset them as much as the lower quality cores.


----------



## AyeYo

Ah, that makes sense. I didn't realize there were already per-core curves built in.


----------



## kratosatlante

for now dont know how use corecycler, the last bios get better perfomance with pbo mother limit,
dark hero dinamic oc 4775 ccx1 4625ccx2 1.275v
+100mhz scalar x2, co -30 all core
df state = disable
cppc=disable
cppc core=enable








llc 3


----------



## Asmodian

Yeah, -30 all core isn't going to be stable.


----------



## KedarWolf

kratosatlante said:


> for now dont know how use corecycler, the last bios get better perfomance with pbo mother limit,
> dark hero dinamic oc 4775 ccx1 4625ccx2 1.275v
> +100mhz scalar x2, co -30 all core
> df state = disable
> cppc=disable
> cppc core=enable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> llc 3


I'm pretty sure if you set the CCX 4775/4625, then your -30 all core is doing nothing. It's static.

You need to put the CCX on Auto for your -30 to really work, and a static CCX overclock performs better than a -30 for example.

And after you put the CCX on Auto, your -30 will likely not pass Core Cycler.

Edit: And I'm also really sure you need the CPU voltage on Auto, not static 1.275v for your -30.


----------



## JohnnyFlash

KedarWolf said:


> I'm pretty sure if you set the CCX 4775/4625, then your -30 all core is doing nothing. It's static.
> 
> You need to put the CCX on Auto for your -30 to really work, and a static CCX overclock performs better than a -30 for example.
> 
> And after you put the CCX on Auto, your -30 will likely not pass Core Cycler.
> 
> Edit: And I'm also really sure you need the CPU voltage on Auto, not static 1.275v for your -30.


The Dark Hero can do both with dynamic overclock. It switches between PBO and per-ccx based on power load.

That said, 4775/4625 per-ccx would take some *beefy* cooling.


----------



## KedarWolf

JohnnyFlash said:


> The Dark Hero can do both with dynamic overclock. It switches between PBO and per-ccx based on power load.
> 
> That said, 4775/4625 per-ccx would take some *beefy* cooling.


Oh, I see. Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## kratosatlante

KedarWolf said:


> I'm pretty sure if you set the CCX 4775/4625, then your -30 all core is doing nothing. It's static.
> 
> You need to put the CCX on Auto for your -30 to really work, and a static CCX overclock performs better than a -30 for example.
> 
> And after you put the CCX on Auto, your -30 will likely not pass Core Cycler.
> 
> Edit: And I'm also really sure you need the CPU voltage on Auto, not static 1.275v for your -30.


the mother change to all core cxx1 set and ccx2 set ando vcore set , when consume pas x amperes (45a recomend in bios) i set 75a, from this limit auto change to allcore static voltage, its similar to crt 2.1 , I'll leave corecycler running all night
75a - work pbo +100 and -30 all core work for now, need more test, single core not optimal performance, need more test, testing in ubuntu 21.04 now, better single core and worst multi in geekbench 5
cooler is masterliquid ml360r rgb , thermal paste mastermaker gel 11wk


----------



## boldenc

iraff1 said:


> I see a lot of users using Curve optmizer to undervolt the cores and get more boosts, but why are you adding +volts offset to vcore? Does this mean the threads which due to the undervolt from curve optimizer get their "voltage back" from the offset set on the vcore meaning they can boost higher?
> 
> I tried a positive offset on my vcore and the only result was higher temps, no better single thread performance, in fact... i tested a negative 0.50mv offset on the vcore and the result was lower temps and the same single thread + multi thread performance in cinebench r20.
> 
> So can anyone please explain to me why you are doing positive offsets for vcore, what is the supposed benefit of doing this? Also with a positive vcore voltage offset my max is over 1.5v , is this safe long term for a 5950x?
> 
> EDIT: And does it mean that if you give vcore a positive offset that your potential to go lower on the curve optimizer values for cores that may not have been stable before at default vcore with a negative value? Example my core 2 won't go any kower than -5, with a +.0.250mv vcore offset could i potentially reach -10 or more with this core in the curve optimizer, is that the idea?


I have been playing with my 5900x for 2 weeks now and indeed I can confirm that using positive offset helps.
Using Auto vcore, I have 2 cores in CCD1 that fails corecycler, I had to use lower negative CO -10 and -3 for Core0 and Core2 to pass. Overall score for single score benches wasn't great, cpu-z single is maxed to 670 pts with this settings.
I played with the vcore offset and used + 0.03 and that helped to stabilize my CO to -20 and -10 for Core0 and Core2. single score bench increased in cpu-z to 680.
Temp increased like 2~3c was around 73 - 76c during cinebench23 run. 
Also the multicore scores increased , like 100 ~ 150 pts difference in cpuz 9850 - 10000


----------



## boldenc

any one lately during that week received his 5900/5950 from Amazon?
How the new batches going? I read the new ones boost is limited compared to old batches
And when the stepping B2 should arrive?


----------



## JohnnyFlash

boldenc said:


> any one lately during that week received his 5900/5950 from Amazon?
> How the new batches going? I read the new ones boost is limited compared to old batches
> And when the stepping B2 should arrive?


They adjusted the default curve formula. Newer batches are more stable out of the box, but also have slightly lower boost.

It's the same as having a bad stepping and adding positive offset to a core, they just did it for you.


----------



## pewpewlazer

Cave man here checking in with his brand new 5900x (from Amazon this week) + X570 Aorus Master. Seems you need a Ph.D in Rocket Surgery to "overclock" these things. I thought Nvidia GPU Boost was a nightmare, but holy hell... GPU Boost seems like child's play in comparison to this thing.

Fumbling around I've got PBO enabled, curve optimizer at -30, and it runs 4625-4650mhz through Cinebench... but Ryzen Master reports average core voltage as an alarming 1.43v. All BIOS voltage are set to auto. Is this remotely OK? I remember reading about people frying their Zen 2 chips with 1.35v+, so this is slightly concerning to me.


----------



## Asmodian

pewpewlazer said:


> Fumbling around I've got PBO enabled, curve optimizer at -30, and it runs 4625-4650mhz through Cinebench... but Ryzen Master reports average core voltage as an alarming 1.43v. All BIOS voltage are set to auto. Is this remotely OK? I remember reading about people frying their Zen 2 chips with 1.35v+, so this is slightly concerning to me.


Yes, that is normal and fine. You will not be stable at -30 all core (run CoreCycler), but the issue is 1.35V at high loads. These CPUs will hit 1.5V with light loads at stock.

It still bothers me so I put in a -0.05V offset on the CPU voltage before tuning my curve offsets, the voltage offset also allows a slightly lower (larger negative) curve offset to be stable through CoreCycler. It should be fine and I am just being paranoid (and losing the top 25-50 MHz for very short very light loads, but I am fine with that). 1.5V is scary. 

Edit: I see 4700-4675 MHz in CBr20 at 1.325V (1.318) at my settings (5950X, 71.3°C peak, PBO at motherboard limits, curve optimizer -13 -9 -11 -18 -15 -21 -23 -9 -21 -29 -27 -21 -25 -26 -28 -14, *SMT disabled*). I do see my max voltage at 1.45V, it will still boost one core to 5GHz for 10ms or something to open a new tab and stuff like that. With a voltage offset larger than -0.0625V I saw "clock stretching", or the CPU claiming to run at a higher MHz than it really does (Core Clock is noticeably higher than Core Effective Clock in HWiNFO while running CB, and CB scores are lower too).

Core 1 and 7 are my "favored" cores. If I lower any core's curve offset by one it gets errors in CoreCycler, but I never have errors or crashes anywhere with my fine tuned settings. I am impressed with how well CoreCycler worked for me. I could run -22 all core without any issues in CB or other benchmarks and games, but I would get a random restart once a week or so. Now it is rock solid.

Edit2: Oops, that was with SMT disabled, with it enabled I see 4.6GHz all core at 1.275V with a 76.0°C peak CCD temp. 1.43V does seem high to me while running CBr20, even accounting for my voltage offset. I don't trust Ryzen Master at all though, in fact I do not like having it installed.


----------



## pewpewlazer

Asmodian said:


> Yes, that is normal and fine. You will not be stable at -30 all core (run CoreCycler), but the issue is 1.35V at high loads. These CPUs will hit 1.5V with light loads at stock.
> 
> 
> Edit2: Oops, that was with SMT disabled, with it enabled I see 4.6GHz all core at 1.275V with a 76.0°C peak CCD temp. 1.43V does seem high to me while running CBr20, even accounting for my voltage offset. I don't trust Ryzen Master at all though, in fact I do not like having it installed.


I know they'll run pretty high voltage for lightly threaded loads, but the all core full load voltage in CB seemed really high given what I remember reading about Zen 2. Knowing some X99 boards had a tendency to fry CPUs if left on "auto" voltage settings doesn't give me a warm fuzzy either.

Is Ryzen Master generally regarded as junk? What software can provide a real voltage reading? Running CB R23 on stock power limits I get three different voltage readings with three different software:

Ryzen Master = 1.20v average core voltage
HWiNFO64 = 1.139v core voltage / 1.214 VID
CPU-Z = 1.164v


----------



## Asmodian

pewpewlazer said:


> What software can provide a real voltage reading?


HWiNFO is the most reliable in my experience. CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN) is the one I pay attention to.


----------



## Asmodian

pewpewlazer said:


> I know they'll run pretty high voltage for lightly threaded loads, but the all core full load voltage in CB seemed really high given what I remember reading about Zen 2. Knowing some X99 boards had a tendency to fry CPUs if left on "auto" voltage settings doesn't give me a warm fuzzy either.


PBO auto voltage control is very different, the board is opening up the power limits, but the CPU is still what is deciding what voltage to run at, based on load and temperature. The curve optimizer will change it too. CB is a pretty light load, if you run something heavier you will see much lower voltages and frequencies. It is Prime95 at 1.35V that really kills things.

But, yeah, I don't get warm fuzzies either.


----------



## UnchiuNarcis

Hi everyone, I just got my 5900x last Friday and since then I've been tinkering with it a lot, but I'm not that happy after all. It sits into a crosshair viii formula, I ran ctr 2.1 test and it has been seen as a silver sample. The thing is that I see veryone is scoring 600+ and 8.6k + in cb20 but I can't score more than 590 and something or 8200-8300 . I also got my ram overclocked from 3200 cl16 to 4000 cl16 ( dual rank ) and IF 2000 mhz in zentimings they are all at 1:1 ratio but I have my latency 65-66 ns in AIDA. I'm currently at 230 PPT 155 TDC and 170 EDC. Curve optimizer is set per core, -25 on the best cores, -21 on the secondary and -30 on the others. PBO scalar on auto ( 1x ) and +200 mhz my motherboard allows me up to 700 if I remember correctly. While running corecycler I see the VID and Core Voltage switching from 1.381 to 1.403v I'm on the latest bios During cb20 test the core speed is 4.575 reported by hwinfo ryzen master or my motherboard. In hwinfo I see that some of the cores go up to 5150 mhz and also in gaming for a fraction of second. Can somebody shed some light upon this situation?


----------



## Sleepycat

UnchiuNarcis said:


> Hi everyone, I just got my 5900x last Friday and since then I've been tinkering with it a lot, but I'm not that happy after all. It sits into a crosshair viii formula, I ran ctr 2.1 test and it has been seen as a silver sample. The thing is that I see veryone is scoring 600+ and 8.6k + in cb20 but I can't score more than 590 and something or 8200-8300 . I also got my ram overclocked from 3200 cl16 to 4000 cl16 ( dual rank ) and IF 2000 mhz in zentimings they are all at 1:1 ratio but I have my latency 65-66 ns in AIDA. I'm currently at 230 PPT 155 TDC and 170 EDC. Curve optimizer is set per core, -25 on the best cores, -21 on the secondary and -30 on the others. PBO scalar on auto ( 1x ) and +200 mhz my motherboard allows me up to 700 if I remember correctly. While running corecycler I see the VID and Core Voltage switching from 1.381 to 1.403v I'm on the latest bios During cb20 test the core speed is 4.575 reported by hwinfo ryzen master or my motherboard. In hwinfo I see that some of the cores go up to 5150 mhz and also in gaming for a fraction of second. Can somebody shed some light upon this situation?


Your high latency for 4000 CL16 indicates something is not set correctly. You might have instability and errors running at that speed. I recommend setting your memory to run at 3800 CL16, and see if your latency increases.

In addition, your curve optimizer settings are likely to be not suitable for your CPU. You need to set it based on stability testing of each core using CoreCycler. If you give it too much negative curve offset, you'll lose performance. You mentioned that you ran Corecycler, what settings did you run it on?

I run my 5900X at only 4.7 GHz @ 1.300 V, using memory at 3600 CL14-15-14-24. Even with this conservative settings I'm already getting 9050 points in CB R20. And my Aida64 latency is 57.3 ns. Yours should be much quicker and lower latency that my system, so I believe you have some settings set in a way that is not matching to what your CPU can do.


----------



## UnchiuNarcis

Sleepycat said:


> Your high latency for 4000 CL16 indicates something is not set correctly. You might have instability and errors running at that speed. I recommend setting your memory to run at 3800 CL16, and see if your latency increases.
> 
> In addition, your curve optimizer settings are likely to be not suitable for your CPU. You need to set it based on stability testing of each core using CoreCycler. If you give it too much negative curve offset, you'll lose performance. You mentioned that you ran Corecycler, what settings did you run it on?
> 
> I run my 5900X at only 4.7 GHz @ 1.300 V, using memory at 3600 CL14-15-14-24. Even with this conservative settings I'm already getting 9050 points in CB R20. And my Aida64 latency is 57.3 ns. Yours should be much quicker and lower latency that my system, so I believe you have some settings set in a way that is not matching to what your CPU can do.
> 
> View attachment 2517853
> 
> 
> View attachment 2517854


hi, thank you so much for your quick reply! 
. You need to set it based on stability testing of each core using CoreCycler. If you give it too much negative curve offset, you'll lose performance. You mentioned that you ran Corecycler, what settings did you run it on? /////// what do you mean by settings please?


----------



## AyeYo

So I built this rig as a workstation for video editing and photogrammetry processing, and was going to leave it at stock because of all the stability issues I've heard about, but couldn't resist the urge to tinker a little. I'm new to AMD so it took some reading up, but using PBO is ultimately far easier than old school overclocking. I'm pretty happy with the results as well. Having done a lot of reading, I think too many people are getting hung up on clocks (it is called overclocking, so I get it) and ignoring actual performance, especially performance in real-world use cases and not just synthetic benchmarks. For real-world use, transient/moderate load clocks and how long those moderate boost clocks are being held matters a whole lot more than HWM is showing as your max clock hit.

Here's what I've got:

5950x in a Crosshair VIII Hero
Dark Rock Pro 4 cooler
48GB (mismatched 16gb/32gb kits) of GSkill 3200CL16
960 Evo 500GB for OS drive
Asus RTX3070 OC running at stock OC settings

DOCP has no problem with four sticks on 3200mhz and matching Infinity Fabric. That was the first thing I tested because I was concerned about four sticks and mismatched kits no less.
PBO limits are set at 225/140/180 - I'm completely baffled by people running higher TDC than EDC, completely goes against what those two are supposed to represent. 
CO is set to -5 on four best cores, -10 on everything else. 
LLC minimum/off
Scalar, boost increase, voltage offset, etc. everything else is untouched and at stock for best CPU longevity and stability.

Clocks achieved are... doesn't matter. Haven't even looked other than to make sure there's no clock stretching.

Completely unoptimized benches (i.e. still a million background processes running):

CR23: 29073/1608
CPUZ: 13,439/680
Geek5: 16779/1710
RB2.56: 313,833

Maxes at around 82C in CR23 in 75F room.

Judging by other results I've seen, this is quite good for minimal added CPU wear/tear and rock solid stability, especially considering the slower RAM speeds. Seems like pushing harder is extraordinarily more effort, wear, and questionable stability for very minimal gains. I would like to keep tweaking with a better mixed/real world benchmark though. RB is hugely, hugely inconsistent and seems to need to be run 10x times to settle on a score average (it did this to me on Intel as well). The encoding sections takes anywhere from 1 to 10 minutes, which is absurd. Geek5 works pretty well, but the stuff it's doing is fairly irrelevant to what I'm actually doing.


----------



## Asmodian

AyeYo said:


> Scalar, boost increase, voltage offset, etc. everything else is untouched and at stock for best CPU longevity and stability.


I think you must not be aware of how aggressive AMD is with voltage at "stock" PBO? And you have a curve offset too... you not stock anymore, voltage or otherwise.



AyeYo said:


> PBO limits are set at 225/140/180 - I'm completely baffled by people running higher TDC than EDC, completely goes against what those two are supposed to represent.


But why do we need a lower power limit long term compared to short term? My cooling is more than sufficient, I have no need to lower performance for workloads that run long. Setting a higher TDC disables that unneeded downclock.



AyeYo said:


> Judging by other results I've seen, this is quite good for minimal added CPU wear/tear and rock solid stability, especially considering the slower RAM speeds.


I think of myself as an aggressive overclocker and I set a negative voltage offset on these CPUs. 1.5V is too much for me. 

This also allows higher performance during the mid-clock range because the CPU uses less power and has lower temperatures, so it boosts a little higher.

How have you judged "rock solid stability"? Have you run CoreCycler or anything? A -5/-10 curve offset is a pretty good PBO overclock, I don't think you are as close to "stock" as you think you are.


----------



## AyeYo

Asmodian said:


> I think you must not be aware of how aggressive AMD is with voltage at "stock" PBO? And you have a curve offset too... you not stock anymore, voltage or otherwise.


I didn't say it was completely stock. I said scalar, boost max, and CPU voltage were stock. We have people running around with 10x scalar, positive vcore offset, and maxed LLC - that's going to be way more wearing on the CPU than leaving those things alone.




Asmodian said:


> But why do we need a lower power limit long term compared to short term? My cooling is more than sufficient, I have no need to lower performance for workloads that run long. Setting a higher TDC disables that unneeded downclock.


Because that's how power delivery works. Those are motherboard delivery specs to let the CPU know what's _available. _Surely the VRMs are not able to deliver the same continuous current as they are able to deliver peak/spike current. So if someone is just running with these numbers at maxed values so as to be "uncapped", then that's fine and dandy. But running TDC higher than EDC makes no sense whatsoever - which is exactly what I said in my original post.




Asmodian said:


> I think of myself as an aggressive overclocker and I set a negative voltage offset on these CPUs. 1.5V is too much for me.


Why? It doesn't appear to be too much for AMD at bone stock settings, so why do you feel it's too much for you?



Asmodian said:


> This also allows higher performance during the mid-clock range because the CPU uses less power and has lower temperatures, so it boosts a little higher.


But the problem I've noticed is that's everyone is all about what boost speed they're getting and judging their OC on that, rather than about what performance numbers they're achieving. I can easily hit higher boost clocks and higher average clocks... all with decrease scores in every benchmark. Every YouTube video and how-to post I've seen is about maximizing negative offset in CO under the assumption that lower is better, just like how everyone seems to run PBO numbers as high as cooling will allow. In my experience, neither has straight correlation with performance gains, even when a given setting results in higher average clocks.



Asmodian said:


> How have you judged "rock solid stability"? Have you run CoreCycler or anything? A -5/-10 curve offset is a pretty good PBO overclock, I don't think you are as close to "stock" as you think you are.


Yes I've run CoreCycler for hours, days sitting idle on desktop or light apps, etc. Stability matters a lot to me. Most productivity software I'm using on a daily basis will crash a bad overclock faster than any benchmark or stress test I've used. 

Again, I never said it's very close to stock. I said the things that have been tweaked are things that aren't particularly far out of spec for the CPU and don't actually alter AMD's voltage/boost behavior like scalar does and doesn't take the CPU out of prescribed voltage limits like running vcore offset does. Meaningful extra degradation is unlikely and yet the performance gains are reasonably useful.


----------



## Asmodian

AyeYo said:


> I didn't say it was completely stock. I said scalar, boost max, and CPU voltage were stock. We have people running around with 10x scalar, positive vcore offset, and maxed LLC - that's going to be way more wearing on the CPU than leaving those things alone.


On my 5950X I see about the same voltages, etc. no matter what I set the scaler or boost max to. Once PBO is set to motherboard limits changing those does not change what my CPU does. Using +200 boost max seems to cause it to run slightly slower.  

I was simply pointing out that you can get these CPUs to run a very aggressive voltage/load with a curve optimized PBO, more than you might expect. A positive voltage offset or crazy LLC settings would be pushing harder, but you can get a very strong push (high voltages) out of PBO without messing with those too.



AyeYo said:


> Because that's how power delivery works. Those are motherboard delivery specs to let the CPU know what's _available. _Surely the VRMs are not able to deliver the same continuous current as they are able to deliver peak/spike current. So if someone is just running with these numbers at maxed values so as to be "uncapped", then that's fine and dandy. But running TDC higher than EDC makes no sense whatsoever - which is exactly what I said in my original post.


Huh? The point of TDC is to drop the power so you do not overwhelm the cooling (maybe VRM cooling, but it is about cooling). The is why it exists. The VRMs are so overkill on X570 OC boards that they aren't even a concern. You would destroy the CPU before they even get hot.

Running a TDC below EDC makes no sense whatsoever, at least not on a custom water cooled system with overkill VRMs. What do you gain?



AyeYo said:


> Why? It doesn't appear to be too much for AMD at bone stock settings, so why do you feel it's too much for you?


Well, I get better benchmark scores for one. Also, lower temps. A negative curve offset causes the CPU to use higher clocks and more voltage for higher power loads (as does PBO itself), so I like to drop that some. I have run without the voltage offset. Without the offset I need to use slightly higher (less negative) curve offsets to be stable; performance is only a tiny bit better in pure single threaded benchmarks (~1 point in CBr20) and worse in multicore benchmarks.



AyeYo said:


> But the problem I've noticed is that's everyone is all about what boost speed they're getting and judging their OC on that, rather than about what performance numbers they're achieving.


I don't think that is true. It is well known you need to benchmark Ryzen to validate an OC. It is easy to get it to clock higher but score worse, as you have seen.

But most of the time clocks do equal performance.


----------



## Sleepycat

UnchiuNarcis said:


> hi, thank you so much for your quick reply!
> . You need to set it based on stability testing of each core using CoreCycler. If you give it too much negative curve offset, you'll lose performance. You mentioned that you ran Corecycler, what settings did you run it on? ///////


I just ran Corecycler with AVX2, and started with 3 minutes per core to get the rough instabilities out. Where a core fails the test, I increase the Curve optimiser for that failed core by +5 and run Corecycler again. Once you are able to run Corecycler for a while without getting errors (maybe 2-3 hours), then set it to run the default 6 minutes per core and let it do its full test. 



> what do you mean by settings please?


Your Curve Optimizer settings per core with -25 on best cores, -21 on secondary and -30 on other cores is not correct for stability. It will end up with errors and software crashing. 

My settings are (with the best cores in brackets): -25, +10, [-20], [0], -30, -25, -30, -25, -15, -25, -30, -15
The difference is quite wide to get stability, so you cannot just use general curve optimizer settings like what you have.

Looking at your Zentimings screenshot, I'd look at testing 3800 / 1900 memory clocks first to see if it improves Aida64 results and latency. tRFC and other subtimings can also be optimized further, but I'd use 3800/1900 first.


----------



## UnchiuNarcis

Sleepycat said:


> I just ran Corecycler with AVX2, and started with 3 minutes per core to get the rough instabilities out. Where a core fails the test, I increase the Curve optimiser for that failed core by +5 and run Corecycler again. Once you are able to run Corecycler for a while without getting errors (maybe 2-3 hours), then set it to run the default 6 minutes per core and let it do its full test.
> 
> 
> Your Curve Optimizer settings per core with -25 on best cores, -21 on secondary and -30 on other cores is not correct for stability. It will end up with errors and software crashing.
> 
> My settings are (with the best cores in brackets): -25, +10, [-20], [0], -30, -25, -30, -25, -15, -25, -30, -15
> The difference is quite wide to get stability, so you cannot just use general curve optimizer settings like what you have.
> 
> Looking at your Zentimings screenshot, I'd look at testing 3800 / 1900 memory clocks first to see if it improves Aida64 results and latency. tRFC and other subtimings can also be optimized further, but I'd use 3800/1900 first.


with the core optimizer settings that I wrote you I get no errors in corecycler, or any other software. I encountered sudden pc restarts but I increased CPU LLC to lvl 2 and it's gone now, I also disabled C states and DF in bios 

I tried 3800 mhz/ 1900 fclk but the latency gets even worse, at 75-76 ns


----------



## gled_fr

Quick question, as I am working my CO settings and something just dawned on me, running corecycler prime95 huge all fft:

This is the first cycle and:
my core 0 ( second best core ccd 1 set to -7 ) runs all FFT in 12mn
my core 8 ( -17, second best ccd2 ) runs it in 17mn
my core 1 ( -2, best core ccd1 ) runs all fft in 14mn
core 9 ( -17 ) runs in 16mn
core 2 ( -30 ) runs in 16mn too
core 10 ( -30 ) runs in 14mn,
the other still waiting for the results.

Why such a variance between the cores ?

Is it CCD/CO applied related ( IE if I put a lower undervolt it will run faster ? ) or just core related ?

Instead of trying to go the lowest stable possible, should I aim to find the fastest all FFT times ?

As a quick note, I was fully stable on -5 core 0, 0 core 1, -15 core 8-9-15 and -20 all. I am just working on pushing that down.


----------



## edhutner

Probably because each core works (boosts) to different frequency and that is why is finishing the cycle for different time.


----------



## Asmodian

That wouldn't make sense, 12 v.s. 17 min is 42% slower, that would be a HUGE clock speed difference. Normal variance between cores cannot explain that.

I think it is something else, but how are you measuring "runs it in X minutes" with CoreCycler? Don't you simply tell it how long to run on each core?


----------



## gled_fr

Asmodian said:


> That wouldn't make sense, 12 v.s. 17 min is 42% slower, that would be a HUGE clock speed difference. Normal variance between cores cannot explain that.
> 
> I think it is something else, but how are you measuring "runs it in X minutes" with CoreCycler? Don't you simply tell it how long to run on each core?


No, I let prime95 compute all the FFTs ( Runtime Auto ), so I can tell how long it runs per core to compute all of them. and there's indeed a great variance, I cannot explain though by just the CO offset or some boost clock difference.

I had a core at -30 complete in 14mn while the supposed second best core ccd2 completes in 17mn at -17.

full log:


Spoiler



11:14:35 - Iteration 1
----------------------------------
11:14:35 - Set to Core 0 (CPU 0)
Running until all FFT sizes have been tested...
All FFT sizes have been tested for this core, continuing to the next one
11:26:07 - Set to Core 8 (CPU 16)
Running until all FFT sizes have been tested...
All FFT sizes have been tested for this core, continuing to the next one
11:43:17 - Set to Core 1 (CPU 2)
Running until all FFT sizes have been tested...
All FFT sizes have been tested for this core, continuing to the next one
11:58:14 - Set to Core 9 (CPU 18)
Running until all FFT sizes have been tested...
All FFT sizes have been tested for this core, continuing to the next one
12:14:11 - Set to Core 2 (CPU 4)
Running until all FFT sizes have been tested...
All FFT sizes have been tested for this core, continuing to the next one
12:30:21 - Set to Core 10 (CPU 20)
Running until all FFT sizes have been tested...
All FFT sizes have been tested for this core, continuing to the next one
12:44:30 - Set to Core 3 (CPU 6)
Running until all FFT sizes have been tested...
All FFT sizes have been tested for this core, continuing to the next one
13:01:03 - Set to Core 11 (CPU 22)
Running until all FFT sizes have been tested...
All FFT sizes have been tested for this core, continuing to the next one
13:16:24 - Set to Core 4 (CPU 8)
Running until all FFT sizes have been tested...
All FFT sizes have been tested for this core, continuing to the next one
13:31:45 - Set to Core 12 (CPU 24)
Running until all FFT sizes have been tested...
All FFT sizes have been tested for this core, continuing to the next one
13:47:07 - Set to Core 5 (CPU 10)
Running until all FFT sizes have been tested...
All FFT sizes have been tested for this core, continuing to the next one
14:00:51 - Set to Core 13 (CPU 26)
Running until all FFT sizes have been tested...
All FFT sizes have been tested for this core, continuing to the next one
14:17:37 - Set to Core 6 (CPU 12)
Running until all FFT sizes have been tested...
All FFT sizes have been tested for this core, continuing to the next one
14:32:46 - Set to Core 14 (CPU 28)
Running until all FFT sizes have been tested...
All FFT sizes have been tested for this core, continuing to the next one
14:48:31 - Set to Core 7 (CPU 14)
Running until all FFT sizes have been tested...
All FFT sizes have been tested for this core, continuing to the next one
15:03:04 - Set to Core 15 (CPU 30)
Running until all FFT sizes have been tested...
All FFT sizes have been tested for this core, continuing to the next one


----------



## Sleepycat

UnchiuNarcis said:


> I tried 3800 mhz/ 1900 fclk but the latency gets even worse, at 75-76 ns


My RAM set up is different to yours (I run B-die instead of your Micron E-die), but you can try some tighter subtimings at 3600/1800 MHz. I get 57.3 ns with only 3600/1800 MHz and I'm running only 2T. Granted I am running 4x16GB B-die sticks which is a silly thing to do as it needs 1.46V to even POST. However, with 1.46V, it passes the memory testing that I use (TM5, OCCT Extreme Large). 1.45V won't post for me.


----------



## UnchiuNarcis

Sleepycat said:


> My RAM set up is different to yours (I run B-die instead of your Micron E-die), but you can try some tighter subtimings at 3600/1800 MHz. I get 57.3 ns with only 3600/1800 MHz and I'm running only 2T. Granted I am running 4x16GB B-die sticks which is a silly thing to do as it needs 1.46V to even POST. However, with 1.46V, it passes the memory testing that I use (TM5, OCCT Extreme Large). 1.45V won't post for me.





Sleepycat said:


> My RAM set up is different to yours (I run B-die instead of your Micron E-die), but you can try some tighter subtimings at 3600/1800 MHz. I get 57.3 ns with only 3600/1800 MHz and I'm running only 2T. Granted I am running 4x16GB B-die sticks which is a silly thing to do as it needs 1.46V to even POST. However, with 1.46V, it passes the memory testing that I use (TM5, OCCT Extreme Large). 1.45V won't post for me.


okay, but my read/write/copy is higher than yours, wouldn't this make also a difference in tasks or gaming?


----------



## Jimmo

PPT - 200
TDC - 130
EDC - 130
CO best 2 cores -9 & -8
All other cores -30


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Why my pc shutdown when I run r23 at stock bios? Temp?


----------



## JohnnyFlash

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Why my pc shutdown when I run r23 at stock bios? Temp?


What was the temp while the test was running?


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Single core test and it is 63c with default bios. Pc shutdown instantly when run multicore.


----------



## gtz

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Single core test and it is 63c with default bios. Pc shutdown instantly when run multicore.


Might be thermal shutdown? What cooler are you using? What motherboard?


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Custom loop and dark hero. I got code 00 at first post and now after change ram slot and remount block Im able to post but system will shut down when run max core and I cant even post with 1800fclk and 3600 ram.


----------



## Asmodian

Try turning off monitoring for both CPU temperatures (top two temps) in the Monitoring section of BIOS.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Asmodian said:


> Try turning off monitoring for both CPU temperatures (top two temps) in the Monitoring section of BIOS.


53c r23 multicore at default bios setting.
98c r23 multi at 45 all core 1.25v load


----------



## Asmodian

Thanh Nguyen said:


> 98c r23 multi at 45 all core 1.25v load


Yep, the motherboard will turn off if it sees that. Heatsink is not mounted correctly!


----------



## Sleepycat

gled_fr said:


> Quick question, as I am working my CO settings and something just dawned on me, running corecycler prime95 huge all fft:
> 
> This is the first cycle and:
> my core 0 ( second best core ccd 1 set to -7 ) runs all FFT in 12mn
> my core 8 ( -17, second best ccd2 ) runs it in 17mn
> my core 1 ( -2, best core ccd1 ) runs all fft in 14mn
> core 9 ( -17 ) runs in 16mn
> core 2 ( -30 ) runs in 16mn too
> core 10 ( -30 ) runs in 14mn,
> the other still waiting for the results.
> 
> Why such a variance between the cores ?


That's normal. Because CCD1's cores are set to run as high a clock as possible using as high a voltage that is needed. CCD2 on the other hand is set to run at almost the same speeds, but try to do so with lower voltage to reduce power consumption. Hence the actual work that CCD2 cores will do is much lower than CCD1.


----------



## Sleepycat

UnchiuNarcis said:


> okay, but my read/write/copy is higher than yours, wouldn't this make also a difference in tasks or gaming?


That's one aspect, but I would expect your latency to be in the low 60's range. Sometimes subtimings that are too tight/aggressive can increase latency too.


----------



## Sleepycat

*Delete


----------



## gtz

Thanh Nguyen said:


> 53c r23 multicore at default bios setting.
> 98c r23 multi at 45 all core 1.25v load


Jesus, 98 degrees Celsius. That is hot, surprise you don't lose stability that hot.


----------



## Milkysunshine

gtz said:


> Jesus, 98 degrees Celsius. That is hot, surprise you don't lose stability that hot.


98 in that short of a time is serious. 

My 5950x with PBO tuning stays steady at 4.5-4.525 ghz all core R23 at 81.5c by finish. peak vcore during test is 1.224 avg is 1.216. Maybe try losing a little vcore and see if it is still stable?


----------



## boldenc

I am having hard time passing FFT 720k when testing my CO with CoreCycler so I suggest who ever looking for better stability to test custom FFT with CoreCycle in # Prime95 specific settings and edit FFTSize = 720-720
I have passed the custom presets including Moderate, Heavy, HeavyShort and Huge for hours fine. But this specific FFT 720k will fail on all cores and I had to lower my offset to pass it for 1 hour each core.
And the best core couldn't pass it till I used 0 offset, this core still boosts to 5GHz with - 0 CO but was hoping for better offset to use but guess not the best luck.


----------



## Milkysunshine

boldenc said:


> I am having hard time passing FFT 720k when testing my CO with CoreCycler so I suggest who ever looking for better stability to test custom FFT with CoreCycle in # Prime95 specific settings and edit FFTSize = 720-720


Great find. I also had passed days of testing on various settings, but 720 showed rounding errors on 2 of my cores. I lowered the offset by 2 on those cores, and all passes. Now, I'm going back and raising some other cores to see if I am still stable thanks to finding those 2 being hopefully weak links in my settings. With that net loss of 4 offset, I've already gained 16 or so on other cores with much more testing to go. 

Cheers.


----------



## Henry Owens

Does your guys processor boost above 5ghz in games or browsing windows? Mine seems to like to go to 4.9 and more rarely 5ghz. Running -20 or -30 all core and +200mhz 
Mine says max boost 5.15 in Ryzen master but it will almost never do that. Very cool temps on processor also.


----------



## Milkysunshine

Henry Owens said:


> Does your guys processor boost above 5ghz in games or browsing windows?


Maybe for a fraction of a second, but they're more in line with your frequencies 99% of the time.


----------



## boldenc

Milkysunshine said:


> Great find. I also had passed days of testing on various settings, but 720 showed rounding errors on 2 of my cores. I lowered the offset by 2 on those cores, and all passes. Now, I'm going back and raising some other cores to see if I am still stable thanks to finding those 2 being hopefully weak links in my settings. With that net loss of 4 offset, I've already gained 16 or so on other cores with much more testing to go.
> 
> Cheers.


Also I try to play with AutoOC settings, I was using +200MHz, but I noticed the curve optimizer works better with low AutoOC for better stability. I settled with +50MHz and overall scores are better and I was able to to gain more offsets for some cores that was failing with +200MHz.


----------



## Milkysunshine

boldenc said:


> Also I try to play with AutoOC settings, I was using +200MHz, but I noticed the curve optimizer works better with low AutoOC for better stability. I settled with +50MHz and overall scores are better and I was able to to gain more offsets for some cores that was failing with +200MHz.


I believe that is because the chip is doing anything possible to try to reach those speeds. If you go for a modest 50 or 75mhz, it isn't trying to run at 105% and throttles for other reasons.

Could be wrong, but it makes sense to me. 

Bottom line is AMD have done an amazing job on letting these chips get almost everything out of them with their built in algorithms and self managing systems. It seems that there isn't much room leftover after enabling pbo and tweaking power limits. Our job is to find that 'isn't much room' and fill it with clock cycles.


----------



## Milkysunshine

Out of curiosity, When I updated to the latest beta bios for the dark hero viii, I left pbo curve completely stock. I did a mild +50 to the autoOC, set my power limits manually (220,160,155), then ran through about 10 hours of core cycler. Core 14 failed even with zero offset. That got me thinking... Maybe our methodology for testing "stability" using core cycler on EVERY core is flawed. There isn't a real life scenario where single threaded loads are going to be stuck blasting a core on the second ccd for an extended period of time, while the preferred cores on the first ccd are doing nothing. I found that 10 threads in prime 95 was enough to just start using core 14 fully. 9 threads dropped core 14. 14 is the lesser 'preferred core' on the second ccd with core 10 being the primary preferred core on that ccd. I ran 10 threads of the same 720k FFT for hours without error. So, yes. It is unstable under 'worst case scenario', but unfortunately, that scenario will most likely never, ever happen.

What I suggest as a better real world test is have a program like core cycler start out with a single core workload, and go all the way up to the full 16 core workload in stages. Instead of assigning affinity to each core specifically, Let the CPU handle the distribution of the load. This way, we're emulating a true possible test from single thread, all the way to full 32 thread load (on the 5950x, obviously). One issue I see right away is tracking which prime95 worker actually errors. I'm not entirely sure the logical way to tackle the tracking of core usage. Maybe have the app do a test run first monitoring core usage per thread count and create a probable order of core preference, then use that order to add on threads one at a time at certain time intervals? The app could even do a more real world style test bouncing from higher thread loads to lower thread loads via a configuration flag.

...I wish my programming skills weren't so rudimentary.


----------



## JohnnyFlash

Milkysunshine said:


> Out of curiosity, When I updated to the latest beta bios for the dark hero viii, I left pbo curve completely stock. I did a mild +50 to the autoOC, set my power limits manually (220,160,155), then ran through about 10 hours of core cycler. Core 14 failed even with zero offset. That got me thinking... Maybe our methodology for testing "stability" using core cycler on EVERY core is flawed. There isn't a real life scenario where single threaded loads are going to be stuck blasting a core on the second ccd for an extended period of time, while the preferred cores on the first ccd are doing nothing. I found that 10 threads in prime 95 was enough to just start using core 14 fully. 9 threads dropped core 14. 14 is the lesser 'preferred core' on the second ccd with core 10 being the primary preferred core on that ccd. I ran 10 threads of the same 720k FFT for hours without error. So, yes. It is unstable under 'worst case scenario', but unfortunately, that scenario will most likely never, ever happen.


This is what I was getting at during our discussion in the Dark Hero thread: If you need 100% 24/7 stability, the only way is with an all core overclock. There are too many steps for each core depending on workload. You've got some good suggestions in there though.

_(For anyone looking at my sig after reading that, my chip can do 4.55/4.45 with my current cooling, but that makes my office unbearably hot (28C+). Have it set lower until I can sort that out.)_


----------



## thigobr

It's true that many minutes or even an hour of single core load might never happen in real life but it's very easy on multi thread software to have a thread be assigned to this weaker core while this thread is not doing much and then become busy (say after getting some data back from a disk read or network). In that case the frequency can spike and crash the system in the same way. So I think testing each core to the maximum still the best way to believe your system is closer to full stability...


----------



## Milkysunshine

thigobr said:


> It's true that many minutes or even an hour of single core load might never happen in real life but it's very easy on multi thread software to have a thread be assigned to this weaker core while this thread is not doing much and then become busy (say after getting some data back from a disk read or network). In that case the frequency can spike and crash the system in the same way. So I think testing each core to the maximum still the best way to believe your system is closer to full stability...


But I covered the simulation of multi core software using that core for hours on end using 10 workers on prime95. It passed easily. Same thing happens with occt. Setting advanced thread options means you can cycle loads on and off repeatedly. I did that without error as well.


----------



## boldenc

I had the opportunity to test 3x 5900x and unfortunately didn't find the golden chip, they are all new batches, 2116, 2121, 2127
2116 was the first, this chip was ok, the best core on CCX1 wasn't stable with anything less than -4 for CO. Boost clocks was above average, single core was 67x and 99xx in CPU-Z. CTR identified this sample as Silver
CCX1 max boost was 4.9GHz and CCX2 max boost was 4.8GHz. Some cores were stable with -30 offset.
2121, a little better despite the lower overall offset, one of the best core on CXX1 wasn't stable with anything less than -1. Other cores was fine, single core was 68x and 10xxx in CPU-Z. CTR identified this sample as Silver
Max boost was a bit higher, 4.95GHz CCX1 and 4.85GHz CCX2 despite overall offset were higher than first chip, none of the core was stable with -30 offset.
2127, it is the worse one, despite accepting higher overall offset but the boost was very limited, it is like the CO didn't have any effect. I was barely getting over 4.8GHz on CCX1 and 4.7GHz with CO. CTR identified this sample as Bronze
This chip single core was 66x and 96xx in CPU-Z.
All test with PBO/CO optimized and stability was tested with CoreCycler 1h each core.
Was really hoping to find a chip than can do over 5GHz on the best core and passing 69x CPU-Z single core but I guess that's enough with silicon lottery,
it looks the new batches are more limited and barely hit the 4.8 ~ 4.9 Mark and CO didn't have the big difference used to be.
What I learnt, higher offset doesn't mean the better chip, a chip with +0 CO could be better than a chip with -30 offset and boosts higher.
The offset has a limitation, for example a core with -10 offset, anything more will not yield for better results, so -10 is like the same -30 for that core.
Testing is fun on this chips, and easy to find the sweet spot.
I am now back to my oldy 3900x and I guess I will sell the 5900x's and wait for the B2 refresh or maybe play with some 5800x.


----------



## dansi

boldenc said:


> I had the opportunity to test 3x 5900x and unfortunately didn't find the golden chip, they are all new batches, 2116, 2121, 2127
> 2116 was the first, this chip was ok, the best core on CCX1 wasn't stable with anything less than -4 for CO. Boost clocks was above average, single core was 67x and 99xx in CPU-Z. CTR identified this sample as Silver
> CCX1 max boost was 4.9GHz and CCX2 max boost was 4.8GHz. Some cores were stable with -30 offset.
> 2121, a little better despite the lower overall offset, one of the best core on CXX1 wasn't stable with anything less than -1. Other cores was fine, single core was 68x and 10xxx in CPU-Z. CTR identified this sample as Silver
> Max boost was a bit higher, 4.95GHz CCX1 and 4.85GHz CCX2 despite overall offset were higher than first chip, none of the core was stable with -30 offset.
> 2127, it is the worse one, despite accepting higher overall offset but the boost was very limited, it is like the CO didn't have any effect. I was barely getting over 4.8GHz on CCX1 and 4.7GHz with CO. CTR identified this sample as Bronze
> This chip single core was 66x and 96xx in CPU-Z.
> All test with PBO/CO optimized and stability was tested with CoreCycler 1h each core.
> Was really hoping to find a chip than can do over 5GHz on the best core and passing 69x CPU-Z single core but I guess that's enough with silicon lottery,
> it looks the new batches are more limited and barely hit the 4.8 ~ 4.9 Mark and CO didn't have the big difference used to be.
> What I learnt, higher offset doesn't mean the better chip, a chip with +0 CO could be better than a chip with -30 offset and boosts higher.
> The offset has a limitation, for example a core with -10 offset, anything more will not yield for better results, so -10 is like the same -30 for that core.
> Testing is fun on this chips, and easy to find the sweet spot.
> I am now back to my oldy 3900x and I guess I will sell the 5900x's and wait for the B2 refresh.


you can try aida64 memory latency test to get a high 'max' boost. just run that test, quickly assign core affinity from windows task manager and you should get almost all core hit 5ghz effective clocks.

but yeah this seems par on course as amd send all the good dies to epyic and whatnot


----------



## boldenc

dansi said:


> you can try aida64 memory latency test to get a high 'max' boost. just run that test, quickly assign core affinity from windows task manager and you should get almost all core hit 5ghz effective clocks.
> 
> but yeah this seems par on course as amd send all the good dies to epyic and whatnot


I guess the max boot on aida64 is clock stretching, same as geekbench. it will read the core speed according to the max pbo autooc, so it can show 5050MHz but during testing single threads in cb, it will never bench at this speed.


----------



## Sleepycat

boldenc said:


> What I learnt, higher offset doesn't mean the better chip, a chip with +0 CO could be better than a chip with -30 offset and boosts higher.
> The offset has a limitation, for example a core with -10 offset, anything more will not yield for better results, so -10 is like the same -30 for that core.


True, my best cores and best CCD have much smaller CO offsets (closer to zero, one of my cores on CCD1 needs +10!), compared to the 2nd CCD where most of the cores run between -20 to -30 without problems and pass corecycler. But this 2nd CCD can only hit a lower peak clock speed regardless of voltage. The 1st CCD can hit 4.95 and higher as long as I am willing to pump in more voltage to maintain stability.


----------



## dansi

boldenc said:


> I guess the max boot on aida64 is clock stretching, same as geekbench. it will read the core speed according to the max pbo autooc, so it can show 5050MHz but during testing single threads in cb, it will never bench at this speed.


no it's not clock stretching, just a low current load that allows the cores to boost high. you can see by lowering pbo and latency score also lowers


----------



## boldenc

Milkysunshine said:


> Out of curiosity, When I updated to the latest beta bios for the dark hero viii, I left pbo curve completely stock. I did a mild +50 to the autoOC, set my power limits manually (220,160,155), then ran through about 10 hours of core cycler. Core 14 failed even with zero offset. That got me thinking... Maybe our methodology for testing "stability" using core cycler on EVERY core is flawed. There isn't a real life scenario where single threaded loads are going to be stuck blasting a core on the second ccd for an extended period of time, while the preferred cores on the first ccd are doing nothing. I found that 10 threads in prime 95 was enough to just start using core 14 fully. 9 threads dropped core 14. 14 is the lesser 'preferred core' on the second ccd with core 10 being the primary preferred core on that ccd. I ran 10 threads of the same 720k FFT for hours without error. So, yes. It is unstable under 'worst case scenario', but unfortunately, that scenario will most likely never, ever happen.


fail is still a fail, and you may get a crash or instability any time during normal use, it may take ages to happen but passing all stability test without errors make you feel the peace of mind effect 
I don't understand what with the 720k FFT with Zen3 chips, but no matter how stable you was, if you didn't test 720k FFT you will fail and you will have to use CO + offset or lowering your old stable - offset to pass it.


----------



## Milkysunshine

boldenc said:


> Was really hoping to find a chip than can do over 5GHz on the best core and passing 69x CPU-Z single core but I guess that's enough with silicon lottery,


Cpu-z single thread testing is flawed. It sets affinity to core zero, not your best core. Find a different single thread test for true results. 
I can't believe I've never seen anyone mention this. I found it with my own tuning of my preferred cores.


----------



## Milkysunshine

boldenc said:


> fail is still a fail, and you may get a crash or instability any time during normal use, it may take ages to happen but passing all stability test without errors make you feel the peace of mind effect
> I don't understand what with the 720k FFT with Zen3 chips, but no matter how stable you was, if you didn't test 720k FFT you will fail and you will have to use CO + offset or lowering your old stable - offset to pass it.


You speak the truth. As I said, I have a core that needs +5 offset to pass 720k, It fails with simply enabling pbo, but passes most anything else at -2.

Do you tune for that possible worst case scenario, or for more riskier performance? It depends on your system's workload, and level of risk for that extra 2% or less on benchmark scores I guess.


----------



## boldenc

Milkysunshine said:


> Cpu-z single thread testing is flawed. It sets affinity to core zero, not your best core. Find a different single thread test for true results.
> I can't believe I've never seen anyone mention this. I found it with my own tuning of my preferred cores.


I did with CB20 and CB23 too, was looking to pass the 650 and 1650
believe it but I found if core0 is good, most of the other cores on the same CCD are good too.
If core0 is bad, the other cores will be bad too. So you get overall how good the chip with CPU-Z run.


----------



## Milkysunshine

The other issue I am noticing is, full load performance is dictated by your WORST core. In my experience, full load VID is uniform across all cores on the ccd, and is going to be whatever the highest cores VID is.

You can easily test this by setting a single core to a significant positive offset and test results in any full load benchmark.

If I tune to the safe, 720k passing curve offset, I actually get worst full load results vs just enabling pbo with no curve optimization. What is far better is real life gaming type scenarios where only a few cores are used, and the cpu isn't pegged.


----------



## boldenc

Milkysunshine said:


> You speak the truth. As I said, I have a core that needs +5 offset to pass 720k, It fails with simply enabling pbo, but passes most anything else at -2.
> 
> Do you tune for that possible worst case scenario, or for more riskier performance? It depends on your system's workload, and level of risk for that extra 2% or less on benchmark scores I guess.


What is the batch on your CPU new batch? it is made in china or Malaysia ? I found the Malaysia chips are better, could be placebo but the eypc and threadippers cpu's are always made in malaysia.
I prefer the best possible performance/stability. I will never use a PC that had an error even if it is stable for my normal use.


----------



## Milkysunshine

boldenc said:


> What is the batch on your CPU new batch? it is made in china or Malaysia ? I found the Malaysia chips are better, could be placebo but the eypc and threadippers cpu's are always made in malaysia.
> I prefer the best possible performance/stability. I will never use a PC that had an error even if it is stable for my normal use.


2114 Malaysia. it is a 5950x


----------



## Lobstar

Jimmo said:


> PPT - 200
> TDC - 130
> EDC - 130
> CO best 2 cores -9 & -8
> All other cores -30
> View attachment 2518484


Weird. I have my system setup with motherboard limits, -15 every core, stock everything except RAM timings/speed. Tested at 1900/3800mhz. Average CPU clock was 4515mhz and temp was 72C.


----------



## smokedawg

I gave PBO with CO another try on my 5950x. It was stable with motherboard limits (GB X570 Xtreme) but multicore loads were suffering. I lost about 10% multicore for a 3% single core gain compared to a 4575/4500 all core oc at 1.275V (1.20V 1.24V under load with medium LLC). Raising PPT and EDC to 230/200 allowed me to make up for this when using PBO but resulted in higher temps and more importantly was not game stable. I could pass core cycler for 24h, 1h of OCCT SSE to AVX2 small tests but playing Witcher 3 would crash the system within minutes.

So now I switched back to my all core setup and just today read something about FIT voltage which should be the safe voltage under load from what I understood. My question: Do I take this voltage and use a high LLC (less vdroop) to stay close to this FIT voltage? Or would it be better to use higher base voltage with lower LLC? Say my FIT voltage is 1.3V: Do I set that in BIOS with highest LLC? Or 1.35V with lower LLC to reach 1.3 under load? Or am I completely off?


----------



## JohnnyFlash

smokedawg said:


> I gave PBO with CO another try on my 5950x. It was stable with motherboard limits (GB X570 Xtreme) but multicore loads were suffering. I lost about 10% multicore for a 3% single core gain compared to a 4575/4500 all core oc at 1.275V (1.20V 1.24V under load with medium LLC). Raising PPT and EDC to 230/200 allowed me to make up for this when using PBO but resulted in higher temps and more importantly was not game stable. I could pass core cycler for 24h, 1h of OCCT SSE to AVX2 small tests but playing Witcher 3 would crash the system within minutes.
> 
> So now I switched back to my all core setup and just today read something about FIT voltage which should be the safe voltage under load from what I understood. My question: Do I take this voltage and use a high LLC (less vdroop) to stay close to this FIT voltage? Or would it be better to use higher base voltage with lower LLC? Say my FIT voltage is 1.3V: Do I set that in BIOS with highest LLC? Or 1.35V with lower LLC to reach 1.3 under load? Or am I completely off?


I use LLC4 on mine, where 5 is the highest setting. Less droop is better for idle temps and power usage. 

This is especially true if you are considering room temp, which is a problem for me at the moment.


----------



## pewpewlazer

After a week of nightly CoreCycler-ing on my new 5900X, I think I've found my maximum 'stable enough for me' settings:

CCD 0: -30/-10/*-15**/-30/-25/*-15*
CCD 1: -25/*-10*/*-10**/-20/-20/-20
PPT = 225 / TDC = 140A / EDC = 175A

With the bold* and bold ones being my "fastest" and "second fastest" according to Ryzen Master.

Cinebench R23 scores are in the low 23k range and average clocks hang around 4.57ghz @ 1.36v during the runs. 74*C load temps.

What's interesting (or at least weird) to me is the effect EDC has. In Cinebench and wPrime 1024m, increasing EDC seems to hurt performance. Going from default 140A to 175A lowered my clock speeds during both benchmarks by 30-40mhz and scores slightly decreased.

Meanwhile, y-cruncher 1b and 3dmark CPU Profile showed a consistent performance improvement when going from 140A -> 175A. But jumping up to 200A seemed to produce slightly lower scores than 175A. So I decided to leave it at 175A and call it a day.

My other gripe is that I cannot get 1900 FCLK to work for the life of me. It will boot, but then randomly reboot after a few minutes, and continue to reboot while trying to load Windows. I tried 1933mhz after reading about the so-called "hole" some people have at 1900, and was greeted with an explosion of WHEA 19's as soon as I fired up Cinebench. So I guess I'm stuck in the ddr3733/1867 FCLK club.

Somewhat wishing I went for the 5950X now...


----------



## Asmodian

JohnnyFlash said:


> I use LLC4 on mine, where 5 is the highest setting. Less droop is better for idle temps and power usage.
> 
> This is especially true if you are considering room temp, which is a problem for me at the moment.


Too little vdroop also causes current spikes during transitions, which can be damaging. Find a happy middle ground with not too much but not too little vdroop.

Just as a counter to avoid people setting a high LLC without looking at it, I don't think you need this warning. 



pewpewlazer said:


> Somewhat wishing I went for the 5950X now...


Why? The 5950X doesn't seem to be any better at 1900+ fclk.


----------



## coelacanth

I have a 5900X in an X570 Dark Hero with PBO enabled. Everything has been fine since I got it in January, but twice lately while the computer is booting up it stops booting and says there is an overheat warning. If I reset it it will boot up fine.

I have a Noctua NH-D15S with two fans and the highest temps I have ever seen stressing the CPU are low to mid 80s. When I enter BIOS it says the CPU is idling at around 40C.

I haven't changed the BIOS in months. Given that this has happened twice now recently is my CPU or motherboard going bad? Any ideas what could be causing this warning when the CPU is clearly not overheating? Some sensor going bad? Momentary huge temperature spike while booting?

Thanks.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

coelacanth said:


> I haven't changed the BIOS in months. Given that this has happened twice now recently is my CPU or motherboard going bad? Any ideas what could be causing this warning when the CPU is clearly not overheating? Some sensor going bad? Momentary huge temperature spike while booting?


during bootup or when you are in the bios, the board presumes to use higher voltages..that might be causing you a sudden surge of temp spike..


----------



## Asmodian

coelacanth said:


> I have a 5900X in an X570 Dark Hero with PBO enabled. Everything has been fine since I got it in January, but twice lately while the computer is booting up it stops booting and says there is an overheat warning. If I reset it it will boot up fine.


I get this message if the CPU got too hot while running during the previous boot. The system restarts and gives this warning message during startup.

Turning off both CPU temperature in the Monitoring tab prevents it, but you might want to pay attention to the temperature you see while running.


----------



## coelacanth

Interesting, thank you both. I'll continue to keep an eye on it.


----------



## SesioN

Here are my 5950x results:
PBO + CO 



























And all core 4.7 with 1.225v full load:


----------



## Dunxy

pewpewlazer said:


> My other gripe is that I cannot get 1900 FCLK ...


I thought id have a go for 1900 today as im pretty happy with the cpu, im on 5900x x570pro wi-fi, so close to you. No problem at all, first i got ram running at 3800 vs its rated 3600, all i did was yolo it with the same timing and up the voltage from 1.35 to 1.38 in bios (1.4ish in windows allegedly) and after some brief benchmarks just went fir it with the fclk, no dramas. Manually set soc to 1.1 was really the only tweaking i did. Did you oc your ram (if its not rated for 3800+) before you upped your fclk? My cpu oc is -10 on 2 best, -15 on next 2 and -20 the rest. Llc is on low or medium, vcore normal to use a -0.100 offset.
Ppt185
Tdc115
Edc150
Ive played with edc a lot, can maintain higher clocks during cb runs but temps do seem to suffer, im only talking about just under 23k in cb vs just under 24k with temps that i reckon would see me throttle in summer. Running high 60’s in cb23 multi 4.6ish ghz 1.285ish vcore, 70ish with aida (pulls higher clocks in aida up to 4.8, nfi why!) stressing everything but storage at once. Gaming temps around 61c. 1x240 & 1x280, i do have 2000rpm noctuas on the 240 that ramp up to max just before 70 otherwise I suspect the temps would be a bit higher during stress tests. All temps around 15c ambient. F34 bios, ram is nothing fancy, 2x16gb cl18 3600 hyperx. I haven’t done full testing of the ram and fclk, did make 25 minutes aida no worries and few hours gaming with no problem. Kinda too busy using it to hold it up with proper test right now tbh, damn lockdown…


----------



## boldenc

I always get WHEA Error Type: Cache Hierarchy Error when I am testing my vcore/co settings
But first time to see the Bus/Interconnect WHEA Error Type: Bus/Interconnect Error
Is that error related to low vcore or FCLK ?


----------



## Mach3.2

boldenc said:


> I always get WHEA Error Type: Cache Hierarchy Error when I am testing my vcore/co settings
> But first time to see the Bus/Interconnect WHEA Error Type: Bus/Interconnect Error
> Is that error related to low vcore or FCLK ?


Try increasing vSOC by a step.


----------



## boldenc

With the endless testing with 5900x's and each CPU I try has something to annoy me, when testing with CoreCycler, I have 1 core in the first CCD run much hotter,
All core temps are hovering between 69c ~ 72c but core5 temp is 76c~78c. I reseated already 2 times and changed TIM but no improvement. Is that how the chip it or I can do something to improve it?
With All cores testing, the temps is same across all cores so it is just the single core test for this specific core.


----------



## Milkysunshine

My 5950x's best 3 cores on the first ccd run up to 14°C hotter than the coolest cores during corecycler. I think it is because they can handle more single core voltage, which makes them better cores. I'm only seeing 73-74 with my 360 AiO and 10 case fans, but the symptoms on the better cores are exactly the same.

Was this also 720k?


----------



## boldenc

Milkysunshine said:


> My 5950x's best 3 cores on the first ccd run up to 14°C hotter than the coolest cores during corecycler. I think it is because they can handle more single core voltage, which makes them better cores. I'm only seeing 73-74 with my 360 AiO and 10 case fans, but the symptoms on the better cores are exactly the same.
> 
> Was this also 720k?


The core running with highest temp is not one of the best cores, also not the highest boost.
my best cores are running 70-72c.
I am doing the All FFT test, and it just stays at 76-78 during all the test, it takes around 40min to finish them.
I use Enermax 360mm AIO which was enough, I didn't really saw more than 72c with other 5900x I tried except with this chip that has a core going to 78c.


----------



## Milkysunshine

That could easily be a bubble or minor flaw in the TIM material. It is still within safe zones. Are these cores hotter under full loads also?


----------



## boldenc

Milkysunshine said:


> That could easily be a bubble or minor flaw in the TIM material. It is still within safe zones. Are these cores hotter under full loads also?


Under full load, temps are fine, cb23 maxed 73c all cores.
I will try to redo the TIM and hope it will get better.


----------



## Milkysunshine

I meant the TIM between the actual chiplets and the heat spreader. You would have to de-lid the chip, which is quite a process with new chips.


----------



## boldenc

Milkysunshine said:


> I meant the TIM between the actual chiplets and the heat spreader. You would have to de-lid the chip, which is quite a process with new chips.


no, de-lid is not my thing.
I will try to change the tim and do a last re-seat.


----------



## boldenc

after more testing and reseating, this specific core temp will run higher than usual despite all benchmarks like cinebench, cpuz, ycruncher, random gaming temps doesn't pass the 65c - 70c.
This ununsual core will go up to 78c during corecycler testing.
I like the new chip, highest boost, scores are better, and temps are normal during normal use and benchmarks.
so now I have 2x 5900x and I need to choose one, what do you guys think? Does that higher than usual core temp a thing to worry about ? can this core temp settles down by itself after some time?


----------



## Milkysunshine

boldenc said:


> what do you guys think? Does that higher than usual core temp a thing to worry about ? can this core temp settles down by itself after some time?


My 4790k, OCd since day one (with 95% of its life at 4.8ghz), still ran flawlessly when I retired it a couple months ago and replaced it with an 11900k system. That thing has 12c degree difference between cores under load, and it is only a 4 core chip. I'm sure if I de-lid and use proper TIM under there instead of the junk intel used to use for that generation, and if I lapped the heatsink, that gap would shrink considerably. I wouldn't worry about the variance as long as temps are all safe.


----------



## Sleepycat

boldenc said:


> With the endless testing with 5900x's and each CPU I try has something to annoy me, when testing with CoreCycler, I have 1 core in the first CCD run much hotter,
> All core temps are hovering between 69c ~ 72c but core5 temp is 76c~78c. I reseated already 2 times and changed TIM but no improvement. Is that how the chip it or I can do something to improve it?
> With All cores testing, the temps is same across all cores so it is just the single core test for this specific core.


The answer is no, there are variations in cores, some run hotter, some run cooler. So the advice is not to worry about it as the core that is preferred on CCD1 are your 2 best cores. So if Core 5 is not the 2 best/preferred cores, then it won't be an issue.


----------



## Milkysunshine

This is from corecycler. I think your results are pretty normal. Core 11 hit 60c core 6 hit 80.7. Core 7 is my primary core, followed by core 1.


Interesting fact: Core 6 is at -30 on the pbo curve and it still is the hottest core.


----------



## boldenc

Maybe I am little obsessive with that, and because I tested 3 5900x, I didn't notice the same core temp variations during my testing like the one I test now.
Well, I will keep that chip then and call it a day.
I didn't notice any improvement in temp when playing with curves, the main benefit is the boost clocks gets higher.

@Milkysunshine are you using PBO AutoOC ? what is your CB23 single core score ?


----------



## Milkysunshine

boldenc said:


> @Milkysunshine are you using PBO AutoOC ? what is your CB23 single core score ?


yes, 100mhz. CB23 single is only 1590 because my secondary preferred core needs +4 offset to be stable for prime95 720k


----------



## Asmodian

Milkysunshine said:


> Interesting fact: Core 6 is at -30 on the pbo curve and it still is the hottest core.


Wouldn't that make sense?

A negative curve offset runs the core faster and temperature is more affected by clock speed than anything else. The lower you set the offset on a particular core the hotter that core will run.


----------



## boldenc

And you can't get everything, the new chip isn't stable at 1900FCLK despite stable in stress test and benchmarks but gaming has different opinion WHEA errors happening


----------



## cowboy44mag

Just posting some benchmarks from my 5900X editing / gaming rig. Been running this overclock for the past 5 months or so.
Full system specs:
R9 5900X
Asus Dark Hero
32 GB G.Skill NEO RAM @ 3800Mhz
MSI Geforce RTX 3080 Gaming X Trio (with all the crap factory thermal pads swapped out)
Noctua NH-U14S with 2 140mm fans in push / pull

























AMD Ryzen 9 5900X @ 4723.9 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR


[j9d0wd] Validated Dump by DESKTOP-BCKP31G (2021-06-11 17:02:15) - MB: Asus ROG CROSSHAIR VIII DARK HERO - RAM: 32768 MB




valid.x86.fr


----------



## dansi

Milkysunshine said:


> View attachment 2521243
> 
> 
> 
> This is from corecycler. I think your results are pretty normal. Core 11 hit 60c core 6 hit 80.7. Core 7 is my primary core, followed by core 1.
> 
> 
> Interesting fact: Core 6 is at -30 on the pbo curve and it still is the hottest core.


Hwinfo is able to show per core temps now?
Are those temps accruate?


----------



## boldenc

*cowboy44mag*
Can you share your settings and ZenTimings ?


----------



## boldenc

Mach3.2 said:


> Try increasing vSOC by a step.


it looks vSOC helped, 3 hours gaming now and no errors or crashes. before I couldn't pass 1 hour.
But vSOC I guess on the high side @ 1.1875v


----------



## Mach3.2

boldenc said:


> it looks vSOC helped, 3 hours gaming now and no errors or crashes. before I couldn't pass 1 hour.
> But vSOC I guess on the high side @ 1.1875v


You're pretty much at the tail end of how high your FCLK can go without throwing a lot more vSOC at it. I need 1.18V SET just to stop WHEA errors on 1866MHz FCLK, 1.2v SET to stabilise some USB hard drive issues.

On 1800MHz FCLK I just need 1.1v SET, for 1833MHz FCLK, 1.14v SET.


----------



## cowboy44mag

boldenc said:


> *cowboy44mag*
> Can you share your settings and ZenTimings ?


I have basically a "dual" overclock with my Asus Dark Hero. I have PBO controlling the single core boosting behavior and am utilizing the dynamic overclock switcher to manually set an all core overclock of 4.7Ghz.

For my all core overclock I have the Core VID set to 1.280, CCX0 and CCX1 Ratio set to 47.0, the dynamic overclock switcher enabled, and the current threshold switch to OC mode set to 45amps. This will produce a constant "manually set" 4.7Ghz all core overclock for any application drawing more than 45amps.

For my single / dual / quad core boost (under 45amps) CPU core voltage set to Auto, the SOC voltage set to 1.10000, the DRAM voltage set to 1.38, the VDDG CCD voltage set to 1.050, the VDDG IOD voltage set to 1.050, and the CLDO VDDP voltage set to 0.960. I overclocked my RAM from 3600Mhz to 3800Mhz but am still running at CL16 as I didn't see any performance gain at CL14. For my PBO settings: Advanced AMD overclocking \ PBO set with no PBO limits, the PBO scalar is set at 2X, Max CPU boost clock override is set for 200Mhz. I have the curve optimizer set for Per Core and my 4 best performing cores are set to negative 13 and negative 14. My very best core is supposed to be Core 0, but I had to set it at negative 13, the other 3 best performing cores (according to Ryzen Master) are all set to negative 14.

All overclock settings were done in bios.

When I first set this rig up (before we all went remote) I had the system sitting right under a big AC duct and was able to overclock it further. I know I had it running at 4.75Ghz all core and I think for awhile I had it set at 4.8Ghz all core (over 45amps). Considering the amount of AC that was pouring on the system it was basically like using a chiller. I am now at home and am thermally limited on air. Considering installing a custom loop but haven't had the time, plus for the expense and effort it may not be worth the "upgrade". All benchmarks I posted were done at home, 4.7Ghz.

I've been running these settings for about the last 5 months now, and haven't had any stability issues (random reboots, BSOD, ect...). The only issue I was experiencing I tracked down to MSI using extremely cheap thermal pads on their RTX 3080. After replacing all the thermal pads and applying a good thermal paste I haven't had any stability issues at all. I use this rig for work and play so it gets hammered on a regular basis (rendering / editing / gaming).


----------



## Milkysunshine

dansi said:


> Hwinfo is able to show per core temps now?
> Are those temps accruate?


It gets them directly from the CPU, so I would assume so.


----------



## Milkysunshine

Asmodian said:


> Wouldn't that make sense?
> 
> A negative curve offset runs the core faster and temperature is more affected by clock speed than anything else. The lower you set the offset on a particular core the hotter that core will run.


During core cycler:
core 1 runs at 4.7 ghz (avg)
core 6 runs at 4.627 ghz (avg)
core 7 runs at 4.742 ghz (avg)

So, that isn't it.


----------



## cowboy44mag

Asmodian said:


> Wouldn't that make sense?
> 
> A negative curve offset runs the core faster and temperature is more affected by clock speed than anything else. The lower you set the offset on a particular core the hotter that core will run.


What you are saying is broadly true, and logical but over simplified. With the curve optimizer, the lower you set a cores offset voltage the higher the core the boost till it becomes unstable. In its most basic form less voltage yields less heat which allows higher boost clocks. AMD's algorithm is much more complex than just that though and there are complex variables that are well beyond me. What I found interesting is when I was in the office I had my system positioned perfectly under an AC duct and was able to "chill" the entire system. The only overclock settings I changed when relocating to my home was the all core overclock which at work was set to 4.75 or 4.8Ghz and would cause the system to almost instantly hit 90C under load so I had to adjust that down to 4.7Ghz (now under full load I will sometimes hit 80C but the vast majority of the time sit at 76C under full load). The PBO settings are exactly the same, however at work I was hitting 5.150Ghz boost and had better single core benchmark scores (didn't save any of them unfortunately but I think CB R20 was ~655 (maybe a little better). That makes sense as at work it was AC chilled and the temps were lower, but what is interesting is at home under CB R23 sinlge core run my temps are ~ 65C yet I only get boosting behavior of ~ 5.05Ghz with only brief spikes of 5.150Ghz. There is still thermal head room as I am only hitting ~65C but the processor won't boost any higher At work I got higher boost as under load (CB R23 single core) the temp was ~ 50-55C, but by conventional thinking I would think that if your temp is under 70C the boosting behavior should be the same as there shouldn't be any "throttling".


----------



## Asmodian

Milkysunshine said:


> During core cycler:
> core 1 runs at 4.7 ghz (avg)
> core 6 runs at 4.627 ghz (avg)
> core 7 runs at 4.742 ghz (avg)
> 
> So, that isn't it.


I meant that a -30 curve offset shouldn't mean you think the core would run cooler, but of course its position in the die and amount of voltage it uses at those clocks matter too.



cowboy44mag said:


> AMD's algorithm is much more complex than just that though and there are complex variables that are well beyond me.


Is it? I don't think so; it is power + temperature + voltage and isn't super complex.



cowboy44mag said:


> There is still thermal head room as I am only hitting ~65C but the processor won't boost any higher At work I got higher boost as under load (CB R23 single core) the temp was ~ 50-55C, but by conventional thinking I would think that if your temp is under 70C the boosting behavior should be the same as there shouldn't be any "throttling".


It "throttles" all the way down to below 0°C. It will boost higher at -20°C than it will at -5°C.


----------



## JohnnyFlash

Has anyone found a way to lower the PBO boost limit below 0? I mean to cap boost below the stock number?


----------



## Asmodian

JohnnyFlash said:


> Has anyone found a way to lower the PBO boost limit below 0? I mean to cap boost below the stock number?


I use a -0.05V offset on the core voltage. This keeps my 5950X from boosting higher than 5.0GHz and I get the same or better scores in benchmarks. Reducing the voltage much further (below -0.0625V) causes weird things to happen (clock stretching).


----------



## JohnnyFlash

Asmodian said:


> I use a -0.05V offset on the core voltage. This keeps my 5950X from boosting higher than 5.0GHz and I get the same or better scores in benchmarks. Reducing the voltage much further (below -0.0625V) causes weird things to happen (clock stretching).


Ya, it works but is not super reliable.

PBO has settings of 0, +100, +200, I just wish there was a -200 setting. Something like Throttlestop would be very welcome on the AMD side.


----------



## Asmodian

Yeah, a -50 Mhz setting would be great!


----------



## cowboy44mag

Asmodian said:


> I meant that a -30 curve offset shouldn't mean you think the core would run cooler, but of course its position in the die and amount of voltage it uses at those clocks matter too.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it? I don't think so; it is power + temperature + voltage and isn't super complex.
> 
> 
> 
> It "throttles" all the way down to below 0°C. It will boost higher at -20°C than it will at -5°C.


In theory I agree with everything you said, and in multi core performance you will indeed see performance increases below 0C (more cores will be able to hit above 5Ghz for a longer sustained time). Where I'm wondering where theory ends and actual performance is limited is single core boost / maximum boost per core using PBO. Most people who are LN2 overclocking only do multi core benchmark runs and most will only do a single PBO run to use as a baseline before setting manual voltages and clock speed as high as is possible. I have never seen anyone under LN2 cooling run a single core test (although I would love to see it just as a reference), and I have never heard of anyone getting higher clocks than ~ 5.150Ghz per core with PBO alone. I know with proper overclock curve offsets and enough cooling the cores will hit 5.150Ghz but I haven't seen single core performance above 5.150Ghz when using PBO alone (no manual overclocking). I don't have the proper equipment for setting up my own test runs below 0C, but if anyone else has I would love to know the results of sub 0 cooling on these processors.


----------



## cowboy44mag

JohnnyFlash said:


> Ya, it works but is not super reliable.
> 
> PBO has settings of 0, +100, +200, I just wish there was a -200 setting. Something like Throttlestop would be very welcome on the AMD side.


After reading over several posts on this thread I am going to try fiddling with PBO a little more, specifically the boost clock override. I have always set this to 200Mhz and my curve offset has a max of negative 14. I now wonder if I can get better performance setting the override to 50 and increasing the negative curve offset. I am currently boosting to 5.05Ghz with spikes of 5.150Ghz for a couple seconds, when I had the computer "chilled" I boosted to 5.150Ghz more frequently with longer duration. I wonder if I can get more frequent boost to 5.150Ghz with lower boost clock override and higher negative curve offset.

I love forums like this, I always learn some new tricks.


----------



## Milkysunshine

Asmodian said:


> I meant that a -30 curve offset shouldn't mean you think the core would run cooler, but of course its position in the die and amount of voltage it uses at those clocks matter too.


I have 5 cores at -30 on the first ccd, and that is the only one that gets seriously toasty with the -30 offset. You're absolutely right about placement. Plus, there could easily be a tiny air bubble or defect under the head spreader above that core.

One thing to remember, not all cores have the same VID for single core load. These are determined by the quality of the core.

Being able to hit -30, or needing to go +4 on a core means whatever system AMD uses to determine the stock settings for these cores isn't 100% perfect.

My second preferred core (core 1) requires the +4 for prime95 720k stability, but is still boosts faster, and runs cooler than the third preferred core at -30 (core 6).


Out of curiosity, I spent several hours watching core VIDs and clock speeds in ryzen master while varying the number of loaded cores. Even up to 15 threads in prime 95, each core would fluctuate both VID and clock speeds. Going to 16 threads mostly made all 16 lock to unified VIDs and speeds. Occasionally, the first and second CCD would desync from each other but quickly return back. Anything 16-32 threads showed exactly the same results in regards to locked ccd speeds and VIDs.

That testing told me it IS important to tune ALL of your cores with curve offsets. I was curious if just tuning a few of your preferred cores would be the best course of action. While that can work for a quick and dirty low core usage boost, doing all cores is the way to get the best out of the system under all circumstances. (ignoring static OC here, just in regards to PBO2 tuning)


----------



## thigobr

To expand on what @cowboy44mag is saying... Less boost override can net better performance for some chips. You will need to test.

Between single core and multi core loads I found my 5950X boosts higher and has better performance with boost set at 75MHz or 50MHz. Setting more than that results in less effective frequency according to hwinfo and lower performance as well (as expected). My chip cannot handle 5150MHz with stability on any of its cores so setting 100MHz boost override does nothing for performance. I can brute force lower CO values (bigger numbers, negative signal) but it won't pass CoreCycler.

At this point the difference between 5125MHz and 5200MHz for example is negligible at just 1.5%. So even if it was stable and it didn't decrease performance the gains would be minimal and not worth the trouble.


----------



## boldenc

This is my best so far


----------



## Milkysunshine

JohnnyFlash said:


> Has anyone found a way to lower the PBO boost limit below 0? I mean to cap boost below the stock number?


Lowering the pbo power limits does what you're looking for while under full loads. I found at 155-160 EDC, my cpu will go right up to thermal throttle limits. If I do 145c, it only hits thermal limits under certain scenarios, and it was roughly 1000 points less r23 score. If I drop it to 135c, it rarely breaks 75c no matter what I throw at it. You can adjust power limits on the fly with ryzen master. I did this from 100 EDC up to 250 in increments of 5 while using different stress tests and recording heat and frequency in a spreadsheet. 

What this won't help with is less than full load. My cpu gets the hottest it ever gets while running 8-12 threads of prime95.

You could just disable pbo or set a manual overclock.


----------



## JohnnyFlash

Milkysunshine said:


> Lowering the pbo power limits does what you're looking for while under full loads. I found at 155-160 EDC, my cpu will go right up to thermal throttle limits. If I do 145c, it only hits thermal limits under certain scenarios, and it was roughly 1000 points less r23 score. If I drop it to 135c, it rarely breaks 75c no matter what I throw at it. You can adjust power limits on the fly with ryzen master. I did this from 100 EDC up to 250 in increments of 5 while using different stress tests and recording heat and frequency in a spreadsheet.
> 
> What this won't help with is less than full load. My cpu gets the hottest it ever gets while running 8-12 threads of prime95.
> 
> You could just disable pbo or set a manual overclock.


That's a good point, but I'm looking to take the top speed bins out for stability purposes.

I know what the minimum stable voltage is for each step between 4.0-4.55, but because of the higher single core clock speeds I can't get anywhere near there. As an example, 4.15GHz needs 1.056v, but the lowest somewhat stable CO setting gives 1.19v at 4.15GHz. If I lower the CO to get the voltage to 1.07v at 4.15GHz, it crashes as soon as the chip spikes to 4.7+ because that level of CO is unstable for those speeds.

My cooling can handle 4.55 under non-AVX load and 4.3 under AVX load before temps get to the point where I wouldn't feel comfortable leaving the house while it's going. If I could cap boost to 4.55 and get the voltage curve closers to where I know manual voltage is stable without having to worry about the higher frequencies, then I could use the PBO and temp limits to keep the CPU between 4.3-4.55 depending on AVX or no.


----------



## Milkysunshine

JohnnyFlash said:


> My cooling can handle 4.55 under non-AVX load and 4.3 under AVX load before temps get to the point where I wouldn't feel comfortable leaving the house while it's going.


Can't you simply lower the temperature in the PBO settings? It should be listed as 'thermal throttle limit' in the amd pbo settings.


----------



## JohnnyFlash

Milkysunshine said:


> Can't you simply lower the temperature in the PBO settings? It should be listed as 'thermal throttle limit' in the amd pbo settings.


32 Threads at 4.3 is going to create much more heat than 2 threads at 4.7 at any voltage, same with power draw. It will also _try_ to boost more before reading the temp and backing off, and that mllisecond before_ nope_ will cause a crash. Needs to be a clamp setting.


----------



## cowboy44mag

JohnnyFlash said:


> 32 Threads at 4.3 is going to create much more heat than 2 threads at 4.7 at any voltage, same with power draw. It will also _try_ to boost more before reading the temp and backing off, and that mllisecond before_ nope_ will cause a crash. Needs to be a clamp setting.


If your going for pure performance have you tried using the dynamic overclock switcher? Its one of the Dark Hero's best features, and one of the main reasons I bought it for my rendering / editing rig. You can set your all core overclock (old school) and still have single / dual core boosting with PBO. I have found that overclocking using the d.o.s. the only cores I have to fiddle with in the curve optimizer are the "preferred cores" that Ryzen Master will identify (for single / dual core boosting).


----------



## cowboy44mag

I spent the afternoon and evening adjusting the boost clock override and PBO curve optimizer. I can't call it "stable" yet, I can pass all stability tests but in my opinion it can't be stable until it has run for several months doing all normal work loads without issue. My final settings were PBO boost clock override at 100Mhz, Core 0 at negative 16, core 2, 7 and 9 at negative 24. I am very pleased with the results as not only did the performance increase but my temperatures under Cinebench R20 (single core) decreased by about 5 degrees.

To everyone who suggested lowering the boost clock override and further adjusting the PBO curve... THANK YOU😁😁


----------



## UnchiuNarcis

Hi once more. So after multiple tunings I managed to get 8868 score in cb20 with my 5900x.

The thing is that in games, there isn't a difference between the cpu being set to operate at max settings, or if I use the ECO MODE with my gtx 1080 at 1440p.
I decided to let it run at pbo settings 88 60 90 and I lost like 200 mhz speed and max temp of 55 degrees instead of 67.


----------



## umea

Curious what you guys are running for PPT/TDC/EDC custom power limits. I'm starting to work on getting 4.8/4.675 running but wanted to get some info on the highest yall have gone safely PBO custom power limit wise + voltage


----------



## Audioboxer

umea said:


> Curious what you guys are running for PPT/TDC/EDC custom power limits. I'm starting to work on getting 4.8/4.675 running but wanted to get some info on the highest yall have gone safely PBO custom power limit wise + voltage


I'm running a 270/160/190 but there hasn't been too much thought into it other than it works, boosts well and I have a curve stable at between -5 to -15 on my best 4 cores and -25 on the rest.

Focusing on RAM just now then I'll be back to try and properly optimise my 5950x to reduce any unnecessary heat/load and tinker with the curve again. I'm watercooled so my temps are fine I just like to get them as low as possible combined with performance, as we all do.


----------



## umea

Audioboxer said:


> I'm running a 270/160/190 but there hasn't been too much thought into it other than it works, boosts well and I have a curve stable at between -5 to -15 on my best 4 cores and -25 on the rest.
> 
> Focusing on RAM just now then I'll be back to try and properly optimise my 5950x to reduce any unnecessary heat/load and tinker with the curve again. I'm watercooled so my temps are fine I just like to get them as low as possible combined with performance, as we all do.


I see. I'm opting for manual OC for improved system latency vs very minor FPS gains. However instead of true all core I think I may benefit from clocking one ccd higher (ideally around 4.8ghz) and the second one lower. The highest I can reach all core stable is [email protected] which I assume I am running into power limits as even upping to 1.35v will not allow me to run 4.7 stable.
For my ram testing I run a stable 4.6 all [email protected] but I'm trying to see if I can push half the cores up to 4.8 stable for benchmarking ram latency in future  I think this is what I'm running right now.









Ideally I'm trying to replicate what adversary used here: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/845869207617929236/875801113687887883/9oF03un.jpeg
Or get close at least.


----------



## Audioboxer

umea said:


> I see. I'm opting for manual OC for improved system latency vs very minor FPS gains. However instead of true all core I think I may benefit from clocking one ccd higher (ideally around 4.8ghz) and the second one lower. The highest I can reach all core stable is [email protected] which I assume I am running into power limits as even upping to 1.35v will not allow me to run 4.7 stable.
> For my ram testing I run a stable 4.6 all [email protected] but I'm trying to see if I can push half the cores up to 4.8 stable for benchmarking ram latency in future  I think this is what I'm running right now.
> View attachment 2522060
> 
> 
> Ideally I'm trying to replicate what adversary used here: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/845869207617929236/875801113687887883/9oF03un.jpeg
> Or get close at least.


I quite like PBO on the 5950x, AMD really improved single core and the curve optimiser was a step in the right direction. I haven't even thought about a manual overclock for this, just trying to optimise PBO as much as I can.


----------



## umea

Audioboxer said:


> I quite like PBO on the 5950x, AMD really improved single core and the curve optimiser was a step in the right direction. I haven't even thought about a manual overclock for this, just trying to optimise PBO as much as I can.


I basically only play games where I get over 500fps, so the very minor fps gains I would get through PBO are not worth the minor worse system latency in my use case. PBO is indeed very good.

To be honest, I'm tempted to go open bench route for time being as a 240mm AIO is not good enough to cool really high clock speeds. I'm in an ITX case so space is cramped, it'd allow me to run a bigger fan on my ram as well.


----------



## Milkysunshine

umea said:


> PBO increases latency by 50-90% from tests my friend has done


Uhh, what?

I'm on PBO with 64g 3600mhz ballistix and I'm sub 59.5 ns. Not the best, but not bad for 4 16g sticks non-b-die

If you really want low mem latency, buy an intel system. lol


----------



## umea

Milkysunshine said:


> Uhh, what?
> 
> I'm on PBO with 64g 3600mhz ballistix and I'm sub 59.5 ns. Not the best, but not bad for 4 16g sticks non-b-die
> 
> If you really want low mem latency, buy an intel system. lol
> View attachment 2522066


Not talking about memory latency, talking about system latency (avg interrupt to process latency, ISR, and DPC). Disabling a lot of what is required for PBO to run can cut avg ITPL almost in half.

I could have gone Intel as yes it's lower latency, but for games that use multithreaded rendering AMD wins I believe? Either way, too late. To be fair, when I built my system initially I didn't expect to go this far down the rabbit hole but here we are. It's been my hyper fixation recently.


----------



## Asmodian

umea said:


> Disabling a lot of what is required for PBO to run can cut avg ITPL almost in half.


What can you disable that is required for PBO to run? I cannot think of anything.


----------



## umea

Asmodian said:


> What can you disable that is required for PBO to run? I cannot think of anything.


These are the options I have disabled that, from my understanding (which may be incorrect) are related to PBO in some way:
Core Performance Boost
Global C-State Control
DF Cstates
CPPC
CPPC Preferred Cores

and of course, SMT.

I may be mistaken with them involving PBO or misunderstanding what I was told previously (making connections between these for the latency difference cited), although disabling these cut my ITPL avg in half.


----------



## Asmodian

umea said:


> These are the options I have disabled that, from my understanding (which may be incorrect) are related to PBO in some way:
> Core Performance Boost
> Global C-State Control
> DF Cstates
> CPPC
> CPPC Preferred Cores
> 
> and of course, SMT.


None of those are related to PBO, except Core Performance Boost which must be on to get over base clock speed (it doesn't hurt latency).

I have DF Csates and SMT off.
I also have ACPI _CST C1 Declaration disabled (this does hurt latency). Don't forget that one if tuning for OS latency, PBO or not!

Why don't you like CPPC and CPPC Preferred Cores? In my tests they do not hurt latency. In a fixed all-core OC they don't make a lot of sense, so I can see turning them off in that situation, but they don't increase latency and are helpful to get the most out of PBO (they are not required for PBO, but with them Windows will try to put threads on the cores which boost higher).

Global C-States does not seem to make latency worse for me either, at least not with DF Cstates and ACPI _CST C1 Declaration disabled.


----------



## umea

Asmodian said:


> None of those are related to PBO, except Core Performance Boost which must be on to get over base clock speed (it doesn't hurt latency).
> 
> I have DF Csates and SMT off.
> I also have ACPI _CST C1 Declaration disabled (this does hurt latency). Don't forget that one if tuning for OS latency, PBO or not!
> 
> Why don't you like CPPC and CPPC Preferred Cores? In my tests they do not hurt latency. In a fixed all-core OC they don't make a lot of sense, so I can see turning them off in that situation, but they don't increase latency and are helpful to get the most out of PBO (they are not required for PBO, but with them Windows will try to put threads on the cores which boost higher).
> 
> Global C-States does not seem to make latency worse for me either, at least not with DF Cstates and ACPI _CST C1 Declaration disabled.


To be honest a lot of this stuff I did while sleep deprived so I might have disabled things I didn't necessarily need to and grouped them in with things that do lower latency significantly (i.e. SMT). 

I will look for what you mentioned btw, thanks for info!


----------



## Milkysunshine

I think if PBO hurt performance that significantly, people here wouldn't use it. When tuning for games, 

I don't care about max framerate as much as I care about average... and I don't care about average as much as I care about the 1% lows. Those low stutters are what I see and feel more than a drop from 180 to 150fps


----------



## Milkysunshine

Personally, I do far too many cpu intensive tasks to disable SMT. The overall performance hit to video encoding, and half of the games [forza games take a significant hit for me with smt off] I play isn't worth a fps gain of maybe 2% in the other games I play.


----------



## Asmodian

I turn SMT back on for some things, like video encoding or games that benefit from it.


----------



## cowboy44mag

umea said:


> These are the options I have disabled that, from my understanding (which may be incorrect) are related to PBO in some way:
> Core Performance Boost
> Global C-State Control
> DF Cstates
> CPPC
> CPPC Preferred Cores
> 
> and of course, SMT.
> 
> I may be mistaken with them involving PBO or misunderstanding what I was told previously (making connections between these for the latency difference cited), although disabling these cut my ITPL avg in half.


While I don't have all the "bells and whistles" Asus offers in their bios enabled (auto overclocking stuff) I haven't disabled any of the above mentioned settings. Like others have stated I do far too many rendering / editing / encoding projects to go without SMT. I guess I am kind of lost of what you referring to with memory latency vs system latency and how to test for it. I have used several different system setups (Intel and AMD) and although Intel usually boasts better latency (with the possible exception of Rocket Lake, I have no hands on experience with it) the performance of Zen 3 is much better for productivity (the gaming performance is also second to none). I could have benefited from a 5950X, however when I had the opportunity to buy the 5900X back in Feb at MSRP I just couldn't pass it up. While I know hands down the 5950X is a better CPU, my 5900X is still a beast and the best rig I have ever had.

I'm sure my memory latency isn't the best, but it doesn't seem to hamper system performance at all. I am totally lost as to system latency vs memory latency or how you would measure that.


----------



## Asmodian

cowboy44mag said:


> I am totally lost as to system latency vs memory latency or how you would measure that.


LatencyMon





Resplendence Software - Free Downloads


Resplendence Free Downloads



www.resplendence.com


----------



## cowboy44mag

Asmodian said:


> LatencyMon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resplendence Software - Free Downloads
> 
> 
> Resplendence Free Downloads
> 
> 
> 
> www.resplendence.com


Looks interesting... I downloaded and installed LatencyMon. I only ran the test for 10 min, I assume that it should be run longer. How long would you recommend to let the test run for? Also not really sure what "good" scores would be for this benchmark / test, other than the green "your system appears to be suitable for handling real-time audio and other tasks without dropouts".


----------



## Asmodian

cowboy44mag said:


> Also not really sure what "good" scores would be for this benchmark / test, other than the green "your system appears to be suitable for handling real-time audio and other tasks without dropouts".


It is more about changing settings and seeing what reduces the latency numbers, not comparing to other systems.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

cowboy44mag said:


> Looks interesting... I downloaded and installed LatencyMon. I only ran the test for 10 min, I assume that it should be run longer. How long would you recommend to let the test run for? Also not really sure what "good" scores would be for this benchmark / test, other than the green "your system appears to be suitable for handling real-time audio and other tasks without dropouts".
> 
> View attachment 2522206


what windows 10 build are you using?? for anyone here what build do you prefer using for windows 10?? I have mine near the spectre debloated specs but still has a few quirks here and there..I maintain a 19042/20H2 build..


----------



## cowboy44mag

kairi_zeroblade said:


> what windows 10 build are you using?? for anyone here what build do you prefer using for windows 10?? I have mine near the spectre debloated specs but still has a few quirks here and there..I maintain a 19042/20H2 build..


Windows version 21H1 OS build 19043.1165. I don't really have a "favorite" version of Windows 10, I usually just keep it up to date. I know that sometimes Windows updates can cause system issues and even loss of performance however I started keeping it up to date for the security patches. So far I have been lucky and haven't had any issues with keeping Windows up to date.


----------



## KedarWolf

umea said:


> Curious what you guys are running for PPT/TDC/EDC custom power limits. I'm starting to work on getting 4.8/4.675 running but wanted to get some info on the highest yall have gone safely PBO custom power limit wise + voltage


This is what I run, Core Cycler stable. my 5950x is a really good chip. It maximized for multicore but single core is average at these settings.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

cowboy44mag said:


> Windows version 21H1 OS build 19043.1165. I don't really have a "favorite" version of Windows 10, I usually just keep it up to date. I know that sometimes Windows updates can cause system issues and even loss of performance however I started keeping it up to date for the security patches. So far I have been lucky and haven't had any issues with keeping Windows up to date.


Thanks..will have a look into that build..


----------



## boldenc

anyone noticed if the EDC is lower than 140 the boost will be higher?
I did some testing with EDC from 140 to 200 and basically all my scores/boost are same.
I tried EDC 125 - 130 and all single scores are higher and boost is also higher
I wonder if is motherboard issue or this behavior is normal ?


----------



## MikeS3000

boldenc said:


> anyone noticed if the EDC is lower than 140 the boost will be higher?
> I did some testing with EDC from 140 to 200 and basically all my scores/boost are same.
> I tried EDC 125 - 130 and all single scores are higher and boost is also higher
> I wonder if is motherboard issue or this behavior is normal ?


Normal behavior. This has been talked about since near launch of Zen 3. You have to find the EDC sweet spot. I use 170 for my 5900x as this balanced single core and mutli-core. Low EDC will hurt multi-core.


----------



## Milkysunshine

boldenc said:


> anyone noticed if the EDC is lower than 140 the boost will be higher?
> I did some testing with EDC from 140 to 200 and basically all my scores/boost are same.
> I tried EDC 125 - 130 and all single scores are higher and boost is also higher
> I wonder if is motherboard issue or this behavior is normal ?


I just did some testing in r23 single. I set affinity to one thread on my best core and watched the core effective clock. At my usual 155 EDC, that core's effective clock averages 4842.5. Lowering to 125EDC raises it to 4866.1 effective clock average. Boost was 50mhz higher, but overall a difference of less than 24mhz avg doesn't make this a worthwhile tweak for everyday use. Too much is lost overall. YMMV of course.


----------



## Milkysunshine

Here you go. Different results at different EDC for me. PPT and TDC are set too high to be reached.
I wanted to re-run these anyway after finishing my curve optimizer tuning, so thanks for the motivation. Best EDC for my setup didn't change with changes to the PBO curve.

This bunch is with C23
Please note: Scores are for comparison to each other only. Tests were done with ryzen master & HWiNFO64 open, corsair icue, and armoury crate running my absolutely unnecessary LEDs. Having those all running is a 1200-1800 point loss.

EDC-MHZ - Temp (Tctl/Tdie) - Score (best of 3 runs, 1 minute between to allow cpu to cool.)
125 - 4330 - 74.0 - 26938
135 - 4370 - 78.9 - 27293
145 - 4401 - 82.9 - 27438
150 - 4414 - 84.9 - 27446
*155 - 4418 - 87.0 - 27695* *This is where the CPU runs right up before throttling, it allows it to run a bit hotter than higher EDC.
160 - 4409 - 86.3 - 27669
165 - 4402 - 86.3 - 27391
No point in graphing higher, they just get progressively worse in all 3 categories.
2.8% difference from best to worst.

This Bunch with Prime95 Small AVX2 enabled
EDC-MHZ - Temp (Tctl/Tdie)
125 - 3686 - 65.2
135 - 3771 - 68.0
145 - 3855 - 71.5
150 - 3917 - 73.3
155 - 3955 - 74.5
*160 - 3982 - 76.6*
165 - 3976 - 77.2
8% difference from best to worst.

Multi core CPU-z bench
135 - 12735.4
145 - 12874.1
*150 - 12880.5*
155 - 12865.5
160 - 12859.5
165 - 12834.4
175 - 12808.9
1% difference from best to worst. (Essentially standard deviation/margin of error stuff here.)

Single core CPU-Z bench (set to single thread to not heat soak the cpu during multi thread test. ...Sorry, I wasn't sitting through 7 single core R23s at this point.)
*115 - 659.3*
125 - 658.3
135 - 656.6
145 - 656.9
155 - 655.5
165 - 654.3
175 - 653.1
<1% difference from best to worst... (Again, Standard deviation/margin of error range.)

As you can see, not worth losing multi-core for single core. I suggest you do your own testing though, so many factors determine optimal settings.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Need help for first time AMD user. I tried to oc ram and pc does not post at any setting I use. Flck 1800, ram 3600. Dram voltage 1.55v soc voltage is 1.25v.


----------



## KedarWolf

Milkysunshine said:


> Here you go. Different results at different EDC for me. PPT and TDC are set too high to be reached.
> I wanted to re-run these anyway after finishing my curve optimizer tuning, so thanks for the motivation. Best EDC for my setup didn't change with changes to the PBO curve.
> 
> This bunch is with C23
> Please note: Scores are for comparison to each other only. Tests were done with ryzen master & HWiNFO64 open, corsair icue, and armoury crate running my absolutely unnecessary LEDs. Having those all running is a 1200-1800 point loss.
> 
> EDC-MHZ - Temp (Tctl/Tdie) - Score (best of 3 runs, 1 minute between to allow cpu to cool.)
> 125 - 4330 - 74.0 - 26938
> 135 - 4370 - 78.9 - 27293
> 145 - 4401 - 82.9 - 27438
> 150 - 4414 - 84.9 - 27446
> *155 - 4418 - 87.0 - 27695* *This is where the CPU runs right up before throttling, it allows it to run a bit hotter than higher EDC.
> 160 - 4409 - 86.3 - 27669
> 165 - 4402 - 86.3 - 27391
> No point in graphing higher, they just get progressively worse in all 3 categories.
> 2.8% difference from best to worst.
> 
> This Bunch with Prime95 Small AVX2 enabled
> EDC-MHZ - Temp (Tctl/Tdie)
> 125 - 3686 - 65.2
> 135 - 3771 - 68.0
> 145 - 3855 - 71.5
> 150 - 3917 - 73.3
> 155 - 3955 - 74.5
> *160 - 3982 - 76.6*
> 165 - 3976 - 77.2
> 8% difference from best to worst.
> 
> Multi core CPU-z bench
> 135 - 12735.4
> 145 - 12874.1
> *150 - 12880.5*
> 155 - 12865.5
> 160 - 12859.5
> 165 - 12834.4
> 175 - 12808.9
> 1% difference from best to worst. (Essentially standard deviation/margin of error stuff here.)
> 
> Single core CPU-Z bench (set to single thread to not heat soak the cpu during multi thread test. ...Sorry, I wasn't sitting through 7 single core R23s at this point.)
> *115 - 659.3*
> 125 - 658.3
> 135 - 656.6
> 145 - 656.9
> 155 - 655.5
> 165 - 654.3
> 175 - 653.1
> <1% difference from best to worst... (Again, Standard deviation/margin of error range.)
> 
> As you can see, not worth losing multi-core for single core. I suggest you do your own testing though, so many factors determine optimal settings.


Here is what I used, optimized for multicore, but I have a really decent chip for Curve Optimizer, and it's Core Cycler stable as well.


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf said:


> Here is what I used, optimized for multicore, but I have a really decent chip for Curve Optimizer, and it's Core Cycler stable as well.
> 
> View attachment 2522381
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2522382
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2522383
> 
> 
> View attachment 2522384
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2522385
> 
> 
> View attachment 2522386


EDC at 155 is better for single-core though.


----------



## dansi

Milkysunshine said:


> Here you go. Different results at different EDC for me. PPT and TDC are set too high to be reached.
> I wanted to re-run these anyway after finishing my curve optimizer tuning, so thanks for the motivation. Best EDC for my setup didn't change with changes to the PBO curve.
> 
> This bunch is with C23
> Please note: Scores are for comparison to each other only. Tests were done with ryzen master & HWiNFO64 open, corsair icue, and armoury crate running my absolutely unnecessary LEDs. Having those all running is a 1200-1800 point loss.
> 
> EDC-MHZ - Temp (Tctl/Tdie) - Score (best of 3 runs, 1 minute between to allow cpu to cool.)
> 125 - 4330 - 74.0 - 26938
> 135 - 4370 - 78.9 - 27293
> 145 - 4401 - 82.9 - 27438
> 150 - 4414 - 84.9 - 27446
> *155 - 4418 - 87.0 - 27695* *This is where the CPU runs right up before throttling, it allows it to run a bit hotter than higher EDC.
> 160 - 4409 - 86.3 - 27669
> 165 - 4402 - 86.3 - 27391
> No point in graphing higher, they just get progressively worse in all 3 categories.
> 2.8% difference from best to worst.
> 
> This Bunch with Prime95 Small AVX2 enabled
> EDC-MHZ - Temp (Tctl/Tdie)
> 125 - 3686 - 65.2
> 135 - 3771 - 68.0
> 145 - 3855 - 71.5
> 150 - 3917 - 73.3
> 155 - 3955 - 74.5
> *160 - 3982 - 76.6*
> 165 - 3976 - 77.2
> 8% difference from best to worst.
> 
> Multi core CPU-z bench
> 135 - 12735.4
> 145 - 12874.1
> *150 - 12880.5*
> 155 - 12865.5
> 160 - 12859.5
> 165 - 12834.4
> 175 - 12808.9
> 1% difference from best to worst. (Essentially standard deviation/margin of error stuff here.)
> 
> Single core CPU-Z bench (set to single thread to not heat soak the cpu during multi thread test. ...Sorry, I wasn't sitting through 7 single core R23s at this point.)
> *115 - 659.3*
> 125 - 658.3
> 135 - 656.6
> 145 - 656.9
> 155 - 655.5
> 165 - 654.3
> 175 - 653.1
> <1% difference from best to worst... (Again, Standard deviation/margin of error range.)
> 
> As you can see, not worth losing multi-core for single core. I suggest you do your own testing though, so many factors determine optimal settings.


even so, with how tight amd auto regulation of clocks with zen. those differences can be just run time variations. it is impossible to determine which is best edc settings from such tests.


----------



## MikeS3000

Putting my new Arctic LF II 420mm to the test! Not bad for just PBO and +50 AutoOC.


----------



## boldenc

EDC 130A worked best for me, I get the highest MT in CB23 compared to 150A. This is with 170W PPT 120W EDC
There is something getting me mad is the single thread boost is not fixed, like sometimes CB23 ST can run the bench with boost up to 5GHz, sometimes 4.95GHz, sometimes 4.9GHz, sometimes 4.8GHz. Same for CPUZ some times my single score bumps to 700 ( I never was able to get 700 again),sometimes 690, sometimes 680.
Even in games sometimes boost to 4.9, sometimes 4.8 in the same game in same areas. (That's all with same settings)
Something in this CPU is playing around, and I am sure it is not from background processes.
And yes I made sure it is the same core being benched in all single core tests.


----------



## rdr09

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Need help for first time AMD user. I tried to oc ram and pc does not post at any setting I use. Flck 1800, ram 3600. Dram voltage 1.55v soc voltage is 1.25v.


Your DRAM and SOC voltages are too high. You might want to ask here . . .









NEW!!! DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.7.3 (overclocking...


AMD Ryzen Memory Tweaking & Overclocking Guide AMD Ryzen Memory Tweaking & Overclocking Guide MEMbench 0.6 README https://www.overclock.net/forum/27960952-post4412.html HOW USE MEMTEST in MEMbench https://www.overclock.net/forum/28069030-post5047.html DRAM Calculator for Ryzen™ 1.7.3 +...




www.overclock.net





At 3600MHz just lv flck alone. May have to loosen the timings a bit to work. Like if the RAM is designed to run at 16,18,18, 21, for example, try 16,19,19, 39.

BTW, if you are the one who sold me an Asus AM3 motherboard years ago, i like to tell you that it still works paired with a Phenom II 840T used as my HTPC


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

With PBO, those single thread score look so good but how about real life usage? Gaming?


----------



## Asmodian

PBO is better for gaming than a fixed OC, at least in my testing.


----------



## KedarWolf

Someone shared in another thread what PBO settings they are using.

This nets me the below. Passes Core Cycler too. BRB, gonna boot into BIOS, get screenshots.

The Curve offsets are what I know works Core Cycler stable and so far with new settings, stable as well


----------



## dansi

KedarWolf said:


> Someone shared in another thread what PBO settings they are using.
> 
> This nets me the below. Passes Core Cycler too. BRB, gonna boot into BIOS, get screenshots.
> 
> The Curve offsets are what I know works Core Cycler stable and so far with new settings, stable as well
> 
> View attachment 2522966
> 
> 
> View attachment 2522967
> 
> 
> View attachment 2522970
> 
> 
> View attachment 2522971
> 
> 
> View attachment 2522972
> 
> 
> View attachment 2522973
> 
> 
> View attachment 2522974


what's your ambient temps? lowering it helps a lot too


----------



## KedarWolf

dansi said:


> what's your ambient temps? lowering it helps a lot too


I'm maybe at 68F/20C, I forgot to turn my A/C off when I left for work.


----------



## dansi

KedarWolf said:


> I'm maybe at 68F/20C, I forgot to turn my A/C off when I left for work.


that's a cool temp, you can probably raise more edc tdc and ppt in pbo. cinebench can used 250w of ppt if your cpu is cool enough


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Now my chip can do 47ccx0 ccx0 46ccx1. What is the PBO setting for me?


----------



## vigorito

When i get whea error in event viewer APIC ID 10,okay its core 5 id,but which value in bios under curve optimizer is to change, direct number 5 core id as i see (0-11 are values msi mobo) or Core 4 since core 4 in bios is core 5 in ryzen master


----------



## Mach3.2

vigorito said:


> When i get whea error in event viewer APIC ID 10,okay its core 5 id,but which value in bios under curve optimizer is to change, direct number 5 core id as i see (0-11 are values msi mobo) or Core 4 since core 4 in bios is core 5 in ryzen master


Change Core 5 in your BIOS. Like your BIOS, Windows start counting cores from 0.


----------



## vigorito

Ahh thx for this


----------



## vigorito

One more,is it possible to use max cpu boost clock override without using a curve optimizer


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Hey guya, what is your temp when 49.25 ccx0 48.25ccx1 1.4v llc5. I dont know why it hit 110c.


----------



## dansi

vigorito said:


> When i get whea error in event viewer APIC ID 10,okay its core 5 id,but which value in bios under curve optimizer is to change, direct number 5 core id as i see (0-11 are values msi mobo) or Core 4 since core 4 in bios is core 5 in ryzen master


u can open cpuz to see which apic id 10 correspondence to which core, and iirc cpuz starts count from core 0, so if its a 5, the bios should be the same

unless your bios starts core count from 1, then you have to change core 6 in bios


----------



## Jimmo

I have finally worked out a rough method for raising the single core performance as high as possible for my particular 5950X.
The best I had previously achieved was around CB R20 score 548 - 552.










The Curve Optimiser settings are quite a bit different from what I had been using. I was experimenting with every core but my 2 best cores at -30 and I accidentally set one of my best cores to -30 too.
It booted and ran then crashed during stress testing but it was almost stable. It seems that the CO settings and overall voltage used are all closely linked. The closer I set every core to the same settings the better it ran and the more stable it was likely to be.
CD R20 @ 655 single core was with 14 cores at - 30 and the other 2 best cores at - 27 and -13.
EDC is 130.

The best overall setting will most likely be with EDC at about 135 - 145


----------



## Blameless

vigorito said:


> One more,is it possible to use max cpu boost clock override without using a curve optimizer


Yes.


----------



## JohnnyFlash

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Hey guya, what is your temp when 49.25 ccx0 48.25ccx1 1.4v llc5. I dont know why it hit 110c.


Because that setting isn't possible without LN2.


----------



## rdr09

I ran P95 Blend and saw my clocks settle at around 4.5GHz using 1.35v. Is it safe to assume that the cpu can do an all-core oc using the same values?


----------



## MikeS3000

rdr09 said:


> I ran P95 Blend and saw my clocks settle at around 4.5GHz using 1.35v. Is it safe to assume that the cpu can do an all-core oc using the same values?


I don't think that's a reasonable assumption for every workload for all-core at 1.35v. Look at your package power in the screenshot. It's only 105w. Maybe try looping CB23 and see what voltage you are at. On my 5900x with PBO and curve optimizer I can usually push between 190 and 210w running cb23 at 1.306v and 4.575 ghz with 420 mm Arctic Freezer II cooler and peak temps 74c.


----------



## rdr09

MikeS3000 said:


> I don't think that's a reasonable assumption for every workload for all-core at 1.35v. Look at your package power in the screenshot. It's only 105w. Maybe try looping CB23 and see what voltage you are at. On my 5900x with PBO and curve optimizer I can usually push between 190 and 210w running cb23 at 1.306v and 4.575 ghz with 420 mm Arctic Freezer II cooler and peak temps 74c.


I see what you are saying. +rep. 

Here was in the middle of a 10 min loop and i see the package power sitting at 145W and this is at stock.

I do not want to try doing an all core oc that might fail cos this Giga requires removing the battery when BIOS fail. My GPU is right on top of it and it is water cooled.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

rdr09 said:


> Here was in the middle of a 10 min loop and i see the package power sitting at 145W and this is at stock.


sounds just about right, if you feel like temps are high (75c, though its still safe, for whatever reason triggers downclocking a few steps down, I have been researching for a while now, must have been how AMD's firmware works), PBO gives you more control, if you want to reduce the temps with that same power draw you can either limit the voltage via the TDC or EDC..


----------



## rdr09

kairi_zeroblade said:


> sounds just about right, if you feel like temps are high (75c, though its still safe, for whatever reason triggers downclocking a few steps down, I have been researching for a while now, must have been how AMD's firmware works), PBO gives you more control, if you want to reduce the temps with that same power draw you can either limit the voltage via the TDC or EDC..


I was trying to avoid messing with TDC but may have to. Was able to boot at 4.4GHz without touching the voltage but any higher i have to mess with voltages. May have to read up on PBO.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

rdr09 said:


> I was trying to avoid messing with TDC but may have to. Was able to boot at 4.4GHz without touching the voltage but any higher i have to mess with voltages. May have to read up on PBO.


Voltages for corresponding frequency is stored on a table for Ryzen, its called FIT, if you manually undervolt via the menu on your BIOS it kinda defeats the purpose of the FIT table..what PBO does is load up the FIT table and based on the settings you put into your PPT, EDC, TDC it will automatically set/use the specified votlage for a given frequency, and when you add Curve Optimizer in the picture it gives a more fine grain control on the voltages each core uses, this is where your CCX quality comes into play, if you have a good/golden CCX it will allow you to undervolt upto -30mv and by doing so, given you meet the boosting conditions (thermal headroom, voltages, cpu load) you might see it boosting upto what your board is setting for auto or what you have manually inputted on the Boost Override (mhz)..

those 3 settings (PPT,EDC,TDC) are really confusing at 1st, but you'll get the gist/hang of it..note that this behavior may differ with different motherboards (maximum settings for those 3 maybe unlocked/unlimited or locked)

_(do correct me if I am wrong at some point)_


----------



## rdr09

kairi_zeroblade said:


> Voltages for corresponding frequency is stored on a table for Ryzen, its called FIT, if you manually undervolt via the menu on your BIOS it kinda defeats the purpose of the FIT table..what PBO does is load up the FIT table and based on the settings you put into your PPT, EDC, TDC it will automatically set/use the specified votlage for a given frequency, and when you add Curve Optimizer in the picture it gives a more fine grain control on the voltages each core uses, this is where your CCX quality comes into play, if you have a good/golden CCX it will allow you to undervolt upto -30mv and by doing so, given you meet the boosting conditions (thermal headroom, voltages, cpu load) you might see it boosting upto what your board is setting for auto or what you have manually inputted on the Boost Override (mhz)..
> 
> those 3 settings (PPT,EDC,TDC) are really confusing at 1st, but you'll get the gist/hang of it..note that this behavior may differ with different motherboards (maximum settings for those 3 maybe unlocked/unlimited or locked)
> 
> _(do correct me if I am wrong at some point)_


Thank you. Sounds daunting already. lol. But this cpu has been at stock for a couple months now with just an uv and it is getting restless. May try this over the weekend.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

rdr09 said:


> Thank you. Sounds daunting already. lol. But this cpu has been at stock for a couple months now with just an uv and it is getting restless. May try this over the weekend.


you can apply a rather more fine tuned UV via PBO+Curve Optimizer (You can just leave PBO enabled in auto just to get to the Curve Optimizer menu for undervolting) you either put a global UV or a per Core UV..

I am just an OCD on temps, also like I have said 75c is what you'd never want to reach since beyond that observable limit the frequencies can sway up and down erratically..(may or may not have a hit on whatever you are doing, but for benching or steady workload it has a negative effect)


----------



## rdr09

kairi_zeroblade said:


> you can apply a rather more fine tuned UV via PBO+Curve Optimizer (You can just leave PBO enabled in auto just to get to the Curve Optimizer menu for undervolting) you either put a global UV or a per Core UV..
> 
> I am just an OCD on temps, also like I have said 75c is what you'd never want to reach since beyond that observable limit the frequencies can sway up and down erratically..(may or may not have a hit on whatever you are doing, but for benching or steady workload it has a negative effect)


My gaming temp stays around 70c. The cores, tho, i mean all 12 are consistently and almost constantly at 4.6GHz during gaming. This is at stock but my Bus clck is set to 101.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

rdr09 said:


> My gaming temp stays around 70c. The cores, tho, i mean all 12 are consistently and almost constantly at 4.6GHz during gaming. This is at stock but my Bus clck is set to 101.


wow..I never boot when I set 101 on the bus clock..lol..

Got some good binned B-Die's today...hoooooweeeee!!

EDIT:

Finally!! (Thank God!!)..got some good binned B-Die for SRP..


----------



## rdr09

kairi_zeroblade said:


> wow..I never boot when I set 101 on the bus clock..lol..
> 
> Got some good binned B-Die's today...hoooooweeeee!!
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> Finally!! (Thank God!!)..got some good binned B-Die for SRP..
> View attachment 2524580


Noice. You can prolly tune it more.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

rdr09 said:


> Noice. You can prolly tune it more.


running cl14 now..1.46v..still has more headroom..


----------



## Bal3Wolf

any of you been able to get 4.6+ all core stable with pbo i been messing with my cpu more and more my manual ccd overclock is 4.725/[email protected] 1.23-1.26 vcore now keeps it nice and cool i can do 4.8/4.7 but needs 1.33-1.36vcore gets pretty hot doign that. But for life of me i cant get a pbo overclock i like best i managed was 4.5Ghz on all the cores in cb23 i use software that uses 70% of the cpu at times so was looking to try to get 4.6+ in pbo.


----------



## Sleepycat

Bal3Wolf said:


> any of you been able to get 4.6+ all core stable with pbo i been messing with my cpu more and more my manual ccd overclock is 4.725/[email protected] 1.23-1.26 vcore now keeps it nice and cool i can do 4.8/4.7 but needs 1.33-1.36vcore gets pretty hot doign that. But for life of me i cant get a pbo overclock i like best i managed was 4.5Ghz on all the cores in cb23 i use software that uses 70% of the cpu at times so was looking to try to get 4.6+ in pbo.


WIth a +200MHz in PBO, I got to 4.65 GHz all-core during Cinebench on my 5900X. To go higher, I had to go manual OC.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Sleepycat said:


> WIth a +200MHz in PBO, I got to 4.65 GHz all-core during Cinebench on my 5900X. To go higher, I had to go manual OC.


yea i cant get near that 4515 or so is highest i was able to get even playing with co and trying out offset volts even.


----------



## umea

I run a stable 4.8/4.7 2ccd manual OC @ 1.36v, I may look into pushing ccd0 higher and lowering ccd1 just for latency benchmarking but for now this works very well.


----------



## Asmodian

What loads do people use for "100% load" stable with a fixed OC on a 5950X? I need to be able to run 100% CPU using x265 (two encodes running at once), but I cannot imagine getting 4.8/4.7 GHz stable (or cooled) at 1.36V under that load. 

PBO is nice because it will run at 4.5GHz when running x265 and 4.8GHz on a few cores for a game, but it is hotter than it needs to be for x265. 

I am not saying Prime95 stable or not stable, but do I just use x265 in my case?


----------



## Bal3Wolf

well i can do 4.725/4.6 @1.23-1.26 give or take vcore and that can handle 100% loads no issues hits around 75-82c for a heater i have im pretty happy with those temps.


----------



## Asmodian

You didn't mention what 100% loads you used.


----------



## umea

Asmodian said:


> What loads do people use for "100% load" stable with a fixed OC on a 5950X? I need to be able to run 100% CPU using x265 (two encodes running at once), but I cannot imagine getting 4.8/4.7 GHz stable (or cooled) at 1.36V under that load.
> 
> PBO is nice because it will run at 4.5GHz when running x265 and 4.8GHz on a few cores for a game, but it is hotter than it needs to be for x265.
> 
> I am not saying Prime95 stable or not stable, but do I just use x265 in my case?


I do OCCT Extreme Large Variable but I don't know how safe it is to do that past 1.325v. I run a 240mm AIO in an ITX build and it peaks around 85C I think? But usually around 80c. Which is still well within safe boundaries. Usually gaming doesn't push that kind of load anyways, so if it can pass that then chances are it's more than stable enough for games.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Asmodian said:


> You didn't mention what 100% loads you used.


for me when im testing my oc i usualy loop cb23 it seems like a good test to cause crashes and what i run on my pc is a program called MetaTrader 5 Strategy Tester it earns me money daily for a couple hrs each day when it loads up it can eat up a good 70-90% of cpu and 20-45gigs of system memory. My 5950x has a very hot ccd1 so thats why i dailed my clocks down my cce2 is cold tho tops out at like 70-75c max no matter how much vcore im pushing to it.


----------



## Sleepycat

Bal3Wolf said:


> yea i cant get near that 4515 or so is highest i was able to get even playing with co and trying out offset volts even.


You set the overclock limit to +200 MHz? CO does not increase the clock speed, just increase or decrease core voltages for a given clock. It's actually the opposite of what we want, which is increase or decrease clock speed for a given voltage.


----------



## Sleepycat

Bal3Wolf said:


> for me when im testing my oc i usualy loop cb23 it seems like a good test to cause crashes and what i run on my pc is a program called MetaTrader 5 Strategy Tester it earns me money daily for a couple hrs each day when it loads up it can eat up a good 70-90% of cpu and 20-45gigs of system memory. My 5950x has a very hot ccd1 so thats why i dailed my clocks down my cce2 is cold tho tops out at like 70-75c max no matter how much vcore im pushing to it.


Mine's the opposite. CCX2 is hotter than CCX1. To the point where I can run CCX1 at 4.775 GHz, but need to dial down CCX2 to 4.725 GHz to try to even out the temperatures.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Sleepycat said:


> Mine's the opposite. CCX2 is hotter than CCX1. To the point where I can run CCX1 at 4.775 GHz, but need to dial down CCX2 to 4.725 GHz to try to even out the temperatures.


haha could be that my ccx1 can run 100mhz faster then my ccx2 maybe but 10c seems pretty big i might try a remount of my block but dont wanna casue worse temps lol.



Sleepycat said:


> You set the overclock limit to +200 MHz? CO does not increase the clock speed, just increase or decrease core voltages for a given clock. It's actually the opposite of what we want, which is increase or decrease clock speed for a given voltage.


yea i played with quite a few settings even my old fmax tweak does not work like it did on older bios i used to be able to pull 4.7ghz on ccx1 but ccx2 is only around 4.3 unless you push alot offset vcore to them. I was noticing at 4.5ghz on pbo waset break 77c on any cores.

i took the risk and remounted my block its a pain in my case with everything hooked up lol but im down to 73c on ccx1 and 65c on ccx2 running 4.725/4.60Ghz 1.244-1.275.


----------



## Asmodian

Bal3Wolf said:


> for me when im testing my oc i usualy loop cb23 it seems like a good test to cause crashes and what i run on my pc is a program called MetaTrader 5 Strategy Tester it earns me money daily for a couple hrs each day when it loads up it can eat up a good 70-90% of cpu and 20-45gigs of system memory. My 5950x has a very hot ccd1 so thats why i dailed my clocks down my cce2 is cold tho tops out at like 70-75c max no matter how much vcore im pushing to it.


Ah, that makes sense then. x265 is closer to Prime95 than CB23 is. Mine maxes out at 4.6/4.6 @ 1.275V set LLC3 (~1.225V min) once the second x265 starts up and the CPU hits a solid 100% load. It is pulling almost 240W package power at these settings. CB23 will run all day at faster settings, and pulls under 220W at these settings. CB23 seems to be less bouncy too, x265 has some power/temp spikes that CB23 does not. 

PBO runs the same workload at 4.5GHz 1.4V VID LLC Auto (~1.25V min), pulling 240W and running a bit hotter, but not rebooting.

My CCD1 is also hotter than my CCD2, about 6°C hotter peaks when they are running at the same clocks.


----------



## dansi

Asmodian said:


> Ah, that makes sense then. x265 is closer to Prime95 than CB23 is. Mine maxes out at 4.6/4.6 @ 1.275V set LLC3 (~1.225V min) once the second x265 starts up and the CPU hits a solid 100% load. It is pulling almost 240W package power at these settings. CB23 will run all day at faster settings, and pulls under 220W at these settings. CB23 seems to be less bouncy too, x265 has some power/temp spikes that CB23 does not.
> 
> PBO runs the same workload at 4.5GHz 1.4V VID LLC Auto (~1.25V min), pulling 240W and running a bit hotter, but not rebooting.
> 
> My CCD1 is also hotter than my CCD2, about 6°C hotter peaks when they are running at the same clocks.


hmm what is your ambient temps? zen2 and 3 are all about ambient temps which affects the core temps and then how long will the max boost last


----------



## Sleepycat

Bal3Wolf said:


> yea i played with quite a few settings even my old fmax tweak does not work like it did on older bios i used to be able to pull 4.7ghz on ccx1 but ccx2 is only around 4.3 unless you push alot offset vcore to them. I was noticing at 4.5ghz on pbo waset break 77c on any cores.


Most of us leave PBO Fmax Enhancer off as it causes issues with Ryzen 5000. Have you tested to see if it is better with it off?


----------



## Sleepycat

Asmodian said:


> What loads do people use for "100% load" stable with a fixed OC on a 5950X? I need to be able to run 100% CPU using x265 (two encodes running at once), but I cannot imagine getting 4.8/4.7 GHz stable (or cooled) at 1.36V under that load.
> 
> PBO is nice because it will run at 4.5GHz when running x265 and 4.8GHz on a few cores for a game, but it is hotter than it needs to be for x265.
> 
> I am not saying Prime95 stable or not stable, but do I just use x265 in my case?


Prime95 Small FFT, in both AVX2 mode and SSE mode. For single core boost stability, I use Corecycler in AVX2.

After this, I normally use AI-based video upscaling (on GPU), while encoding x265 at the same time (on CPU), while watching Youtube.


----------



## Asmodian

Sleepycat said:


> After this, I normally use AI-based video upscaling (on GPU), while encoding x265 at the same time (on CPU), while watching Youtube.


What do you max out at for an all core OC?


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Asmodian said:


> Ah, that makes sense then. x265 is closer to Prime95 than CB23 is. Mine maxes out at 4.6/4.6 @ 1.275V set LLC3 (~1.225V min) once the second x265 starts up and the CPU hits a solid 100% load. It is pulling almost 240W package power at these settings. CB23 will run all day at faster settings, and pulls under 220W at these settings. CB23 seems to be less bouncy too, x265 has some power/temp spikes that CB23 does not.
> 
> PBO runs the same workload at 4.5GHz 1.4V VID LLC Auto (~1.25V min), pulling 240W and running a bit hotter, but not rebooting.
> 
> My CCD1 is also hotter than my CCD2, about 6°C hotter peaks when they are running at the same clocks.


wierd my cb23 is pulling 240+ package power at my higher clocks iv seen it go as high as 270.


----------



## dansi

Bal3Wolf said:


> wierd my cb23 is pulling 240+ package power at my higher clocks iv seen it go as high as 270.


you must have low ambient temps and strong cooling setup. Zen boost clocks is all about temps


----------



## Asmodian

dansi said:


> hmm what is your ambient temps? zen2 and 3 are all about ambient temps which affects the core temps and then how long will the max boost last


Most of this is all core OC, where such things are irrelevant. No boosting, no temps affecting clock, none of that. Just a solid X GHz all the time until it melts or reboots. 

I am curious about all core overclocking for specific workloads and how people test stability. People are reporting 4.8/4.7 all core OCs, and my CPU cannot get close to that in the workload I want the all core OC for. I wondered if I had a dud or others were not stressing it as much.

Ambient is 22°C, and water <26°C. CPU would hit low 80s unless I try to push above 4.6 GHz on CCD1, then I see it start spiking above 85°C.



Bal3Wolf said:


> wierd my cb23 is pulling 240+ package power at my higher clocks iv seen it go as high as 270.


I think x265 sometimes really stresses parts of the CPU, which causes crashes even though the total power isn't that high. It is much harder to run than CB23.

I just tried, and I can run CB23 at 4.7/4.6 GHz, up to 250W, much higher than where x265 instantly reboots. 



dansi said:


> you must have low ambient temps and strong cooling setup. Zen boost clocks is all about temps


Bal3Wolf is also running an all core OC, so no boost clocks here.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

dansi said:


> you must have low ambient temps and strong cooling setup. Zen boost clocks is all about temps


room stays around 19-20c at all times im cooling the 5950x with a techN block and have a 3090 kingpin hc with a mp5works backplate cooler dual ddc 3.2 pumps in a bay res in serial with a 420 rad in front a 360 in top and bottom. Hide sight i can mine on my 3090 and it only gets to 34c hitting 125+Mh and memory only gets up to 72c or so. And my high clocks are manual/ccx overclock not pbo, i havet retested my pbo after i remounted my blocks but befor 77c was high as they went at 4.5Ghz.



Asmodian said:


> Most of this is all core OC, where such things are irrelevant. No boosting, no temps affecting clock, none of that. Just a solid X GHz all the time until it melts or reboots.
> 
> 
> I am curious about all core overclocking for specific workloads and how people test stability. People are reporting 4.8/4.7 all core OCs, and my CPU cannot get close to that in the workload I want the all core OC for. I wondered if I had a dud or others were not stressing it as much.
> 
> 
> Ambient is 22°C, and water <26°C. CPU would hit low 80s unless I try to push above 4.6 GHz on CCD1, then I see it start spiking above 85°C.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think x265 sometimes really stresses parts of the CPU, which causes crashes even though the total power isn't that high. It is much harder to run than CB23.
> 
> 
> I just tried, and I can run CB23 at 4.7/4.6 GHz, up to 250W, much higher than where x265 instantly reboots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bal3Wolf is also running an all core OC, so no boost clocks here.


id have to give x265 a try but my system gets hammerd by MetaTrader 5 Strategy Tester that can push up temps more and power they just wont let me use all 32 threads some bogus fair crap lol.

heres a quick run on x264 i had installed just to show the power it used on me i dont have 265 installed right now.


----------



## Asmodian

Bal3Wolf said:


> And my high clocks are manual/ccx overclock not pbo, i havet retested my pbo after i remounted my blocks but befor 77c was high as they went at 4.5Ghz.


I think your cooling is better than mine too, that is a nice temp for PBO maxed CB23. I only have one pump in the loop at the moment and I notice flowrate really helps for CPU temps (I am at 220L/h). I see 82.5°C on CCD1 running PBO CB23 (4.575 GHz, 1.3V SVI2 TFN, 252W). Temps start running away if I try to get even 4.65 stable running x265, so that might be where I should look now. Properly cooling these little 7nm chiplets is hard.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Asmodian said:


> I think your cooling is better than mine too, that is a nice temp for PBO maxed CB23. I only have one pump in the loop at the moment and I notice flowrate really helps for CPU temps (I am at 220L/h). I see 82.5°C on CCD1 running PBO CB23 (4.575 GHz, 1.3V SVI2 TFN, 252W). Temps start running away if I try to get even 4.65 stable running x265, so that might be where I should look now. Properly cooling these little 7nm chiplets is hard.



What block are you using my old ek block couldnt handle this cpu for crap any amount of pbo would sky rocket the cpu to 90c but sence i got my techN i been able to really play with it and push it.


----------



## Asmodian

Bal3Wolf said:


> What block are you using my old ek block couldnt handle this cpu for crap any amount of pbo would sky rocket the cpu to 90c but sence i got my techN i been able to really play with it and push it.


EK Quantum Magnitude. I got a flat cold plate for it and lapped my CPU, so I cannot really get another block unless it is flat or I lap it too. 

I can run PBO unlimited power reasonably well, no issues there (stays below 85°C). I think my flowrate is too low for it to be its best but it isn't too bad. I am very likely to get a nice copper techN block for my next build.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Asmodian said:


> EK Quantum Magnitude. I got a flat cold plate for it and lapped my CPU, so I cannot really get another block unless it is flat or I lap it too.
> 
> I can run PBO unlimited power reasonably well, no issues there (stays below 85°C). I think my flowrate is too low for it to be its best but it isn't too bad. I am very likely to get a nice copper techN block for my next build.


ah i see your brave i couldnt bring myself to lap this cpu i looked a the EK Quantum Magnitude but didn't wanna pay the price when everything i saw showed TechN same or better.


----------



## Asmodian

Bal3Wolf said:


> ah i see your brave i couldnt bring myself to lap this cpu i looked a the EK Quantum Magnitude but didn't wanna pay the price when everything i saw showed TechN same or better.


Yeah, it wasn't worth it anyway. Both the block and the lapping. lol

Also, now I cannot use liquid metal on this CPU.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Asmodian said:


> Yeah, it wasn't worth it anyway. Both the block and the lapping. lol
> 
> Also, now I cannot use liquid metal on this CPU.


ah that sucks iv done my share of lapping cpus in my time had quite a few good results but some barely worth it ones so i know how you feel. So im testing with x265benchmark and first thing i found out is my 3933 memory is not stable lol even tho it passed memtest and cb23 no problem hard crashed in x265benchmark i kept raising vcore no luck so i dropped memory and no more crashes so now im pushing vcore down till its stable.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

I also lapped my velocity as it isn't flat as well..also modded the Jetplate by grinding an extra 2mm on it..helped with flow and temps alot..now idling at 23c and max temps while boosting 5ghz 1 to 2 cores is around 55-57c..benching cinebench would give me around 59-61c..

edit:

here are some proof of which, "me" doing something stressful to my chip..and is maintaining 4.6ghz+ multi core..









after a while, this is what I get when its heated up..









currently stress testing this setup as I just formatted to a newer build of Windows 10(trimmed, cleaned and primed), and is testing out my previous settings..(seems an overall improvement)

edit2:
after 2 hrs of stress testing CPU and Memory, I rebooted since I had 1 error..


----------



## Asmodian

kairi_zeroblade said:


> here are some proof of which, "me" doing something stressful to my chip..and is maintaining 4.6ghz+ multi core..


That looks pretty normal to me, very good cooling but no surprises. 4.6 GHz all core seems to be about the limit for heavy workloads for me too. I can run 4.6 all core and encode with x265 no problem, and at a lot lower voltages than that. It is getting above 4.6 which is hard. 

61°C peak CCD temp in Cinebench multicore? What clock speed does it run at? That would be amazing cooling, unless the 5900X is that much easier to cool than the 5950X.  

What do you mean by grinding an extra 2mm on the jet plate?


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Asmodian said:


> It is getting above 4.6 which is hard.


yeah..no matter what TDP, EDC, TDC you set with PBO it just won't go above..even if you can handle cooling well..probably a safety mechanism from AMD??



Asmodian said:


> 61°C peak CCD temp in Cinebench multicore? What clock speed does it run at? That would be amazing cooling, unless the 5900X is that much easier to cool than the 5950X.


same settings as that..I don't have any other settings..I can just keep everything cool the way I want it w/o moisture.. 🤣 technically the 5900x should be a bit cooler..evidently, you saw my min temp is around 21.5c, I can make it lower more than that if I want to..(climate controlled AC)



Asmodian said:


> What do you mean by grinding an extra 2mm on the jet plate?


the hole on the waterblock's jet plate..


----------



## Asmodian

kairi_zeroblade said:


> the hole on the waterblock's jet plate..


Wider or longer?


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Asmodian said:


> Wider or longer?


you can't make them any longer..its wider..total of 7mm now..(over grinded so I went all out on it) original was around 4 or 4.5mm..it was close to 5mm as I can remember it..


----------



## Asmodian

kairi_zeroblade said:


> you can't make them any longer..its wider..total of 7mm now..(over grinded so I went all out on it) original was around 4 or 4.5mm..it was close to 5mm as I can remember it..


Interesting, your flow rate must be high enough that it still jets properly even with that much less restriction. Dual pumps?


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Asmodian said:


> Interesting, your flow rate must be high enough that it still jets properly even with that much less restriction. Dual pumps?


Sounds like what hes doing is kinda how techN does there blocks they dont use jetplates like old days sence ryzens are mutiple chiplets.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Asmodian said:


> Interesting, your flow rate must be high enough that it still jets properly even with that much less restriction. Dual pumps?


yeah Dual DDC 3.2's..and it has QDC's..still high pressure..even with a single pump when I tested it out 1st..



Bal3Wolf said:


> Sounds like what hes doing is kinda how techN does there blocks they dont use jetplates like old days sence ryzens are mutiple chiplets.


same its a hybrid concept..worked out fine for me..just be cautious on grinding an extra mm on the jet plate..also prevent it from bending..so far so good..dropped my temps by 6-8c I used to idle only at 30c..


----------



## dansi

7zip is not exactly stressful but it is accepted that ambient temps and cooling plays a bigger part than silicon lottery or voltages for these ccd zen chiplets

the cooler you can keep, the longer and thicker the boost clocks will run


----------



## Bal3Wolf

dansi said:


> 7zip is not exactly stressful but it is accepted that ambient temps and cooling plays a bigger part than silicon lottery or voltages for these ccd zen chiplets
> 
> the cooler you can keep, the longer and thicker the boost clocks will run


yea its close to the cpu benchmark id say i can hold boosts in 4.6ghz range on it but only 4.5 on say cb23.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

dansi said:


> 7zip is not exactly stressful but it is accepted that ambient temps and cooling plays a bigger part than silicon lottery or voltages for these ccd zen chiplets
> 
> the cooler you can keep, the longer and thicker the boost clocks will run


its what I usually do, so for me that's stressful..(yes I over bought a 2000$ pc just to compress/decompress ISO's and what not..)

I don't run prime95 or wutnut..as what has been said over the internet..its the "worst case" scenario you would do to your PC..I only game and do stuff what my potato office laptop cannot on that one..



Bal3Wolf said:


> yea its close to the cpu benchmark id say i can hold boosts in 4.6ghz range on it but only 4.5 on say cb23.


will cool down the room one sec and will make a run..

EDIT: seems I made a mistake on my bench temps..(but I do recall 1 seeing it low 60's)










here's a CBR23 run..closed case and lower than ambient w/o moisture temps..I also tried increasing the limits for PBO, except for the boost override..

EDIT2: I now remember where I saw the 61c temps on Cinebench..when I was running it using just stock settings..no PBO or CO..


----------



## 1devomer

dansi said:


> 7zip is not exactly stressful but it is accepted that ambient temps and cooling plays a bigger part than silicon lottery or voltages for these ccd zen chiplets
> 
> the cooler you can keep, the longer and thicker the boost clocks will run


No.

The silicon quality of the chip is the one determining its voltage and t °scaling curve.

These chip run hot and are sensible to t° because it is hard to extract the heat from such small die area, compared to the number of transistors it packs.

So a minimal increase in clocks or in voltage, translate in an higher heat output.
That's why you want decently binned silicon, to be able to run the max clock the t° allow, with the less voltage possible.

AMD approach is like, here the CO curve, tune yourself your cpu, because we can't guaratee the silicon qulity of our chips throught time.
The CO on 5k series, should have been calculated and saved beforehand into the cpu, when packaging the chiplets, more or less like the stock PBO values are.


----------



## dansi

1devomer said:


> No.
> 
> The silicon quality of the chip is the one determining its voltage and t °scaling curve.
> 
> These chip run hot and are sensible to t° because it is hard to extract the heat from such small die area, compared to the number of transistors it packs.
> 
> So a minimal increase in clocks or in voltage, translate in an higher heat output.
> That's why you want decently binned silicon, to be able to run the max clock the t° allow, with the less voltage possible.
> 
> AMD approach is like, here the CO curve, tune yourself your cpu, because we can't guaratee the silicon qulity of our chips throught time.
> The CO on 5k series, should have been calculated and saved beforehand into the cpu, when packaging the chiplets, more or less like the stock PBO values are.


the variance in silicon quality are much tighter for these ccd. 
we no longer in the old intel days, there is limit in more voltages will help for boosting or even manual oc


----------



## 1devomer

dansi said:


> the variance in silicon quality are much tighter for these ccd.
> we no longer in the old intel days, there is limit in more voltages will help for boosting or even manual oc


We are still in the "old intel days", it simply can't scale with voltage because of the t°.
A good bin runs with less voltage, output less heat, that can be translated in a clock increase instead.

Also you should not mix TSMC and Intel silicon foundry manufacturing nodes, Intel scale with voltage, also, because the cpu components are packed in a rather loose way, compared to TSMC tight transistors fit.
Which per se, translate in better thermals, allowing you to push the envelope voltage, keeping the t° in checks.
That's why, even if AMD cpu run less power, they don't run cooler than Intel cpu, when put under load.


----------



## dansi

1devomer said:


> We are still in the "old intel days", it simply can't scale with voltage because of the t°.
> A good bin runs with less voltage, output less heat, that can be translated in a clock increase instead.
> 
> Also you should not mix TSMC and Intel silicon foundry manufacturing nodes, Intel scale with voltage, also, because the cpu components are packed in a rather loose way, compared to TSMC tight transistors fit.
> Which per se, translate in better thermals, allowing you to push the envelope voltage, keeping the t° in checks.
> That's why, even if AMD cpu run less power, they don't run cooler than Intel cpu, when put under load.


yes but like i said, any silicon variances have been squeezed to its last drop. That is why amd is able to report double digit % gains in every new zen. That is why siliconlottery.com are not selling much if any zen bins.

when you buy zen cpu, these days, you hope to live in a cool climate or you have a good cooling setup. 

Intel isnt even in old intel days now. Previously they left too much headroom in their cores, and it was Intel designed the cores for laptop and servers first, desktop chips are 'weak' bins with too much leakage for their needs.


----------



## 1devomer

dansi said:


> yes but like i said, any silicon variances have been squeezed to its last drop. That is why amd is able to report double digit % gains in every new zen. That is why siliconlottery.com are not selling much if any zen bins.
> 
> when you buy zen cpu, these days, you hope to live in a cool climate or you have a good cooling setup.
> 
> Intel isnt even in old intel days now. Previously they left too much headroom in their cores, and it was Intel designed the cores for laptop and servers first, desktop chips are 'weak' bins with too much leakage for their needs.


Yeah, but Intel managed to keep its cpu binning process somehow consistent, over the years.
Something AMD is not willing and/or capable to deliver, it seems.

Having issues in hot summer because of the cpu is overclocked, is fine.
Having issues in hot summer when your cpu is "stock", is altogether another story.

Understanding the true silicon quality of the cpu, help the users to overclock and manage their cpu better.
Intel gave you the silicon SP number in the bios, on AMD you have to rely on CTR rating values.

So, getting back to the original point, the silicon quality and voltages are the most important parameters, when it comes to these densely packed 7nm chiplets, before the ambient t° or the cooling.

One want to understand quickly the overall silicon quality, to be able to easily setup the cores CO curve overclock, without having to spend days running CoreCycler, until one find ultimately the right balance.


----------



## rdr09

kairi_zeroblade said:


> its what I usually do, so for me that's stressful..(yes I over bought a 2000$ pc just to compress/decompress ISO's and what not..)
> 
> I don't run prime95 or wutnut..as what has been said over the internet..its the "worst case" scenario you would do to your PC..I only game and do stuff what my potato office laptop cannot on that one..
> 
> 
> 
> will cool down the room one sec and will make a run..
> 
> EDIT: seems I made a mistake on my bench temps..(but I do recall 1 seeing it low 60's)
> 
> View attachment 2525172
> 
> 
> here's a CBR23 run..closed case and lower than ambient w/o moisture temps..I also tried increasing the limits for PBO, except for the boost override..
> 
> EDIT2: I now remember where I saw the 61c temps on Cinebench..when I was running it using just stock settings..no PBO or CO..


I think i am reading that correctly - 211W - that is insane. My cooling won't be able to handle that. I ran 4600Mhz at 1.32v and i only saw 170W. My system almost shutdown (set to shutdown in BIOS at 90c) when temp shut up to 89c. Ambient was 24c.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

rdr09 said:


> I think i am reading that correctly - 211W - that is insane. My cooling won't be able to handle that. I ran 4600Mhz at 1.32v and i only saw 170W. My system almost shutdown (set to shutdown in BIOS at 90c) when temp shut up to 89c. Ambient was 24c.


yeah I think I am already choking on the board..makes me itch to buy something beefy like the X570E or yet the Gigabyte X570S which just came out a few days ago..I can grab an X570S Pro AX for around 320$


----------



## Bal3Wolf

211watts lol that seems low i have hit 270watts at my 4.75/4.65 clocks doing handbrake 3 of them at a time lol.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Bal3Wolf said:


> 211watts lol that seems low i have hit 270watts at my 4.75/4.65 clocks doing handbrake 3 of them at a time lol.


yeah my poorly low end B550 board sux compared to your EPEEN board..but I run colder anyways..

I am now thinking of spending a hefty 400-500$ on the board but I just use this for compressing and decompressing stuff plus gaming..I would barely see any 100FPS improvement on that cost..so I will just save it up for a next-gen Thread Ripper build or an Intel HEDT platform that can compete with AMD..

AMD has been hyped so bad, that there are still lingering issues here and there, unlike the other camp, just slap it in altogether and it just works fine out of the box..


----------



## Bal3Wolf

I have a hot chip for sure im not even pushing a ton of vcore now around 1.23-1.26


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Bal3Wolf said:


> I have a hot chip for sure im not even pushing a ton of vcore now around 1.23-1.26


I am at a measly 1.218v myself (if HWINFO readings are correct, some are even at 1.18 and below)


----------



## Bal3Wolf

kairi_zeroblade said:


> I am at a measly 1.218v myself (if HWINFO readings are correct, some are even at 1.18 and below)


Nice kinda funny how much heat these 5950s pack hindsight I'm testing 4000/2000 and cant do a static oc using pbo temps around 72c.


----------



## rdr09

Bal3Wolf said:


> 211watts lol that seems low i have hit 270watts at my 4.75/4.65 clocks doing handbrake 3 of them at a time lol.


Last time i saw 200W reading was when i oc'ed the 5820K. 

@kairi_zeroblade just wait for Alderlake or AM5. Let's save up for a good board for the next cycle.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

rdr09 said:


> Last time i saw 200W reading was when i oc'ed the 5820K.
> 
> @kairi_zeroblade just wait for Alderlake or AM5. Let's save up for a good board for the next cycle.


Oh don't remind me of my 6800k worst cpu I ever owed seemed like a waste of money only time I can say I wasn't happy with intel that system is what pushed me to my current x570 amd system.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

rdr09 said:


> @kairi_zeroblade just wait for Alderlake or AM5. Let's save up for a good board for the next cycle.


Yeah I'd love to..I was easily tempted with the 320$ price tag on the X570s as its a cheap competition for the Crosshair 8 Dark Hero..but meehhh..I have been with Intel platforms on the past, my last was an X99 HEDT platform with a 5960x, it will still pack a punch for gaming and my usage, I was just annoyed with all the Ryzen "Hype" and ended up joining the band to see what was the fuss over, well it was a fresh blast from AMD compared to their previous one (I had a Vishera before) spectacularly it can now OC better as well, but there are still too many underlying issues like a frequent firmware upgrade is a must to fix lingering issues and what not..its bearable, but for what I paid for I expect "more" or something "comfortable" for daily normal use and not spend time worrying/troubleshooting it..(USB issues are very random, when I backup my ISO/Images to the external SSD at some point in the transfer it just disconnects itself no matter what configuration [stock, tweaked PBO, updated AGESA etc...etc..] or where the USB SSD is plugged [back, front] and its annoying, but I grew fond of it..lmao)



Bal3Wolf said:


> Oh don't remind me of my 6800k worst cpu I ever owed seemed like a waste of money only time I can say I wasn't happy with intel that system is what pushed me to my current x570 amd system.


oh so you bothered buying that trash, knowing its a fail?? I faithfully waited for reviews 1st since we'll get those in the store shelves after a month or 2 its release so its perfect to check on user impressions and reviews from where I am at..glad I never made that jump..


----------



## Henry Owens

What do you guys think about pbo auto limits -30 all core? I still got 21000 r23. My monoblock can't handle super high limits like my tech n


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Henry Owens said:


> What do you guys think about pbo auto limits -30 all core? I still got 21000 r23. My monoblock can't handle super high limits like my tech n


did you try tuning it per core?? its tedious (also why this platform is a PITA, not complaining but each platform do have their own quirks but this one is really PITA as hell) but you may be able to squeeze a tad more from where you're at..

doing that and stressing it via core cycler or OCCT is really a pain..took me days before I have a barely "working" table for per-core curve optimization..going on from there will be easy..


----------



## Henry Owens

kairi_zeroblade said:


> did you try tuning it per core?? its tedious (also why this platform is a PITA, not complaining but each platform do have their own quirks but this one is really PITA as hell) but you may be able to squeeze a tad more from where you're at..
> 
> doing that and stressing it via core cycler or OCCT is really a pain..took me days before I have a barely "working" table for per-core curve optimization..going on from there will be easy..


I have tried per core before but it is stable maxed all core -30 so I have not seen the need to really fine tune.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Henry Owens said:


> I have tried per core before but it is stable maxed all core -30 so I have not seen the need to really fine tune.


then you don't ask about squeezing performance..coz they are inversely proportional (wanting more UV doesn't mean its more performance, since you are starving it with voltages, and vice versa..) PBO relies on the FIT voltage table, so normally performance would definitely be degraded since you undervolted each frequency (with corresponding voltage value) on that table to -.30mv..


----------



## Henry Owens

kairi_zeroblade said:


> then you don't ask about squeezing performance..coz they are inversely proportional (wanting more UV doesn't mean its more performance, since you are starving it with voltages, and vice versa..) PBO relies on the FIT voltage table, so normally performance would definitely be degraded since you undervolted each frequency (with corresponding voltage value) on that table to -.30mv..


Ok that does make sense. I was thinking more was always better if it was stable. Seems pretty difficult to start working backwards, would I need to reduce offset of each and see if scores increase?


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Henry Owens said:


> Ok that does make sense. I was thinking more was always better if it was stable. Seems pretty difficult to start working backwards, would I need to reduce offset of each and see if scores increase?


it proves you have a better silicon quality since it can stand stable at -.30mv at every frequency range..makes it run cooler and probably has more headroom upwards..I suggest reducing the UV on the good CCD and check if performance does go up..


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

I direct die my 5950x but dont know the temp before direct die because I just sent it to the service when I got the chip but water temp is 33c ambient is 26c 48.25ccx0 47.25ccx1 1.35v load r23 and temp hit 80c-81c.


----------



## Skinnered

Is there anyone who game's at 5k and jumped from an i7 9800x (or equivalent) to an 5950x with a rtx 3080/90or amd rx68/900/ gpu?
Was there still a noticable perf increase?
I read @4k there is still a decent gain paired with fast gpu's.


----------



## Sleepycat

Skinnered said:


> Is there anyone who game's at 5k and jumped from an i7 9800x (or equivalent) to an 5950x with a rtx 3080/90or amd rx68/900/ gpu?
> Was there still a noticable perf increase?
> I read @4k there is still a decent gain paired with fast gpu's.


It really depends on the game you are running. Some get a nice boost at 4k and above with an upgraded CPU, but the majority end up with the GPU loaded up and the CPU still having some idle capacity, even at a single core level.

I don't think it would be worth going from a i7-9800K to a 5950X for gaming purposes. If you use your PC for other forms of processing, then yes, it is a nice gain.


----------



## Skinnered

^Yeah thats my impression too. To bad there are no 5K benchmarks.


----------



## FlanK3r

anyone with B2 revision here?


----------



## Sagic

Hey peeps! Fellow 5900X owner here 

I just wanted to get some feedback on my current performance/thermals on my 5900X... Since they feel lackluster to me.

Most of my specs are in my *sig*. 

Some specifics:
Im running PBO with these settings > Power limits:Mobo, Scalar X10, LLC Mode 8 (lowest), Clock offset 50Mhz, Curve: 14* 25 10* 25 25 25 25 25 25 10* 25 14* (* fastest in Ryzen master)

These have so far given me the best results.. but they aren't great IMO. 

It hits 90C on this Kraken X63 (280mm rad, Coolmaster MasterGel Maker), and peaks out at about 4.55Ghz all core because of the heat. Then single cores boost to 4.9Ghz under light load, and about 4.775Ghz while gaming.
I'm kinda wondering if this is hotter than expected for 4.55Ghz sustained, I wonder if my CPU just needs more Vcore for stability, causing more heat. 
I've also seen some people get much better single core ratings... So I'm wondering if something wrong is going on here.

The cores set to 10 on the curve seem to be the limit, if I go much higher it crashes (12 seems to be unstable for example)

Cheers!

Benches: (Temp voltage and Frequency is during CBR23)


----------



## dk_mic

play around with edc, its a trade-off between single core and multicore performance.. on my 5950x i get best sc around or below 140, best multi around 220


----------



## MadGoat

Sagic said:


> Hey peeps! Fellow 5900X owner here
> 
> I just wanted to get some feedback on my current performance/thermals on my 5900X... Since they feel lackluster to me.
> 
> Most of my specs are in my *sig*.
> 
> Some specifics:
> Im running PBO with these settings > Power limits:Mobo, Scalar X10, LLC Mode 8 (lowest), Clock offset 50Mhz, Curve: 14* 25 10* 25 25 25 25 25 25 10* 25 14* (* fastest in Ryzen master)
> 
> These have so far given me the best results.. but they aren't great IMO.
> 
> It hits 90C on this Kraken X63 (280mm rad, Coolmaster MasterGel Maker), and peaks out at about 4.55Ghz all core because of the heat. Then single cores boost to 4.9Ghz under light load, and about 4.775Ghz while gaming.
> I'm kinda wondering if this is hotter than expected for 4.55Ghz sustained, I wonder if my CPU just needs more Vcore for stability, causing more heat.
> I've also seen some people get much better single core ratings... So I'm wondering if something wrong is going on here.
> 
> The cores set to 10 on the curve seem to be the limit, if I go much higher it crashes (12 seems to be unstable for example)
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> Benches: (Temp voltage and Frequency is during CBR23)
> View attachment 2531218
> View attachment 2531219
> View attachment 2531220


That single core though! 

It really is about dialing in that pbo and voltage to what temp you are comfortable with. At the end of the day you'll have to concede some performance for the temps. (Although it really comes down to benchmark performance as real world it's extremely hard to see) These chips are all about cooling.


----------



## dk_mic

that's the avx2 version of cpuz in the screenshot


----------



## KedarWolf

Sagic said:


> Hey peeps! Fellow 5900X owner here
> 
> I just wanted to get some feedback on my current performance/thermals on my 5900X... Since they feel lackluster to me.
> 
> Most of my specs are in my *sig*.
> 
> Some specifics:
> Im running PBO with these settings > Power limits:Mobo, Scalar X10, LLC Mode 8 (lowest), Clock offset 50Mhz, Curve: 14* 25 10* 25 25 25 25 25 25 10* 25 14* (* fastest in Ryzen master)
> 
> These have so far given me the best results.. but they aren't great IMO.
> 
> It hits 90C on this Kraken X63 (280mm rad, Coolmaster MasterGel Maker), and peaks out at about 4.55Ghz all core because of the heat. Then single cores boost to 4.9Ghz under light load, and about 4.775Ghz while gaming.
> I'm kinda wondering if this is hotter than expected for 4.55Ghz sustained, I wonder if my CPU just needs more Vcore for stability, causing more heat.
> I've also seen some people get much better single core ratings... So I'm wondering if something wrong is going on here.
> 
> The cores set to 10 on the curve seem to be the limit, if I go much higher it crashes (12 seems to be unstable for example)
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> Benches: (Temp voltage and Frequency is during CBR23)
> View attachment 2531218
> View attachment 2531219
> View attachment 2531220



Try this:


Sagic said:


> Hey peeps! Fellow 5900X owner here
> 
> I just wanted to get some feedback on my current performance/thermals on my 5900X... Since they feel lackluster to me.
> 
> Most of my specs are in my *sig*.
> 
> Some specifics:
> Im running PBO with these settings > Power limits:Mobo, Scalar X10, LLC Mode 8 (lowest), Clock offset 50Mhz, Curve: 14* 25 10* 25 25 25 25 25 25 10* 25 14* (* fastest in Ryzen master)
> 
> These have so far given me the best results.. but they aren't great IMO.
> 
> It hits 90C on this Kraken X63 (280mm rad, Coolmaster MasterGel Maker), and peaks out at about 4.55Ghz all core because of the heat. Then single cores boost to 4.9Ghz under light load, and about 4.775Ghz while gaming.
> I'm kinda wondering if this is hotter than expected for 4.55Ghz sustained, I wonder if my CPU just needs more Vcore for stability, causing more heat.
> I've also seen some people get much better single core ratings... So I'm wondering if something wrong is going on here.
> 
> The cores set to 10 on the curve seem to be the limit, if I go much higher it crashes (12 seems to be unstable for example)
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> Benches: (Temp voltage and Frequency is during CBR23)
> View attachment 2531218
> View attachment 2531219
> View attachment 2531220


Can I see what you get when you try this?


----------



## MyUsername

I've been playing with these numbers for a while with good results with cpu z, but if I use the same settings with auto pbo, I get better cb20 results and cpuz goes down which is strange.


----------



## rdr09

Sagic said:


> Hey peeps! Fellow 5900X owner here
> 
> I just wanted to get some feedback on my current performance/thermals on my 5900X... Since they feel lackluster to me.
> 
> Most of my specs are in my *sig*.
> 
> Some specifics:
> Im running PBO with these settings > Power limits:Mobo, Scalar X10, LLC Mode 8 (lowest), Clock offset 50Mhz, Curve: 14* 25 10* 25 25 25 25 25 25 10* 25 14* (* fastest in Ryzen master)
> 
> These have so far given me the best results.. but they aren't great IMO.
> 
> It hits 90C on this Kraken X63 (280mm rad, Coolmaster MasterGel Maker), and peaks out at about 4.55Ghz all core because of the heat. Then single cores boost to 4.9Ghz under light load, and about 4.775Ghz while gaming.
> I'm kinda wondering if this is hotter than expected for 4.55Ghz sustained, I wonder if my CPU just needs more Vcore for stability, causing more heat.
> I've also seen some people get much better single core ratings... So I'm wondering if something wrong is going on here.
> 
> The cores set to 10 on the curve seem to be the limit, if I go much higher it crashes (12 seems to be unstable for example)
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> Benches: (Temp voltage and Frequency is during CBR23)
> View attachment 2531218
> View attachment 2531219
> View attachment 2531220


Your version of CPUz is quite old. Your CB score is quite normal.


----------



## rexbinary

rdr09 said:


> Your version of CPUz is quite old.


I don't see anything newer than 1.98 on the CPU-Z website?


----------



## Sagic

rdr09 said:


> Your version of CPUz is quite old. Your CB score is quite normal.


The benchmark versions have not changed in cpu-z

As for my scores in CB, I've seen many with much higher, which is why I'm trying figure out if I'm missing something to tune this properly.


----------



## Sagic

KedarWolf said:


> Try this:
> 
> 
> Can I see what you get when you try this?
> 
> View attachment 2531237
> 
> 
> View attachment 2531238


This had some interesting impacts. 
I noticed that adjusting the EDC had a notable impact on the voltage delivered, and with it set to about 148A I can get a little higher sustained clocks because the temp doesn't max out. 

That being said, it doesn't seem to help performance much. I had one brief moment when I had some settings that got me a CB23 single core of 1605, which I which interested in. I saved those bios settings, but reloading them does not recreate this result... 

Have any more information on what this VDD full scale current and telemetry settings are supposed to do? Moving them around have unpredictable results for me.


----------



## TimeDrapery

Sagic said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> This had some interesting impacts.
> I noticed that adjusting the EDC had a notable impact on the voltage delivered, and with it set to about 148A I can get a little higher sustained clocks because the temp doesn't max out.
> 
> That being said, it doesn't seem to help performance much. I had one brief moment when I had some settings that got me a CB23 single core of 1605, which I which interested in. I saved those bios settings, but reloading them does not recreate this result...
> 
> Have any more information on what this VDD full scale current and telemetry settings are supposed to do? Moving them around have unpredictable results for me.



@Sagic 

From what I understand these settings allow you "spoof" telemetry to a greater or lesser extent with regards to current


----------



## Sagic

VDD full scale current and telemetry settings dont seem to help much... But this is where I got with some tweaks. (Note I'm showing the 17.01.64 CPU-z bench now since that's more known?)










This is with the power limits set high except EDC at 158 A, 75Mhz offset, LLC mode7, Curve optimizer 15 25 15 25 25 25 25 25 25 15 25 15.
VDD full scale current and Telemetry set to auto since this didn't help me much... GPU-z multi-core didn't work as well as CBR23, but they both liked the single core performance.

THOUGH... I have a good feeling this is not stable... Ryzen 5000 is hard to test for stability, gotta game for a little or something...


----------



## Sagic

Of course, its not stable while gaming, and is stable during benchmarks... As expected

And I don't understand intuitively how to fix the stability...


----------



## Asmodian

Sagic said:


> And I don't understand intuitively how to fix the stability...


Have you tried CoreCycler?


----------



## kotsokale

Hello guys,

I am really worried about my Cpu voltages.

At idle it peaks at 1.55 maximum voltage (not at these screens, but i have seen this).

Is this normal? i know that Robert from AMD, has said that the safe voltage is up to 1.5.


5900X / ASUS X570 Dark Hero with latest bios / Windows 11 with latest updates and chipset drivers installed / All stock expect the XMP profile.


----------



## TimeDrapery

kotsokale said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Hello guys,
> 
> I am really worried about my Cpu voltages.
> 
> At idle it peaks at 1.55 maximum voltage (not at these screens, but i have seen this).
> 
> Is this normal? i know that Robert from AMD, has said that the safe voltage is up to 1.5.
> 
> 
> 5900X / ASUS X570 Dark Hero with latest bios / Windows 11 with latest updates and chipset drivers installed / All stock expect the XMP profile.
> View attachment 2531491
> 
> View attachment 2531490



@kotsokale 

Are you cooling it with a ceiling fan?!?


----------



## Sagic

Asmodian said:


> Have you tried CoreCycler?


Seems this is in fact finding instability, without completely crashing the computer.

I will try to use this to fix the instability, I assume the best way to do this is reduce the curve undervolt of the cores that fail this test?


----------



## Asmodian

Sagic said:


> I will try to use this to fix the instability, I assume the best way to do this is reduce the curve undervolt of the cores that fail this test?


Exactly. It takes a long time to dial in a 5950X to +/- 1 curve offset.


----------



## JohnnyFlash

Asmodian said:


> Exactly. It takes a long time to dial in a 5950X to +/- 1 curve offset.


If you use all threads the majority of the time, per CCX is the better path. Easier to test, more efficient and guaranteed stable.

PBO + CO is only really beneficial if you're gaming with nothing running in the background.


----------



## Asmodian

JohnnyFlash said:


> PBO + CO is only really beneficial if you're gaming with nothing running in the background.


Which is every time you game, isn't it? I never game with anything CPU intensive running in the background.

You can say it is easier to get a fixed OC stable (debatable, it is still only stable for whatever load you used to test), but it isn't better for gaming. If you want a fixed OC that is stable under any load you are going to have to run very low clocks (small FFT P95 AVX2?). Just because dialing in PBO is hard does not mean it is not worth doing.


----------



## JohnnyFlash

Asmodian said:


> Which is every time you game, isn't it? I never game with anything CPU intensive running in the background.


No? The whole point of having this many threads is so you can handle loads in parallel.

Otherwise, the money would be better served on a beefer GPU with a 5800X; unless money just isn't a concern and you already have a 3090.


----------



## Asmodian

JohnnyFlash said:


> No? The whole point of having this many threads is so you can handle loads in parallel.


I do like encoding video on my 5950X, but not at the same time as gaming. It does not matter how many cores you have, encoding video while gaming will hurt performance.

There are benefits to both OC methods. For a known all core workload the lower voltage and/or higher clocks allowed by a fixed OC can be nice, but you do give up some gaming performance and very heavy workloads will get too hot. Fixed OCs can be a bit tricky on a 5950X, a new workload that can utilize all the cores better than your test load can spike the temps to 90+°C and things start crashing. Fixed OC settings that are stable running four x265 encodes at the same time are going to lose a lot of performance in games. PBO would run four x265 encodes at a bit higher voltage than needed, but both the video encodes and games would be running near the max performance possible and everything is stable.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

JohnnyFlash said:


> No? The whole point of having this many threads is so you can handle loads in parallel.
> 
> Otherwise, the money would be better served on a beefer GPU with a 5800X; unless money just isn't a concern and you already have a 3090.


If windows was prefect and it can utilize cpu cycles/core without effecting gaming perf it would be ideal, but is never the case.


----------



## Sagic

Asmodian said:


> Have you tried CoreCycler?


Seems even if it does not crash con CoreCycler, it will still crash while gaming.... The maze continues


----------



## MyUsername

Sagic said:


> Seems even if it does not crash con CoreCycler, it will still crash while gaming.... The maze continues


Does your PC crash with the CO at default during gaming? You may be boosting a couple of cores too high and causing errors with many cores at -25. The PBO(TDC) just governs how many AMPs goes to your cores, PPT and EDC are your total socket power.


----------



## smokedawg

Sagic said:


> Seems even if it does not crash con CoreCycler, it will still crash while gaming.... The maze continues


I posted this before but I had the same issue. I originally had VSOC at 1075 and VDDG CCD at 920. To get my curve optimizer settings game stable I had to raise VSOC to 1125 and VDDG CCD to 1000. VDDG IOD was at 1000 both before and after crashes. Not a single crash/reboot since.


----------



## Sagic

MyUsername said:


> Does your PC crash with the CO at default during gaming? You may be boosting a couple of cores too high and causing errors with many cores at -25. The PBO(TDC) just governs how many AMPs goes to your cores, PPT and EDC are your total socket power.


Yes its stable with CO on defaults.


----------



## Sagic

smokedawg said:


> I posted this before but I had the same issue. I originally had VSOC at 1075 and VDDG CCD at 920. To get my curve optimizer settings game stable I had to raise VSOC to 1125 and VDDG CCD to 1000. VDDG IOD was at 1000 both before and after crashes. Not a single crash/reboot since.


I'll give this a shot, Thanks!


----------



## KedarWolf




----------



## JohnnyFlash

Asmodian said:


> There are benefits to both OC methods. For a known all core workload the lower voltage and/or higher clocks allowed by a fixed OC can be nice, but you do give up some gaming performance and very heavy workloads will get too hot. Fixed OCs can be a bit tricky on a 5950X, a new workload that can utilize all the cores better than your test load can spike the temps to 90+°C and things start crashing. Fixed OC settings that are stable running four x265 encodes at the same time are going to lose a lot of performance in games. PBO would run four x265 encodes at a bit higher voltage than needed, but both the video encodes and games would be running near the max performance possible and everything is stable.


It's the opposite: You can't be sure it's stable at all, there is no way to test all of the bins at the different levels of vdroop. You can have an encode complete just fine with no errors, then find blocking errors on playback. Testing with 24 hours of Prime95 small FFT AVX2, then bumping the clockspeed down 25MHz all but guarentees you're rock solid.

Like I said, if you're not heavily multitasking or need stability, then you're better off with PBO. But then getting a 5950X over a 5800X is kind of a waste.



ZealotKi11er said:


> If windows was prefect and it can utilize cpu cycles/core without effecting gaming perf it would be ideal, but is never the case.


Manually assign 10-12 cores to the encode and leave a couple free for gaming or other tasks. I have found no measurable different running benchmarks with encoding on/off in that setup.


----------



## iraff1

repasted my cpu and finally managed to get over 700 cpuz single thread


----------



## KedarWolf

iraff1 said:


> repasted my cpu and finally managed to get over 700 cpuz single thread
> View attachment 2531999
> 
> 
> What are your PPT EDC settings etc?


----------



## iraff1

KedarWolf said:


> What are your PPT EDC settings etc?


I'm using PPT 185, TDC 130, EDC 140


----------



## iraff1

Jimmo said:


> I have finally worked out a rough method for raising the single core performance as high as possible for my particular 5950X.
> The best I had previously achieved was around CB R20 score 548 - 552.
> 
> View attachment 2523939
> 
> 
> The Curve Optimiser settings are quite a bit different from what I had been using. I was experimenting with every core but my 2 best cores at -30 and I accidentally set one of my best cores to -30 too.
> It booted and ran then crashed during stress testing but it was almost stable. It seems that the CO settings and overall voltage used are all closely linked. The closer I set every core to the same settings the better it ran and the more stable it was likely to be.
> CD R20 @ 655 single core was with 14 cores at - 30 and the other 2 best cores at - 27 and -13.
> EDC is 130.
> 
> The best overall setting will most likely be with EDC at about 135 - 145


Did you bin your 5950x? it seems extremely lucky to be able to go -30 all core except the best cores, and still managing to go -13 on the most peaked core, i think my best core is limited to -5 max, i have maybe 10 cores at -30 the rest is between -20 and -10 .... You must have a platinum sample, my cpu according to the CTR probram is a golden sample.

With that score in single thread r20 you must have at least 720+ points in cpu z single?


----------



## KedarWolf

iraff1 said:


> Did you bin your 5950x? it seems extremely lucky to be able to go -30 all core except the best cores, and still managing to go -13 on the most peaked core, i think my best core is limited to -5 max, i have maybe 10 cores at -30 the rest is between -20 and -10 .... You must have a platinum sample, my cpu according to the CTR probram is a golden sample.
> 
> With that score in single thread r20 you must have at least 720+ points in cpu z single?


I can do Scaler 6, Boost 150, -30 all core except the two top cores -7, -15, Core Cycler stable.

My Ram will only do CL14 3800 though WHEA free and TM5 stable, but still, pretty much a golden 5950x. 

Edit: I have a screenshot on the forum somewhere of CPU-Z multicore at 13674 I think it was. it was in the 670s for sure.


----------



## iraff1

KedarWolf said:


> I can do Scaler 6, Boost 150, -30 all core except the two top cores -7, -15, Core Cycler stable.
> 
> My Ram will only do CL14 3800 though WHEA free and TM5 stable, but still, pretty much a golden 5950x.
> 
> Edit: I have a screenshot on the forum somewhere of CPU-Z multicore at 13674 I think it was. it was in the 670s for sure.


whats the best cpu z single thread you can get with that cpu?


----------



## KedarWolf

iraff1 said:


> whats the best cpu z single thread you can get with that cpu?


I get about 691 24/7. But I might mess with my EDC etc. more.


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf said:


> I can do Scaler 6, Boost 150, -30 all core except the two top cores -7, -15, Core Cycler stable.
> 
> My Ram will only do CL14 3800 though WHEA free and TM5 stable, but still, pretty much a golden 5950x.
> 
> Edit: I have a screenshot on the forum somewhere of CPU-Z multicore at 13674 I think it was. it was in the 670s for sure.


I checked. My best in the forum is 13664 with a screenshot. But I'm really sure I hit 13674 once and trying to beat it never took a screenshot. :/


----------



## iraff1

KedarWolf said:


> I get about 691 24/7. But I might mess with my EDC etc. more.


What cpu cooler are you using?


----------



## KedarWolf

iraff1 said:


> What cpu cooler are you using?


I use an EKWB Predator 360 but with an Optimus Foundation AM4 block to replace the stock block.


----------



## Audioboxer

So, I've never really spent much time benching my 5950x, setup a pretty basic 270/160/190, +50mhz boost and then worked on the best per core curve I could before stability testing it and calling it a day. I mean, every game plays great, and so on, so happy days. I've focussed far more on the dark arts of memory overclocking, months of learning!

Anyway, in the DDR4 topic someone brought up CPU-Z to show it across 1900/2000 FCLK, because I've been trying to get 2000 stable. USB issues galore when the CPU is under heavy load. CPU-Z has become a visual way for me to see my IF issues










Multi-thread gets massacred at 2000 FCLK. Sad times, hope the AMD 3D cache CPUs are better with IF as I have some great 4000 memory.










1900 it is a bit more reasonable.

But how are those numbers for a 5950x? 690 seems to be OK, but I've seen some people up at 700. Multi-thread doesn't seem too great. I've seen scores at like 13600~13800. This is Windows 11, but MS and AMD have assured us they've fixed processor power plans/scheduling.

It's got me thinking I might need to go back to the drawing board with the CPU to squeeze out some more performance?


----------



## dk_mic

Remember that CPU-Z Single Thread always runs on CPU 0 which might not necessarily be the best core of the CCD, so I think it's not the best benchmark to compare different samples.
You can tune PBO for different workloads. At least in my experience higher EDC leads to better MT scores, but you sacrifice ST. 
Recently I found it interesting to mess around with the telemetry settings on MSI boards: VDD Full Scale Current. There are some gains possible, but I don't really understand all the effects of messing with it, so I left it alone.
Anyways, personally I think PBO + CO + some reasonable PPT,TDC,EDC limits are perfect for daily. These chips are blazing fast and very energy efficient at stock, I wouldnt sacrifice too much of that efficiency for some single digit % gains in synthetic benchmarks.


----------



## MyUsername

dk_mic said:


> Remember that CPU-Z Single Thread always runs on CPU 0 which might not necessarily be the best core of the CCD, so I think it's not the best benchmark to compare different samples.
> You can tune PBO for different workloads. At least in my experience higher EDC leads to better MT scores, but you sacrifice ST.
> Recently I found it interesting to mess around with the telemetry settings on MSI boards: VDD Full Scale Current. There are some gains possible, but I don't really understand all the effects of messing with it, so I left it alone.
> Anyways, personally I think PBO + CO + some reasonable PPT,TDC,EDC limits are perfect for daily. These chips are blazing fast and very energy efficient at stock, I wouldnt sacrifice too much of that efficiency for some single digit % gains in synthetic benchmarks.


If you have CPPC enabled, this tells your OS what your preferred cores are that should boost the highest giving you the best performance. When I run single thread in cpu-z, it stresses core 0 and 4 as they're the 2 preferred cores with the same maximum performance percentage, they boost to 5050MHz. But then I've used the CO to get most of the other cores to the same boost clock.
Yeah in a way you can tune the PBO for different workloads, but if you figure out your PBO you'll get good performance in most workloads, try to find the balance of Amps you're allowing to the cores, socket power and the temperature. PBO doesn't effect the single core as single core can't hit the PBO limits.
Stock is efficient and boring, I need to squeeze every MHz out no matter the cost, even if it's another 100 Watts over stock.


----------



## dk_mic

CPU-Z single thread benches core 0, nothing else, no matter if CPPC is enabled or not. If you see load on another core its backgound stuff.

Even if single thread benches dont hit the limits, they still have an impact. At least here.. Have a look at these old benches with my mediocre 5950x with various limits.
(3D Mark CPU test: 1T, 8T, 32T, CPU-Z single/multi,CB R15 single/multi)


----------



## MyUsername

dk_mic said:


> CPU-Z single thread benches core 0, nothing else, no matter if CPPC is enabled or not. If you see load on another core its backgound stuff.
> 
> Even if single thread benches dont hit the limits, they still have an impact. At least here.. Have a look at these old benches with my mediocre 5950x with various limits.
> (3D Mark CPU test: 1T, 8T, 32T, CPU-Z single/multi,CB R15 single/multi)
> View attachment 2532418


Difficult for me to prove otherwise as my preferred core is 0, but I can see on my task manager cpu-z boosting between 0 and 4 at 5GHz, while the other 14 cores are idle. If I disable thread 0 and 1 with set affinity, I can make cpu-z stick to core 4 while the scheduler tapping core 0 every other second when I enable thread 0 and 1 again. I have minimum background tasks, no third party rgb rubbish.


----------



## dk_mic

once you hit the bench button in cpu-z any changes in affinity via task manager reset and ST should run on core 0


----------



## MikeS3000

So if you look closely at core usage during single thread CPU-Z you will see that it gets split between core 0 and your #1 core via CPPC. It's a really odd way to test single thread. What I do is set single thread and hit start. Then I immediately change the affinity to just the core I want to test. The first test will be a little low but then it will hold that chosen core for the other single thread test and give correct results. Try this for each of your cores to judge the highest performing ones.


----------



## StAndrew

Hey guys, I got a good deal on a a 5950x and Asus ROG Strix X570 and I have a few quick questions on overclocking.

Can I just overclock on CCX and leave the other stock?

I plan to use project lasso to set CPU core affinity for games and want to run one CCX overclocked for gaming and the second CCX for everything else. 

A: Is this possible?
B: What is a good overclock guide for a beginner?
C: Is Ryzen Clocktuner recommended?


----------



## dk_mic

MikeS3000 said:


> So if you look closely at core usage during single thread CPU-Z you will see that it gets split between core 0 and your #1 core via CPPC. It's a really odd way to test single thread. What I do is set single thread and hit start. Then I immediately change the affinity to just the core I want to test. The first test will be a little low but then it will hold that chosen core for the other single thread test and give correct results. Try this for each of your cores to judge the highest performing ones.


Yes, you are correct. I was pretty sure it was only cpu 0, no matter what. But I can observe this too. It hits core 0 and #1 core, which is indeed odd. Maybe this has been changed in newer versions.


----------



## iraff1

So ive been playing around with the scalar, and i see my core vids jumping a lot more with scalar at 10x, is this safe for long use? 









I never seen my vid above 1.5 before...


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Cpuz is a show off. Linpack extreme or gaming is the real world measure.


----------



## dansi

MikeS3000 said:


> So if you look closely at core usage during single thread CPU-Z you will see that it gets split between core 0 and your #1 core via CPPC. It's a really odd way to test single thread. What I do is set single thread and hit start. Then I immediately change the affinity to just the core I want to test. The first test will be a little low but then it will hold that chosen core for the other single thread test and give correct results. Try this for each of your cores to judge the highest performing ones.


I have to do this too, to get cpuz to bench on my preferred core.
Sure it may lose a few points manually jumping from core 0 to preferred core, but that is the best unless cpuz developer use cppc


----------



## rul3s

Hi guys! Yesterday just received my new R9 5950x. Actually I'm running CTR to see where it can go. From the beggining Diagnostics say's it's Silver Sample, not bad:


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

rul3s said:


> Hi guys! Yesterday just received my new R9 5950x. Actually I'm running CTR to see where it can go. From the beggining Diagnostics say's it's Silver Sample, not bad:


Those ctr is not that accurate. If you blow cold air to your case, it will show a better value. Instead of those hydra, ctr, we need the voltage for the specific clock it can run at normal temp. I saw a 48.3/47.3 at 1.2v load or 49/48 at 1.275v load.


----------



## rul3s

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Those ctr is not that accurate. If you blow cold air to your case, it will show a better value. Instead of those hydra, ctr, we need the voltage for the specific clock it can run at normal temp. I saw a 48.3/47.3 at 1.2v load or 49/48 at 1.275v load.


Exactly, yesterday I was doing tests and after doing CTR diagnostic + Tune it throwed me those values:

vCore: 1,05 | CCX0: 4250MHz | CCX1: 4100MHz
Cinebench where running good with those values, but it was opening prime95 and inmediately crash.

Actually I'm doing old-school way, prime95 (10min) + ryzen master manual vCore and MHz . Actually I've got those values:

vCore: 1,00 | CCX0: 3900MHz | CCX1: 3700MHz
vCore: 1,05 | CCX0: 4050MHz | CCX1: 3900MHz

Is there any better way? I'm doing correctly?
I know ryzen usually works best with default config + PBO as better cores can go higher, but I want to know how far I can go with fixed OC on all Core.

Thanks!


----------



## Audioboxer

Having a look at my PBO settings, curve and more all over as my 5950x seems to be lagging behind others a bit. While it's 100% stable, taking off Auto OC 50mhz might seemed to have helped CPU-Z scores a little. HWINFO of course reports max boost of any core is now 5050mhz, whereas before 2 managed 5100mhz, but if the scores are going to be better who cares about that.

Up next a more detailed look at PBO numbers (270/160/190 right now) and probably the slow process of testing each core with benchmarking rather than just pushing for as low as every core can go on the curve while remaining stable.

Watercooled with 4 rads and 17 fans all in, so temps aren't an issue, but it seems it really does matter to try and micro-manage PBO settings for your own chip. Scalar is on AUTO but I often found it didn't do much, other than pump voltage/increase heat a bit.


----------



## iraff1

Same for me regarding your Auto OC findings, i find it way better to set auto OC to 0mhz then just tweak the curve and perhaps add additional voltage to the core offset to get the most out of the cpu... the cpu will try to boost higher with the auto oc boost but will end up losing performance in the tests

When you do single core performance testing with cpu-z using affinity i've found that it doesn't load the correct core. I set cpu-z to single thread, then right after i hit start, i go and set the affinity in task manager. For example if set affinity for CPU Core 5, it loads CPU Core 8, i have no idea what the logic behind that is but it makes it more difficult to work with. Is there a tool that is better to benchmark each single core? perhaps ciner23?


----------



## MyUsername

Audioboxer said:


> Having a look at my PBO settings, curve and more all over as my 5950x seems to be lagging behind others a bit. While it's 100% stable, taking off Auto OC 50mhz might seemed to have helped CPU-Z scores a little. HWINFO of course reports max boost of any core is now 5050mhz, whereas before 2 managed 5100mhz, but if the scores are going to be better who cares about that.
> 
> Up next a more detailed look at PBO numbers (270/160/190 right now) and probably the slow process of testing each core with benchmarking rather than just pushing for as low as every core can go on the curve while remaining stable.
> 
> Watercooled with 4 rads and 17 fans all in, so temps aren't an issue, but it seems it really does matter to try and micro-manage PBO settings for your own chip. Scalar is on AUTO but I often found it didn't do much, other than pump voltage/increase heat a bit.


Auto OC is good for single core performance, but the difference between 0 and 200MHz was 3 points in cpu-z for me, pretty pathetic considering the best/preferred core is trying to boost an extra 200MHz to 5200-5250MHz. With the curve, we know it raises the clock speed at a given fixed voltage. You need to find the maximum speed each core will do while under load, cpu-z, prime95 whatever, I preferred cpu-z as it was quick to measure each core by using the affinity and keeping cpu-z on single core stress test, boost speed will fluctuate or the pc may crash.

Play with the TDC on the PBO. TDC Amps supplies the cpu cores. EDC is total socket in Amps, PPT is total socket in Watts, setting these too low will hurt performance if you increase the TDC. CPU VDD Optimization adjusts the TDC and has no effect on EDC or PPT. My telemetry offset seems to be 77 to get TDC where I want it whatever cpu vdd I set it at.


----------



## Audioboxer

MyUsername said:


> Auto OC is good for single core performance, but the difference between 0 and 200MHz was 3 points in cpu-z for me, pretty pathetic considering the best/preferred core is trying to boost an extra 200MHz to 5200-5250MHz. With the curve, we know it raises the clock speed at a given fixed voltage. You need to find the maximum speed each core will do while under load, cpu-z, prime95 whatever, I preferred cpu-z as it was quick to measure each core by using the affinity and keeping cpu-z on single core stress test, boost speed will fluctuate or the pc may crash.
> 
> Play with the TDC on the PBO. TDC Amps supplies the cpu cores. EDC is total socket in Amps, PPT is total socket in Watts, setting these too low will hurt performance if you increase the TDC. CPU VDD Optimization adjusts the TDC and has no effect on EDC or PPT. My telemetry offset seems to be 77 to get TDC where I want it whatever cpu vdd I set it at.


Funny thing is I get up to 692 in CPU-Z single thread with Auto OC disabled, with it enabled I'm in the 680's. This is despite being stable and yes HWINFO does report those little jumps to 5100mhz opposed to 5050mhz where I am just now.

So at least for me while it is stable Auto OC _seems_ to reduce performance.

It's now turned off and I move to trying to increase my multi thread score a bit more. Single thread nearer 700 would be nice but multicore going from 134xx to nearer 136xx would be better.










Here is my cinebench for multicore. Believe it or not I haven't really used cinebench much, when I really should have doing my curve. I basically just got a curve stable in corecycler then abandoned my CPU for months of learning how to overclock DDR4 lol. Now I've finally finished with my memory I'm going back to trying to take my CPU more seriously.

I believe its said a manually OCed 5950x is probably always going to beat a PBO 5950x for multicore, as I have seen scores in the 30/31xxx, so I don't know how much more room for improvement I can hope for messing with my curve/PBO settings. Getting nearer 30k would be nicer I guess!

*edit *- Switching PBO to motherboard limits (with same curve) results in this










So my question would then be what is holding me back with 270/160/190 on manual PBO settings? I think the motherboard limits are probably something _stupid_ like 4096 for everything lol. Temps before were around 58~60, temps with mobo limits manage to go up to 80.

*edit2* - Seems its EDC










With mobo limits EDC will pull down 220A. PPT is 250, that's fine isn't hitting the 270W cap, and TDC is pushing a bit above the 160A cap.

But me limiting EDC to 190A looks like it's starving some performance left on the table. Going to try a 270/170/230. See what thermals are like.

*edit3* - Found a reasonable balance around 270/165/210










Just shooting TDC to 170 seemed to only introduce a bit of unecessary heat. Likewise, while keeping it at 160 kept temps cooler it seems to leave performance on the table. Showing my slight lack of knowledge here at how very small changes to TDC can actually make a big difference.

EDC seems to simply draw whatever number you punch in, but going to 230 looks like it negatively impacts performance. Staying at 190 seems to starve the CPU a little. Around 210 seems promising.

I've seen some people hit 31k, I'm a fair bit off that, but hey, breaking the 30k barrier just from realising my 270/160/190 was leaving performance on the table because I have the thermal overhead in my loop is a small win! While 84 is still quite high for a temp, this is with a water temp of 27 degrees so the fans are pretty much all turned off. During any sustained real world scenario the temps will be kept in check.

*edit4* - 30306 with same settings but some more background junk closed










I'm still convinced Windows 11 performs worse than Windows 10, so who knows, maybe my score could be a little higher on Windows 10. Still going to try and chase nearer 31k, seen a decent number of people with 5950x's get to around the 30700~31000 mark.


----------



## iraff1

its very easy to push any 5950x chip to 30000+ in r23, whats difficult is getting high single score, it seems very linked to silicone quality and how far you can drop down on the curve optimizer + your cooling solution
i wish my board exposed the telemetry settings, im sure fiddling with these could end up in higher single thread score as well


----------



## Audioboxer

iraff1 said:


> its very easy to push any 5950x chip to 30000+ in r23, whats difficult is getting high single score, it seems very linked to silicone quality and how far you can drop down on the curve optimizer + your cooling solution
> i wish my board exposed the telemetry settings, im sure fiddling with these could end up in higher single thread score as well


Noticing that. Heck, with a good old manual overclock it even seems quite easy to push 31k










Problem there is continually running 1.35v through the chip. So, back to the drawing board to try and get PBO closer to 30700~31000.


----------



## Audioboxer

Question for the pros, I've settled on 270/168/220 and with a curve that has most "weaker" cores at -30, a few around -22 and my best cores ranging from -6 to -17, gets me consistently 30600~30700 in CB23. Which I am happy with. I ran 270/160/190 for months, but after revisting CB23 and testing PBO set to motherboard limits, I noticed TDC managing to hit 167 in HWINFO. PPT was hitting 250w and EDC just always maxes out, so going to 220 was based on testing 190, 200, 210, 220 and seeing what highest CB23 score was.

But I have noticed a few people with a 5950x report results around the same as me, a few even over 31k, with PBO settings much lower, like say 180~190/140/160~180. Is this down to the quality of the silicon or is it down to the curve? I've noticed a few curves that are more reserved, maybe around -10~-20 all in.

I guess what I'm asking is if you more aggressively tune the curve can it result in the CPU wanting to draw more power for the similar results? I can find this out by redoing my curve I guess, but before I go spending 10s more hours doing that thought I should ask. My curve _is_ 100% stable, OCCT, y-cruncher and corecycler have been well used. But when I bought this 5950x my rudimentary understanding of the curve was simply "run it as low as you can!". Now I'm beginning to question that.

Temps aren't an issue, so, in one sense it doesn't matter, but it just interests me to see people running much lower PBO settings and breaking 30k with ease. If I drop my PBO settings it quickly brings me down to 28xxx~29xxx. PPT especially intrigues me, to see HWINFO report it happily drawing 250w during my mobo limits, but people are limiting themselves to 180~190w and still getting 30k+ in CB23 is what is causing me a bit of confusion.


----------



## dk_mic

I didn't test it, but I have read that PPT/TDC/EDC affects the curve. So maybe, ideally you want to tune those first, then the curve. Another thing I have noticed: I could run 100% WHEA free for months (according to HWInfo, which autostarts and I usually check before shutting down the machine). Then after increasing PPT/TDC/EDC, occasionally single WHEA 19 errors are popping up..


----------



## PJVol

Audioboxer said:


> I guess what I'm asking is if you more aggressively tune the curve can it result in the CPU wanting to draw more power for the similar results?


Curve tuning just let your CPU operate at higher frequency within the same restrictions, so why it should consume more? And what "similar results" mean in this context?

As for cb scores, there are two main contributing factors: 
silicon quality and cooling capability.


----------



## Audioboxer

PJVol said:


> Curve tuning just let your CPU operate at higher frequency within the same restrictions, so why it should consume more? And what "similar results" mean in this context?
> 
> As for cb scores, there are two main contributing factors:
> silicon quality and cooling capability.


That's why I'm asking, if I knew for sure I wouldn't be confused about it lol.

Similar results meaning hitting like 30.5~31k but with much lower PBO manual numbers.

Probably silicon then, as I doubt I could get my chip any cooler with my rad surface area and one of the 31k results I seen was on air.


----------



## PJVol

Audioboxer said:


> Probably silicon then, as I doubt I could get my chip any cooler with my rad surface area and one of the 31k results I seen was on air.


Idk, most of 5950x are quite high binning quality chips. Just find minimum tolerable magnitudes for your best 4 cores (two in each ccd, that usually crashes in AVX), then look for the abnormally hot cores, cycling SSE or AVX load per core in occt (if there are such) and which are sensitive to SSE loads, and so may need correction as well, and that's it.


----------



## Audioboxer

I managed to squeeze a bit more out of my curve, in terms of cores being pushed a bit more and being stable










But I feel like I've just sort of met my ceiling around the 308xx mark, without some sort of total overhaul or something.

Millosh_R on Reddit is a heck of an inspiration https://preview.redd.it/3j1n9aqg9v0...bp&s=89c0e34bfa8992d231156781ac2fc294533f1305 cause 31738 on PBO is amazing, but that CPU is managing to sustain 4.7ghz, on PBO, across all-cores 










4.625mhz is the norm for me, leaning on 4.650mhz as the absolute ceiling on a CB23 run. Unless there is substantial performance left on the table I've just not put the hours in to uncover, I'm going to take a guess some chips may well just tap out around here under PBO.


----------



## Audioboxer

Ran one of my first GB5 runs ever, just to move away from CB23 and try and see what kind of scores I'm getting elsewhere, is this decent? https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/11125407

1814/19903.

All the scores down the bottom I'm not really sure what is what, but if anything looks dodgy please advise me thanks.


----------



## KedarWolf

Audioboxer said:


> I managed to squeeze a bit more out of my curve, in terms of cores being pushed a bit more and being stable
> 
> View attachment 2533737
> 
> 
> But I feel like I've just sort of met my ceiling around the 308xx mark, without some sort of total overhaul or something.
> 
> Millosh_R on Reddit is a heck of an inspiration https://preview.redd.it/3j1n9aqg9v0...bp&s=89c0e34bfa8992d231156781ac2fc294533f1305 cause 31738 on PBO is amazing, but that CPU is managing to sustain 4.7ghz, on PBO, across all-cores
> 
> View attachment 2533738
> 
> 
> 4.625mhz is the norm for me, leaning on 4.650mhz as the absolute ceiling on a CB23 run. Unless there is substantial performance left on the table I've just not put the hours in to uncover, I'm going to take a guess some chips may well just tap out around here under PBO.


What are your EDC, PPT, Scaler settings etc.?


----------



## Audioboxer

KedarWolf said:


> What are your EDC, PPT, Scaler settings etc.?


Scalar is set to 1x, as I find it does next to nothing to help me. I think AUTO is 1x which I had it on before manually changing it to 1x.

PPT/TDC/EDC was 270/160/190 until I started using CB23 and found out 270/168/220 was giving me the scores around 308xx. 270/160/190 was struggling to break into 30xxx.

AutoOC flips between AUTO and +50. I find going any higher hurts CB23 scores.


----------



## KedarWolf

Audioboxer said:


> Scalar is set to 1x, as I find it does next to nothing to help me. I think AUTO is 1x which I had it on before manually changing it to 1x.
> 
> PPT/TDC/EDC was 270/160/190 until I started using CB23 and found out 270/168/220 was giving me the scores around 308xx. 270/160/190 was struggling to break into 30xxx.
> 
> AutoOC flips between AUTO and +50. I find going any higher hurts CB23 scores.


Try this, see if it improves your score.


----------



## Audioboxer

KedarWolf said:


> Try this, see if it improves your score.
> 
> View attachment 2533772


Didn't know if you wanted me to copy everything on that screen or just the highlighted? To copy everything I had to change full scale current to 150A, offset value to 45mA and VMR Cstate Control from enabled to disabled










Brought about a very similar score, although HWINFO frequency reporting was wild.










Also noticed TDC seemed to take a hard limit below 168 instead of pretty much maxing that out.

Just tested things there and it seems putting VMR C State control to disabled is what causes the frequencies not to lower? Are we essentially trying to force the frequencies not to _sleep_ under a TDC amp limit or something?

I've seen people mention telemetry before but I've never messed with any of these settings.

*edit* - Hmmm










Just VMR C state disabled, no A/mA










As above but with 150/45.

What catches my eye is a few of my cores under effective clocks struggle to keep up with the others. Does this suggest my curve is too aggressive for those cores? Core 2 and Core 5 to be specific.

IIRC Core 5 is rated as my best core on the first CCD.


----------



## Audioboxer

Getting more confused by the minute, I disabled Global C-State control (Overclocking -> Advanced CPU -> AMD CBS) and also disabled DF C-States manually under the advanced menu. Now the cores seem to be sleeping/idling properly and I've just broke 31k????

I thought to disable Global C-state control as I was wondering if Core 2/5 struggling to keep up above was to do with them trying to sleep or something lmao.

Your settings are still active above @KedarWolf I haven't touched my curve at all, decided to turn off Global C-States control first.


----------



## KedarWolf

Audioboxer said:


> View attachment 2533786
> 
> 
> Getting more confused by the minute, I disabled Global C-State control (Overclocking -> Advanced CPU -> AMD CBS) and also disabled DF C-States manually under the advanced menu. Now the cores seem to be sleeping/idling properly and I've just broke 31k????
> 
> I thought to disable Global C-state control as I was wondering if Core 2/5 struggling to keep up above was to do with them trying to sleep or something lmao.
> 
> Your settings are still active above @KedarWolf I haven't touched my curve at all, decided to turn off Global C-States control first.


Try this too.










And


----------



## Audioboxer

KedarWolf said:


> Try this too.
> 
> View attachment 2533788
> 
> 
> And
> 
> View attachment 2533789
> 
> 
> View attachment 2533790












This is with just your first screenshot, will test others. I think the settings you have in your first screenshot I essentially already had setup? CPPC is found under that other "main menu", Overclocking -> Advanced CPU -> AMD CBS.

So much going on I'm wondering... what is going on? lmao. I only broke over 31k when I turned Global C-State control from Enabled to Disabled. On reading its description in the BIOS it refers to DF C-States. Does this mean because I used that option I had automatically enabled DF C-States? I have no idea what they are other than being told multiple times they're "broken".


----------



## KedarWolf

Audioboxer said:


> View attachment 2533791
> 
> 
> This is with just your first screenshot, will test others. I think the settings you have in your first screenshot I essentially already had setup? CPPC is found under that other "main menu", Overclocking -> Advanced CPU -> AMD CBS.
> 
> So much going on I'm wondering... what is going on? lmao. I only broke over 31k when I turned Global C-State control from Enabled to Disabled. On reading its description in the BIOS it refers to DF C-States. Does this mean because I used that option I had automatically enabled DF C-States? I have no idea what they are other than being told multiple times they're "broken".


The Fixed PO state might improve your score more.


----------



## Audioboxer

KedarWolf said:


> The Fixed PO state might improve your score more.


Scores seem to be about the same, the only thing I'd say possibly hurt them was 10x scalar and 200 AutoOC.

I don't quite understand half the things I've been changing so I'll need to try and pinpoint if it's everything that's helped or did the cstate change kick it off.

I'm guessing you have global c state control set to disabled?


----------



## KedarWolf

Audioboxer said:


> Scores seem to be about the same, the only thing I'd say possibly hurt them was 10x scalar and 200 AutoOC.
> 
> I don't quite understand half the things I've been changing so I'll need to try and pinpoint if it's everything that's helped or did the cstate change kick it off.
> 
> I'm guessing you have global c state control set to disabled?


Yes, I do, Try the PO State with your old Scaler and Boost.


----------



## Audioboxer

KedarWolf said:


> Yes, I do, Try the PO State with your old Scaler and Boost.


Yup, I will do. Is VDD full scale current limiting the TDC? If it is why don't we just reduce the TDC value? Or is that not what it's actually doing?

Only asking because HWINFO is now showing TDC only reaching 74% of its set limit. To be fair, PPT is less as well. I used to hit 250w before, around 200w now.


----------



## KedarWolf

Audioboxer said:


> Yup, I will do. Is VDD full scale current limiting the TDC? If it is why don't we just reduce the TDC value? Or is that not what it's actually doing?
> 
> Only asking because HWINFO is now showing TDC only reaching 74% of its set limit.


It raises the TDC limit. I think it's only showing 74% now because your TDC limit is actually higher.

But you can try Global C States and DF States off and VDD on Auto again too.


----------



## Audioboxer

KedarWolf said:


> It raises the TDC limit. I think it's only showing 74% now because your TDC limit is actually higher.
> 
> But you can try Global C States and DF States off and VDD on Auto again too.


Oh wait, good point lol. Got confused reading that.

The wattage is definitely lower though as I read that per the figure rather than just the %. CB23 was the one thing capable of drawing 250w previously, but it's around 200w just now. If the score is higher though I'm not complaining!

Last one is that VMR C state. Do you know what that refers to?


----------



## KedarWolf

Audioboxer said:


> Oh wait, good point lol. Got confused reading that.
> 
> The wattage is definitely lower though as I read that per the figure rather than just the %. CB23 was the one thing capable of drawing 250w previously, but it's around 200w just now. If the score is higher though I'm not complaining!
> 
> Last one is that VMR C state. Do you know what that refers to?


I think it refers to the VRMs but I could be wrong.


----------



## Dannyz

Hey guys,

hoping to get a bit of advice here as I'm stumped with this one. 
Previously for my 5900X,I had PBO2 enabled with CO and had a -30 offset for all the cores. 
This allowed me to get around 22.5K-23K in CB23 multi-core score and about 1640-1650 single-core score
However this was not stable and I would have random restarts during idle or lightly threaded workloads. 
I brought this down to -25 offset for all the cores but it still wasn't stable as I did have a random restart and after finally downloading corecycler to check stability, Core 0 errored withing 3 minutes. 

So after tweaking each core individually I ended up with the following 
-25 -20 -15 -20 -10 -25 -25 -17 -25 -25 -25 -10 
This set up seems to be pretty stable, as I did also run core cycler straight for 3 days and haven't also had any sort of restarts/crashes during idle or lightly threaded workloads. 
However while my multi-core score seems to be the same for the most part for, my 5900X doesn't want to boost past 4.9GHz during single core workloads. Where as before it could sustain close to 5GHz. My cb23 single core score has dropped down to 1610-1615.

PPT 180
TDC 140
EDC 160
Scaler x1
AutoOC Offset 100MHz

SPECS
CPU: 5900X
CPU Cooler: Thermaltake TH360 push-pull
Mobo: Gigabyte X570 Aorus Master F34 bios update
RAM: G Skill 4x8GB 3733 Cl16
GPU: EVGA XC RTX 2080
SSD: Samsung 970 Evo plus 1TB
PSU: Corsair RM850X

Changing the power limits, scalar value, and offset barely impacts the scores. I don't think I'm thermally limited here since under the MC load, the cpu will top out at around 80C, so its got a bit of head room left and under the CB23 single core test it sits at around 65C since that's how hot that core gets.  

If anyone has any suggestions please let me know.


----------



## 1devomer

KedarWolf said:


> I think it refers to the VRMs but I could be wrong.


Usually there is an option to choose to run the VRM with all the phase up at all time.
Or a dynamic power saving mode, where only the phases needed at the moment are powered up.
So over light load maybe 4 phases are up, when going full load all the phases turn on.

If there is no other named option in the bios taking care of that, it is mostly what this option does.
Personally, i always run full phase mode, with phase balance setting going for current instead of powerstages T°.


----------



## Luggage

Don’t know about dual chiplet but, with my 5800x near the optimal tdc limit, very small changes affect the performance


http://imgur.com/a/BT0dCct


And cooling is my number one brute force solution. With more cooling I can push higher limits and if I can still keep it under 61C * boost will go up.








Luggage`s Cinebench - R23 Multi Core with BenchMate score: 16749 cb with a Ryzen 7 5800X


The Ryzen 7 5800X @ 5025.5MHzscores getScoreFormatted in the Cinebench - R23 Multi Core with BenchMate benchmark. Luggageranks #null worldwide and #null in the hardware class. Find out more at HWBOT.




hwbot.org





* for a load like cb23 or cpu-z, observed with Vermeer monitor.

(now I hope for cold weather when I get home next weekend because you’ve given me things I want to test for single core)


----------



## PJVol

Dannyz said:


> hoping to get a bit of advice here as I'm stumped with this one


Its hard to advise without certain data provided, i.e. HWInfo sensors screens at runtime would definitely help, as well as the idle CPU load (%) and temps.
but based on my previous testing with unlocked boost limit, 4950 needs circa 1.4+ V for a single core load, which seems way above what FIT allows at 65°C, although your sample may behave a bit different.


----------



## Audioboxer

@KedarWolf The only difference between these two runs is one is with your VDD full scale current and telemetry offset, one is without. PBO values the same 270/168/220










vs










With such a big difference, it would suggest whatever the full scale current option is doing is overriding "bad" PBO settings? Or is that offset helping in some way as well? I'm asking because I'm wondering should I be able to achieve the first score with PBO settings only???

*Edit* - With VMR C state back to enabled score seems to remain stable










I also beat my multicore Geekbench 5 score from earlier https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/11134681 1811/20071


----------



## PJVol

Audioboxer said:


> whatever the full scale current option is doing


This value is the telemetry scale, which CPU rely upon in some cases to calculate the power drawn (actually current, i.e. TDC) from the vddcr_cpu and vddcr_soc rails. So changing that value cheating the CPU.


----------



## Audioboxer

PJVol said:


> This value is the telemetry scale, which CPU rely upon in some cases to calculate the power drawn (actually current, i.e. TDC) from the vddcr_cpu and vddcr_soc rails. So changing that value cheating the CPU.


When you say cheating the CPU does this mean the result is "incorrect" or suggesting it's something we shouldn't be doing?


----------



## dk_mic

@Audioboxer i found this an interesting read regarding telemetry





Explaining the AMD Ryzen "Power Reporting Deviation" -metric in HWiNFO


Ryzen CPUs for AM4 platform rely on external, motherboard sourced telemetry to determine their power consumption. The voltage, current and power telemetry is provided to the processor by the motherboard VRM controller through the AMD SVI2 interface. This information is consumed by the processors...




www.hwinfo.com


----------



## PJVol

The result is correct, but the CPU is operating outside of AMD official specs.
You should decide yourself, but before that I'd advise you to read some posts (basically first ten) from the "Power reporting deviation" thread on a HWInfo forum.


----------



## Audioboxer

dk_mic said:


> @Audioboxer i found this an interesting read regarding telemetry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explaining the AMD Ryzen "Power Reporting Deviation" -metric in HWiNFO
> 
> 
> Ryzen CPUs for AM4 platform rely on external, motherboard sourced telemetry to determine their power consumption. The voltage, current and power telemetry is provided to the processor by the motherboard VRM controller through the AMD SVI2 interface. This information is consumed by the processors...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hwinfo.com





PJVol said:


> The result is correct, but CPU is operating outside of AMD specs.
> You should decide yourself, but before that I'd advise you to read some posts (basically first ten) from the "Power reporting deviation" thread on a HWInfo forum.





> The reference value mentioned earlier is generally different for each of the motherboard make and model, unless there are boards which have an identical power circuitry. Because of that, it is on the motherboard manufacturers responsibility to find the correct value for their motherboard design through the means of calibration, and then to declare it properly in AGESA, during the bios compile time. In case the motherboard design specific, correct value differs greatly from the declared value, there will be a bias in the power consumption seen by the CPU. In case the declared value is greater than the actual value, the power consumption seen by the CPU is greater than it actually is. Likewise, if the declared value would be an understatement... the CPU would think it consumes less power than it actually does.


Interesting. I guess my question here though is with the absolute mess of AMD BIOS and AGESA would it be such a bad thing to run 'out of spec'? Isn't that essentially what OCing is?



> HWiNFO will display "Power Reporting Deviation" metric under the CPUs enhanced sensors. The displayed figure is a percentage, with 100.0% being the completely unbiased baseline. When the motherboard manufacturer has both properly calibrated and declared the reference value, the reported figure should be pretty close to 100% under a stable, near-full-load scenario. A ballpark for a threshold, where the readings become suspicious is around ±5%. So, if you see an average value that is significantly lower than ~ 95% there is most likely intentional biasing going on. Obviously, the figure can be greater than 100%, but for the obvious reasons it rarely is


But yes, this is observable, it's the first thing I noticed. TDC reporting at 74% whereas it would be around 96%+ without telemetry set.



> With 150A setting (50% of the actual), the average HWiNFO "Power Reporting Deviation" during Cinebench R20 NT is 50.2%. With this setting, the average CPU core frequency is 4106.6MHz, power consumption seen by the CPU 91.553W (of 142W limit) and peak CPU temperature of 79°C. This setting is already limited by maximum voltage allowed by the silicon fitness (FIT), so there were pretty much no addition performance gains, or ill-effects for that matter to be had.


150A is what I have it set at, but there is a noticeable performance gain. My temps aren't really any different.










What I'm finding hard to grasp here though is what is telling the truth with this 'exploit'? Even although I've read the above from The Stilt I'm still confused by how when I use telemetry my PPT is at 180w, and TDC is reporting 112A but my benchmarks are the best they've ever been?

If I actually set PPT to 180 and TDC to like 115, without telemetry, and ran benchmarks the results would be _horrible_.

*edit* - HWINFO figures above are without a CB23, forgot I had only run GB5 on this reboot. CB always draws more on PPT










191w for PPT and only 121 on TDC. Only thing that runs at 100% is EDC. So are these HWINFO PPT/TDC numbers incorrect because of the exploit? Meaning the real numbers are much higher which is the cause for concern when you think about cooling/heat/wattage/amps?

My 308xx score without telemetry were pulling in 250w and 166A for PPT/TDC. So to me looking at the above and seeing 313xx with those HWINFO figures just seems like... something is _lying_.

So if power reporting accuracy could be as low as 58.9% does that mean the actual TDC under 100% load is not 121A but could be around 200~230A? That's my confusion reading that topic. Obviously setting TDC to 230 is 'out of spec', but if I didn't use telemetry and set it to that under PBO it would likely cap at around 166A in the reporting. I seen this previously when I set PBO to motherboard limits and ran a CB23, the highest TDC value used was 166A. This is why I originally chose 168 for my TDC setting, just above the max figure I was able to see during testing.

Is this exploit forcing the CPU to go above its "max" draw within spec and that is what out of spec refers to? If that is the case I probably wouldn't feel comfortable running this even with great cooling. I don't like the idea I can't see what the "real" power draw is in HWINFO.



> Since at least two of the largest motherboard manufacturers, still insist on using this exploit to gain an advantage over their competitors despite being constantly asked and told not to, we thought it would be only fair to allow the consumers to see if their boards are doing something they're not supposed to do. The issue with using this exploit is, that it messes up the power management of the CPU and potentially also decreases its lifespan because it is running the CPU outside the spec, in some cases by a vast margin. Also, it can cause issues when this exploit goes undetected by a hardware reviewer, since both the performance and the sofware based power consumption figures will be affected by it.


I do agree with this conclusion as well, talk about a way to manipulate the playing field for reviews. As I said above I am now concerned about being fed figures that appear to be vastly incorrect, and if I can't find out how to understand what my actual wattage/amp draw is, I don't think I can persist using telemetry like this no matter how excited I was to see better scores 

*edit* - I just tested a game that supports multithreading now, ESO, and there is no doubt reported CPU frequencies are simply much better. Often running at 5000mhz and above during gameplay, with a floor around 4.9~4.925. Whereas without telemetry I'd be seeing thing more commonly around 4.8x~4.9x, rarely peaking at 5000mhz. Again though, the question is what exactly is being pushed through the chip to achieve this if HWINFO can't be trusted?


----------



## Audioboxer

To follow up from above the major change that seemed to have resulted in higher CB23 scores is the sustained all-core load boosts. Here for example during y-cruncher it's clear to see 4.7xx is being achieved. 4.650 has often been my best under normal circumstances.

I installed AMD Ryzen Master just to monitor the PPT/TDC/EDC values and usage and unfortunately like with HWINFO the figures being reported under heavy load just don't seem to be realistic. So it's not just HWINFO reporting wrong.

One hell of an exploit, lets put it that way. It reminds me of the EDC bug on my 3900XT, though my temps aren't changing doing this. The EDC bug caused a big change in thermals. The worry is what is the actual wattage or amp draw going through the processor to achieve these all core boost results during heavy loads? I don't even know if I can trust core voltage, reporting that 1.481v is the highest peak achieved just seems nonsense. I often see 1.5v hit here under any other set of BIOS timings without telemetry.


----------



## JohnnyFlash

Audioboxer said:


> To follow up from above the major change that seemed to have resulted in higher CB23 scores is the sustained all-core load boosts. Here for example during y-cruncher it's clear to see 4.7xx is being achieved. 4.650 has often been my best under normal circumstances.
> 
> I installed AMD Ryzen Master just to monitor the PPT/TDC/EDC values and usage and unfortunately like with HWINFO the figures being reported under heavy load just don't seem to be realistic. So it's not just HWINFO reporting wrong.
> 
> One hell of an exploit, lets put it that way. It reminds me of the EDC bug on my 3900XT, though my temps aren't changing doing this. The EDC bug caused a big change in thermals. The worry is what is the actual wattage or amp draw going through the processor to achieve these all core boost results during heavy loads? I don't even know if I can trust core voltage, reporting that 1.481v is the highest peak achieved just seems nonsense. I often see 1.5v hit here under any other set of BIOS timings without telemetry.


They are realistic, they really pushed everything as far as they could to get max performance.

I spent the weekend extensively testing PBO vs all core and the voltage PBO uses up to 4.3 is within 0.15v of the manual voltage needed to pass PrimeAVX2 for 10 min.


----------



## Audioboxer

JohnnyFlash said:


> They are realistic, they really pushed everything as far as they could to get max performance.
> 
> I spent the weekend extensively testing PBO vs all core and the voltage PBO uses up to 4.3 is within 0.15v of the manual voltage needed to pass PrimeAVX2 for 10 min.


Nah, the above isn't "normal PBO", it's abusing some sort of "bias exploit" spoken about here Explaining the AMD Ryzen "Power Reporting Deviation" -metric in HWiNFO

The figures the chip is reporting in HWINFO are simply wrong, they seem to be underreported. Normal PBO I'm hitting 1.5v max easily on boost, above it's gone to 1.488 and just stopped there. Despite CB23 scores like this










Though I did run the above in safe mode, was wanting to test how much Windows background junk can hurt CB23. Seems like with AIDA a clean Windows experience helps, first time I've gotten into 314xx.

One of these days I'm going to need to setup a bench boot USB for Windows for testing. As in a completely minimal environment with half the OS removed lol.


----------



## KedarWolf

Audioboxer said:


> Nah, the above isn't "normal PBO", it's abusing some sort of "bias exploit" spoken about here Explaining the AMD Ryzen "Power Reporting Deviation" -metric in HWiNFO
> 
> The figures the chip is reporting in HWINFO are simply wrong, they seem to be underreported. Normal PBO I'm hitting 1.5v max easily on boost, above it's gone to 1.488 and just stopped there. Despite CB23 scores like this
> 
> View attachment 2533912
> 
> 
> Though I did run the above in safe mode, was wanting to test how much Windows background junk can hurt CB23. Seems like with AIDA a clean Windows experience helps, first time I've gotten into 314xx.
> 
> One of these days I'm going to need to setup a bench boot USB for Windows for testing. As in a completely minimal environment with half the OS removed lol.


Stripped Bench ISO, but I'm going to improve it, I found a bunch more services I can disable.






Win10BenchISO.zip







drive.google.com


----------



## KedarWolf

Win10BenchISO.zip







drive.google.com





*New and improved benching ISO, stripped, services disabled.*

Windows 10 LTSC 2021, lots of services disabled and all bloatware removed.

Tested as working in VMWare.

There will be no printing, no audio no Wi-Fi, no Bluetooth etc. just a bare-bones Win 10 operating system strictly for benching.

Before installing the O/S, you might want to back up your existing O/S with a Macrium Reflect Free boot USB you make in 'Other Tasks' in the software.

Or just install the Windows 10 to a spare M.2 or SSD to dual boot with your existing O/S.

READ the README.txt in the .zip file, there are some more things to disable with Autoruns and you need to install your chipset drivers and use the included NVCleanstall_1.12.0.exe to install Nvidia drivers.

Burn the ISO with the included RUFUS and can only be used as a clean Windows install.


----------



## Imprezzion

I have a B550-XE with a retail 5900X in the mail right now, should be here in 2-3 days. I need a new block for it tho as my block doesn't have AMD mounts and can't retrofit them either. 

Which block should I get? I have a Nemesis GTX 420 + 240 loop, push pull, single EK D5 XRes 140, GPU in the loop as well on a 3080 Bykski full cover block. Currently I use a EK Supremacy harvested from a EK Phoenix kit which cannot swap mounting brackets. 

I can get a EK Magnitude AM4 block used for €120, a new TechN block for €99 (I live in the Netherlands, TechN Germany is 1 day free shipping), Something cheaper like a Alphacool XPX for like €60 or something else maybe? I don't want a Optimus. Shipping takes too long and too expensive..

I am really leaning to the TechN block.

And should I use Liquid Metal or normal TIM like PK-3 or MX-5.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Imprezzion said:


> I have a B550-XE with a retail 5900X in the mail right now, should be here in 2-3 days. I need a new block for it tho as my block doesn't have AMD mounts and can't retrofit them either.
> 
> Which block should I get? I have a Nemesis GTX 420 + 240 loop, push pull, single EK D5 XRes 140, GPU in the loop as well on a 3080 Bykski full cover block. Currently I use a EK Supremacy harvested from a EK Phoenix kit which cannot swap mounting brackets.
> 
> I can get a EK Magnitude AM4 block used for €120, a new TechN block for €99 (I live in the Netherlands, TechN Germany is 1 day free shipping), Something cheaper like a Alphacool XPX for like €60 or something else maybe? I don't want a Optimus. Shipping takes too long and too expensive..
> 
> I am really leaning to the TechN block.
> 
> And should I use Liquid Metal or normal TIM like PK-3 or MX-5.


TechN sounds a right decision..cooling wise and price wise..


----------



## Audioboxer

KedarWolf said:


> Win10BenchISO.zip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *New and improved benching ISO, stripped, services disabled.*
> 
> Windows 10 LTSC 2021, lots of services disabled and all bloatware removed.
> 
> Tested as working in VMWare.
> 
> There will be no printing, no audio no Wi-Fi, no Bluetooth etc. just a bare-bones Win 10 operating system strictly for benching.
> 
> Before installing the O/S, you might want to back up your existing O/S with a Macrium Reflect Free boot USB you make in 'Other Tasks' in the software.
> 
> Or just install the Windows 10 to a spare M.2 or SSD to dual boot with your existing O/S.
> 
> READ the README.txt in the .zip file, there are some more things to disable with Autoruns and you need to install your chipset drivers and use the included NVCleanstall_1.12.0.exe to install Nvidia drivers.
> 
> Burn the ISO with the included RUFUS and can only be used as a clean Windows install.


Thanks Kedar, really appreciate this. Will now look at the best way I have to dual boot this.

As of now I'm still looking into using telemetry as you advised me to. I'm absolutely chuffed about the results and my thermals are totally fine, but I'm still a bit concerned about knowing just what is being pushed through my chip to achieve the great boosts it is now displaying.

PRD whilst running CB23 is like 72%, which I've now been led to believe means whatever HWINFO is reporting the PPT/TDC figure as is only... 72% correct? So if PPT says its 202W and TDC says its 130A, that is only 72% of the real figure?


----------



## PJVol

Audioboxer said:


> that is only 72% of the real figure?


yep


----------



## Audioboxer

PJVol said:


> yep


My question would then be why is it if I set PPT/TDC to 100% of the value does CB23 scores not result in what I have now? Because that obviously doesn't happen. I've got no issues running PPT at 250~270 or TDC at 160~180, but the only thing that actually results in boost clocks like I have now is doing this exploit.

If it's 100% the case the real PPT/TDC figure is around those numbers "behind the scenes", then I have no issues running this exploit. I've watched my chip hit 250w and 167A itself running PBO mobo limits. So it's not as if this exploit is pushing it much harder than that. On the basis of the 72% PRD figure when CB23 is running.

But when my chip hit 250w and 167A itself the CB23 score was around 30800 because the all core boost frequencies were lower. Would I be incorrect to guess the reason the frequencies are lower at these values is because AMD presumes the thermals running higher frequencies at this power draw is 'out of spec'? But this exploit tricks the CPU into keeping frequencies higher because it thinks the PPT/TDC values are actually lower?

If that is what is happening then one has to question whether or not the 'spec' needs tweaked? Frequencies shouldn't be "throttling" unless thermals are actually an issue. IMO. Though I guess those who actually know what they're talking about could tell me higher frequencies combined with higher power draw lessens lifespan even under good temps.

Still, I'm not sitting around running my CPU at 100% day after day doing video encoding. With the decent increase to boost clocks during gaming as well I think I'm going to stay where I am and simply monitor temps. I've done my OCCT and y-cruncher CPU stability checks, and I'm not experiencing any issues.

The only thing I'm a little concerned about is my CORE VIDs reporting 1.481~1.488v max. Previously this could hit 1.5v quite easily with PBO. I would of course want to be assured 1.481v is not just 72% of any actual value lmao. Ryzen Master reports a peak core voltage of 1.43v when CB23 is running.










Only thing I've noticed under Ryzen Master is the average core voltage doesn't seem to drop as low as I used to remember it doing during idle.

HWINFO seems to report 0.963v as minimum.


----------



## MyUsername

Audioboxer said:


> Thanks Kedar, really appreciate this. Will now look at the best way I have to dual boot this.
> 
> As of now I'm still looking into using telemetry as you advised me to. I'm absolutely chuffed about the results and my thermals are totally fine, but I'm still a bit concerned about knowing just what is being pushed through my chip to achieve the great boosts it is now displaying.
> 
> PRD whilst running CB23 is like 72%, which I've now been led to believe means whatever HWINFO is reporting the PPT/TDC figure as is only... 72% correct? So if PPT says its 202W and TDC says its 130A, that is only 72% of the real figure?


Use the telemetry offset to get PPT and TDC near 100% PRD.


----------



## Audioboxer

MyUsername said:


> Use the telemetry offset to get PPT and TDC near 100% PRD.


I'll have a look at playing with that number then. Haven't changed the 150A or the 45mA so far because of results. If changing the 45mA lowers performance substantially it will be going right back lol. But yeah I'll see if going up/down changes that 72% PRD when running CB23.


----------



## Audioboxer

85mA has resulted in a 97% rate for PRD, including TDC now reporting at 100% at 168A and PPT reporting at 92.8% at 250W.










But this has also resulted in my CB23 scores being back down around 308xx~309xx. Squeezed out one run over 31k, but only just.

CB23 does seem to be pretty inconsistent run to run, sometimes varying by up to 100~200 points, but so far I think increasing the mA offset is lowering sustained boost a little. Will keep testing.

*Edit* - Possibly just Windows being Windows










Here is a run under selective startup, so most junk disabled. 312xx is more in line with what I'd expect and PRD is at 98.3% under CB23 load. So, the offset value _may_ not have an impact on performance.

It's wild how much CB23 scores can fluctuate. I've seen 308xx right up to 312xx on the same BIOS settings.... And I've had a run at 314xx in safe mode where the only difference was 45mA offset instead of 85mA. But I now question if that simply happened due to safe mode.

*edit2* - After more testing including taking the offset down to like 5 to produce some really low PRD, I don't think it is having an impact on CB23 results. I think I'm just finding out CB23 scores are stupidly sensitive to what is running in the background and/or to every single individual run. A score swinging from 308xx to 312xx just seems to be... Cinebench.

But this now leaves me wondering what is it VDD full scale current does to make scores and performance better with the same PBO figures? If my worry about PRD is "easily fixed" by tweaking the offset, why is it VDD full scale current seems to make PBO perform with higher boosts?


----------



## MyUsername

Audioboxer said:


> 85mA has resulted in a 97% rate for PRD, including TDC now reporting at 100% at 168A and PPT reporting at 92.8% at 250W.
> 
> View attachment 2534022
> 
> 
> But this has also resulted in my CB23 scores being back down around 308xx~309xx. Squeezed out one run over 31k, but only just.
> 
> CB23 does seem to be pretty inconsistent run to run, sometimes varying by up to 100~200 points, but so far I think increasing the mA offset is lowering sustained boost a little. Will keep testing.
> 
> *Edit* - Possibly just Windows being Windows
> 
> View attachment 2534024
> 
> 
> Here is a run under selective startup, so most junk disabled. 312xx is more in line with what I'd expect and PRD is at 98.3% under CB23 load. So, the offset value _may_ not have an impact on performance.
> 
> It's wild how much CB23 scores can fluctuate. I've seen 308xx right up to 312xx on the same BIOS settings.... And I've had a run at 314xx in safe mode where the only difference was 45mA offset instead of 85mA. But I now question if that simply happened due to safe mode.


Keeping the PRD at about 90% or lower may yield better performance until the CPU hits it's FIT limit. Jiggle the numbers, TDC is about 168Amps, set the CPU vdd at 168 and see what happens. I think push the CPU to its thermal limits before it throttles.


----------



## Audioboxer

MyUsername said:


> Keeping the PRD at about 90% or lower may yield better performance until the CPU hits it's FIT limit. Jiggle the numbers, TDC is about 168Amps, set the CPU vdd at 168 and see what happens. I think push the CPU to its thermal limits before it throttles.


An offset of 70mA keeps PRD at pretty much bang on 90%. I'll have a look at full scale current, the 150A figure has just been used as that is what Kedarwolf told me to try.

As above I'm pretty confident now minor changes to the offset aren't seriously changing performance, all I'm finding out is understanding why serious OCers have a test bench or on their main rigs a stripped down Windows installation to do benching on. Some of the fluctuations in scores between runs due to what Windows is running/doing can really throw you off.

Whether it's memory latency or in this case a CB score, run to run can change by a significant amount... whilst still on the same timings/settings.


----------



## PJVol

Audioboxer said:


> CB23 does seem to be pretty inconsistent run to run, sometimes varying by up to 100~200 points


Indeed. AVX CCA/CAC threshold or whatever made it jumpy.


----------



## Piers

5900X with Asus B550-E here. At *stock *and with a PBO undervolt (stock PPT, etc.) limits , seeing SVI2 TFN reported at *1.52v* max and VID up to 1.55v.

Is this considered common or normal? An example of when I saw this was during a game of Civilisation VI - a fairly CPU-intensive game. 

I've created a thread about it in the wrong area, but there's much more detail and HWINFO screenshots. Would truly appreciate any feedback.


----------



## Luggage

@Audioboxer you should be used to it from Aida  throw away the first run and get an average of 3-5


----------



## Piers

In addition to OFFICIAL 5900X and 5950X two chiplet Zen 3 CPUs...

Meant to add, during a *gaming load* (Civ VI), SVI2 TFN also reaches above *1.52v* and VID 1.55v with scalar 1x, an undervolt, and no addition MHz.


----------



## Asmodian

Piers said:


> Meant to add, during a *gaming load* (Civ VI), SVI2 TFN also reaches above *1.52v* and VID 1.55v with scalar 1x, an undervolt, and no addition MHz.


Is LLC really high?


----------



## Piers

Asmodian said:


> Is LLC really high?


Set it from Auto to Level 2 and it produces the same'ish results in HWINFO. That's with a negative Curve and default (AMD) power limits.


----------



## Piers

Here's a new result:


PBO w/ Curve Optimiser (-20 on most cores, -7 on one core, -10 on the rest) stability tested for only ~30 hours )will test more) so far with CoreCycler
Default AMD power limits (PPT, EDC, etc.) for the 5900X
Changing LLC from Auto to Level 2

Testing with CB R23 single core (which previously produced a result of 1.529v SVI2 TFN and 1.550v VID), so far, although it's only been ~2h 40m, SVI2 TFN looks normal, though I still don't like the fact the CPU goes over 1.500v at stock.


----------



## PJVol

Piers said:


> I still don't like the fact the CPU goes over 1.500v at stock.


IIRC max vid for the 105W parts is 1.55V, so don't think it's something to worry about, unless you set your external supply load-line resistance so low that it can't effectively combat VDD overshoots.



Audioboxer said:


> why is it VDD full scale current seems to make PBO perform with higher boosts?


I think, this is because the PID controller seems to be "fooled" at the SMU Master's "Package power loop" when estimating new global freq.limit, and as a result, higher frequency request is sent to both Slave SMU's.


----------



## Piers

PJVol said:


> IIRC max vid for the 105W parts is 1.55V, so don't think it's something to worry about, unless you set your external supply load-line resistance so low that it can't effectively combat VDD overshoots.
> 
> I think, this is because the PID controller seems to be "fooled" at the SMU Master's "Package power loop" when estimating new global freq.limit, and as a result, higher frequency request is sent to both Slave SMU's.


Just spoken with AMD again and generated a ticket, sent over information requested and had a phone call from second level support.

He explained that if there's thermal headroom, it's expected the CPU will go over 1.500v briefly due to PB2 (not PBO2).

He said based on the HWINFO data I submitted (which shows 1.520v SVI2 TFN and 1.550v VID under a multi-core load - Civilisation VI) that it's totally normal as the CPU will request additional voltage and the motherboard will deliver - especially if it has a good VRM - if there's room.

This has left me somewhat reassured but also conflicted as it goes against community and tech media (respected publications like Gamers Nexus) advice/statements.

I've only seen a few reports of people with 5900X CPUs having over 1.500v SVI2 TFN, with most having much lower even with the same motherboard.

I've considered disabling CPPC to have higher all-core and lower single-core performance (and lower voltage). 

Any thoughts on any of the above, including AMD's claim, from people here?


----------



## PJVol

Piers said:


> as it goes against community and tech media


And it goes against, how?
Anyway, you may find your max VID (cause i may be wrong) in a ZenTimings debug window, if you scroll it down to the "SMU power table" and look for the value with an offset 0x028


----------



## Piers

PJVol said:


> And it goes against, how?
> Anyway, you may find your max VID (cause i may be wrong) in a ZenTimings debug window, if you scroll it down to the "SMU power table" and look for the value with an offset 0x028


Pretty much every thread I've read has people saying 1.55v is never acceptable on the 5000 (it was on the 3000). 

Will look at that tool and check - thank you!


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Piers said:


> Will look at that tool and check - thank you!


I may have to add as well, the day 1 performance of Ryzen 5000 is very different compared to how it behaves currently and this may as well have an effect on what are you experiencing, AGESA has changed alot since 1.1.9.x upto the current 1.2.x.x it kinda nerfed some stuff and balanced other areas, some default voltages as well were increased (it was an attempt to solve some underlying USB disconnecting issues for some users) and many more, if you still have time to test it out (which will be a hassle, since you already got windows 11 running) you can go back to previous bioses for the Board you have predating the Ryzen 5000 launch..(if my memory serves me right, its about AGESA firmware 1.1.9.x versions) you can try to observe from there..

Though pretty much it won't be much of a help..I've ran on circles as well while I was reading on alot of stuff from elsewhere and within these forums..


----------



## MyUsername

Piers said:


> Pretty much every thread I've read has people saying 1.55v is never acceptable on the 5000 (it was on the 3000).
> 
> Will look at that tool and check - thank you!


1.55v PBO won't damage anything, the CPU will never use that sort of voltage under full load with off the shelf cooling solutions, perhaps under LN2 single core tests with LLC on max, even then I doubt it. Just monitor what it does when you do an all core stress test, it should be between 1.2v-1.3volts ish. The CPU will never kill it's self.


----------



## Piers

MyUsername said:


> 1.55v PBO won't damage anything, the CPU will never use that sort of voltage under full load with off the shelf cooling solutions, perhaps under LN2 single core tests with LLC on max, even then I doubt it. Just monitor what it does when you do an all core stress test, it should be between 1.2v-1.3volts ish. The CPU will never kill it's self.


With LLC at Level 2 and everything else on auto (no PBO), all-core AVX2 loads like Cinebench R23 see clocks boost to ~4.2 GHz and SVI2 TFN at 1.18-1.21v. 
Stock R23
MC: 21,200
SC: 1603

4950 for six cores reported as burst clocks, 4850 for sustained SC load (R23) 

x264 with 24 threads gives clocks of about 4.4 GHz. 

Temps reach about 70, depending on fan speed (360mm CLC)


----------



## MyUsername

Piers said:


> With LLC at Level 2 and everything else on auto (no PBO), all-core AVX2 loads like Cinebench R23 see clocks boost to ~4.2 GHz and SVI2 TFN at 1.18-1.21v.
> Stock R23
> MC: 21,200
> SC: 1603
> 
> 4950 for six cores reported as burst clocks, 4850 for sustained SC load (R23)
> 
> x264 with 24 threads gives clocks of about 4.4 GHz.
> 
> Temps reach about 70, depending on fan speed (360mm CLC)


Looks fine, maybe set the LLC to default or minimum as I don't think there's a real need to play with voltages on these chips. More volts is more heat which is less performance, let the CPU do its thing.


----------



## Audioboxer

MyUsername said:


> 1.55v PBO won't damage anything, the CPU will never use that sort of voltage under full load with off the shelf cooling solutions, perhaps under LN2 single core tests with LLC on max, even then I doubt it. Just monitor what it does when you do an all core stress test, it should be between 1.2v-1.3volts ish. The CPU will never kill it's self.


Not to mention with LLC on auto where it should be when running PBO it can droop safely.

Voltage requested isn't necessarily voltage pushed through the chip.


----------



## Piers

MyUsername said:


> 1.55v PBO won't damage anything, the CPU will never use that sort of voltage under full load with off the shelf cooling solutions,


I meant to add, the reason AMD tech support was initially concerned is because SVI2 TFN reached 1.52v (VID = 1.55v) during Civilisation VI - a multi-core load. That may have been during the loading screen where it seems (at stock) two cores boost to 4.90 GHz, and in-game about 6 threads are reporting 4.7 GHz.

I plan to set LLC back to auto and use my PBO curve (stock power limits) of - 20 for most cores, - 7 for one core, - 10 for a few cores (best cores as per Ryzen Master). It tested stable after 40 hours in Corecycler and I'll let it complete the test.


----------



## jura11

Imprezzion said:


> I have a B550-XE with a retail 5900X in the mail right now, should be here in 2-3 days. I need a new block for it tho as my block doesn't have AMD mounts and can't retrofit them either.
> 
> Which block should I get? I have a Nemesis GTX 420 + 240 loop, push pull, single EK D5 XRes 140, GPU in the loop as well on a 3080 Bykski full cover block. Currently I use a EK Supremacy harvested from a EK Phoenix kit which cannot swap mounting brackets.
> 
> I can get a EK Magnitude AM4 block used for €120, a new TechN block for €99 (I live in the Netherlands, TechN Germany is 1 day free shipping), Something cheaper like a Alphacool XPX for like €60 or something else maybe? I don't want a Optimus. Shipping takes too long and too expensive..
> 
> I am really leaning to the TechN block.
> 
> And should I use Liquid Metal or normal TIM like PK-3 or MX-5.


Hi there 

Personally I would probably get TechN waterblock or Optimus if you can get it in EU

For €60 I would check Bykski CPU-RYZEN-X-MC this one I'm using on my 5950X, prior to swapping to this waterblock I tested and run Aquacomputer Kryos NEXT, Heatkiller IV Pro and Bykski outperforms Kryos NEXT by 6-8°C with 240-250W load with motherboard limits on my loop, previously I would hit 80-82°C with motherboard limits in CB23, now I'm hitting 70-72°C as max

I wouldn't use Supermacy, this block I have tried like on 4790k,5960x and few other CPUs and my old Kryos HF outperformed that block by good 8-10°C

Hope this helps

Thanks, Jura


----------



## Piers

This only covers 45 minutes, but it shows the SVI2 TFN behaviour whilst playing Civilisation VI (which seems to max cores out and keep them ~4.7-4.9 GHz on stock). This is on stock power limits with a negative curve using Curve Optimiser (scalar 1x, no additional MHz). Everything else is default. Other games seems to utilise more cores, which pushes voltage down to ~1.3v for ~7-8 cores, and 1.2v for all 12 cores. 

I thought some may find it interesting.


----------



## PJVol

Can you pls tell me, what the exact reason for your worries? Those 1.52V peaks?


----------



## Piers

PJVol said:


> Can you pls tell me, what the exact reason for your worries? Those 1.52V peaks?


I was concerned by that, but both users here and AMD support has reassured me. Now, I'm more interested in the boost behaviour of the 5900X - it's been a long time since I've been using an AMD platform as my workstation. Here's another graph showing SVI2 TFN behaviour during a game that pushes the CPU to 4900 MHz frequently.

Edit: I meant to add, I'm posting this information here so other people like me - AMD noobies - don't freak out when 20 people on reddit tell them their CPU is going to die within 3 months from normal use.


----------



## Piers

PJVol said:


> And it goes against, how?
> Anyway, you may find your max VID (cause i may be wrong) in a ZenTimings debug window, if you scroll it down to the "SMU power table" and look for the value with an offset 0x028


This is confusing, if that's the correct value, "Offset 028: 1.50000000". Other values with 1.5x in the list are:

Offset 098: 1.50000000
Offset 09C: 1.50000000
Offset 234: 1.50000000


----------



## Piers

MyUsername said:


> 1.55v PBO won't damage anything, the CPU will never use that sort of voltage under full load with off the shelf cooling solutions, perhaps under LN2 single core tests with LLC on max, even then I doubt it. Just monitor what it does when you do an all core stress test, it should be between 1.2v-1.3volts ish. The CPU will never kill it's self.


Using CB R23 as a guide, all-core voltage is ~1.16-1.20v with clocks of 4.175-4.250 GHz. That's with power limits on default (I know from testing that giving more EDC allows the clocks up to ~4.45 GHz) and a small negative per-core curve.


----------



## tcclaviger

Piers said:


> I was concerned by that, but both users here and AMD support has reassured me. Now, I'm more interested in the boost behaviour of the 5900X - it's been a long time since I've been using an AMD platform as my workstation. Here's another graph showing SVI2 TFN behaviour during a game that pushes the CPU to 4900 MHz frequently.
> 
> Edit: I meant to add, I'm posting this information here so other people like me - AMD noobies - don't freak out when 20 people on reddit tell them their CPU is going to die within 3 months from normal use.
> 
> View attachment 2534375
> View attachment 2534375


This is a 5900x right?
AGESA 1.2.0.3c?
Which board?

I ask as it's pretty consistent with what I'm seeing now, CPU actually using its' full range of VIDs. On earlier AGESAs it was far less boosty to the top bin. It's actually a really good thing, something people have been yelling at AMD to fix for 2 years.

For the longest Zen would refuse to hit the top multiplier for a lot of people.

Scalar can trigger spikes like this, and if pushed too high, will cause overboost crashes when paired with max freq override set too high.

Highest PBO performance comes from scalar auto, fine tuned CO, LLC auto, and a small touch of vcore offset + and manipulation of TDC and EDC. Stack it like that and boost will scale higher all the way down to 0c temps (and beyond a touch).

Source is my own testing:
1708 CB23
1870 GB5
8070GB4
722 CPU-z

Any added LLC or Scalar introduces "fake boost" where it's not holding effective clocks but all tools to read out speed will tell you it's running faster.


----------



## Piers

tcclaviger said:


> This is a 5900x right?
> AGESA 1.2.0.3c?
> Which board?
> 
> I ask as it's pretty consistent with what I'm seeing now, CPU actually using its' full range of VIDs. On earlier AGESAs it was far less boosty to the top bin. It's actually a really good thing, something people have been yelling at AMD to fix for 2 years.
> 
> For the longest Zen would refuse to hit the top multiplier for a lot of people.
> 
> Scalar can trigger spikes like this, and if pushed too high, will cause overboost crashes when paired with max freq override set too high.
> 
> Highest PBO performance comes from scalar auto, fine tuned CO, LLC auto, and a small touch of vcore offset + and manipulation of TDC and EDC. Stack it like that and boost will scale higher all the way down to 0c temps (and beyond a touch).
> 
> Source is my own testing:
> 1708 CB23
> 1870 GB5
> 8070GB4
> 722 CPU-z
> 
> Any added LLC or Scalar introduces "fake boost" where it's not holding effective clocks but all tools to read out speed will tell you it's running faster.


The current BIOS I'm using is 2423 from 2021/08/26 with "AGESA V2 PI 1.2.0.3 Patch C"

The backstory behind the increased VID, and therefore vcore, is interesting. I dislike the bursty behaviour of the 5900X (probably due to bias after using Intel for over a decade) and find the core/thread scheduling poor, which is not really AMD's fault.

That being said, after disabling CPPC (resulting in a 1.5% loss in few-core loads, and ~7% increase in all-core loads based on eight standard benchmarks/tests I run including heavy AVX2 workloads), I'm finding performance really snappy and generally responsive. The negative Curve I've set seems OK, and I'm interested in your view on using a Curve but also applying a positive offset to vcore - what led you to that choice/combination?

I've now got LLC set to auto, scalar to 1x, no additional boost MHz. Clocks are reaching the same as before in 1T (including effective clocks), though performance is that 1.5% less due to me disabling CPPC, and higher in sustained all-core, which I'm happy with.

Coming from a 6700K to this monster of a CPU means that stock power limits are fine as they seem to produce decent performance whilst staying efficient. I look at the 12900K and see its 245W use for ~10% extra performance and I'd still pick the 5900X.

One area with my system where I know I lose ~6% performance is by having single rank memory. 2*16GB SR (3600 CL18) leaves room to add another kit, which should help performance.

*Edit: since disabling CPPC, vcore now drops to 0.2v and clocks sleep at 1,740 MHz, which according to the Tech Power Up review (and others) is expected. 

Either it's a crappy Asus BIOS (not unheard of), an AGESA oddity (it's not as though AMD has ever been known for producing good code), or a conflict between Windows 11 and the latest AGESA.*


----------



## tcclaviger

I like your general approach. I tried the same but went back to CPPC enabled. Ok I see you're on a B550-E (Strix right)?

Df states - disabled
Power supply - typical (found this totally fixes the sleeping core crashes at idle)
Both found in AMD section.

I need to say up front, what works for me will definitely _*not*_ carry straight over to an air cooled dual CCD zen 3. I'm on a chiller and hold water at 11-15c, so the chip stays cold (Optimus block, conductonaut, 1.5 gpm flow).

I went back to CPPC enabled because of the spread on my CPU, I have a big delta between fastest 2 cores, hold effective clocks from 5130-5175(3/5) with very little float under single core loads, and my slowest 2, 4950-5020(14/15). It made performance highly variable.

The snappiness you speak of is, ever so slightly reduced, but the performance when gaming or doing CAD is monstrous and not worth trading for me.

Regarding the negative curve offset and then add 2 or 3 notches of positive offeset back comes from, originally Elmore suggested it.

I did my CO with no positive offset, then went and use benchmark scores testing from CPU vcore at auto, and 1 increment at a time raised it and retested. Each increment brought better scores up to +.01875. after that it levels off. We're talking _*very*_ small differences, like 1702 vs 1708 R23 and 281 vs 283 R15.

On my board (Strix x570-e II), it seems to be added without FIT realizing it, and the extra voltage makes VID = GET voltage under load, so the CPU is getting exactly what it wants, and happily chugs along at it's targeted frequency with almost no spikes.

Scalar 1x is not the same as Auto BTW, for me, any scalar value causes overshoot on boost target, then SMU dials it back. This is probably a low temp side effect.

My CO is tuned to +/- 2 per core on CCD 2 and CCD 1 is at +/-1 from instability, so if you're not tuned that tight it may help. I saw your CO is stable as is, sweet, makes playing with PBO power limits easier.

I have never, ever, seen my chip request VID past 1.5, however I have a "bronze" 5950 according to CTR. I imagine a much better CPU may happily request top VID in the table if it calculates the headroom is present based on all the factors.

The best part of the 5900 and 5950 imho... You can change boost aggressive behavior using EDC and TDC.

In my testing highest single core performance is achieved with TDC of 60 and EDC at 90 on my CPU. EDC has a inverse correlation to how opportunistic the boosting is. The lower EDC is, the more aggressive it will behave, at the cost of neutering multicore speeds for motherboards without dynamic oc Switcher. This effect can be used to compensate for bad cooling to some degree.

Then, as Veii has covered I've found best all around performance comes from setting EDC at FUSE limit +1, so for 5900x, if I remember right that's 201, it allows full speed cache, and by not going way too high you retain decent opportunistic behavior.

I set PPT to 300, just to get it out of the way.

TDC I set base on thermals, starting at 200, then hit with R23. I then add 2 amps to the peak observed in R23. For me, that's perfect as I'm not thermally limited, but for being or air cooling just cap it so the CPU stays under your target temp (60-70-80-90 whatever you are comfortable with).

PPT 300 TDC 162 EDC 221 is what I use for mild daily OC, then dynamic switch at 80 amps to a 1.221 GET 47.75 CCD 1 46.5 CCD2 all core OC.

On the Crosshair 7 I did lower TDC to 140 to give it some safety margin on heavy avx2 loads.

This is all contrary to what some people have observed and stated as fact. I'm sure temperature has an impact, but this is all based on testing and verifying performance.

Always keep in mind tech tubers are kind of....wave tops info. Even Steve at GN doesn't dive too far down the rabbit hole. They have an audience, it's dominated by people who will never OC anything beyond clicking auto OC and XMP, so they cater to them.

Claiming things like "water cooling/AIO are a waste of money with Ryzen" was said during Zen 2 early days. When in reality you can track single core performance along a curve that steps up effective clocks every 3 or 4 c.

TBH the only YT channel I even pay attention to anymore is Frame Chasers. He's snarky as ****, but at least he does real OCing as many of us do.


----------



## tcclaviger

Hate to double post but...you're on win 11. Did you install the new AMD chipset driver, the 3.10s?


----------



## Piers

tcclaviger said:


> Hate to double post but...you're on win 11. Did you install the new AMD chipset driver, the 3.10s?


I'm about to double post by replying to your points above  I've installed the three chipset driver revisions (one from Asus, two from AMD) that have been released since Windows 11 live.


----------



## Shenhua

I have a 5900x + b550 carbon wifi and im looking into tweaking it a bit, but there's so many options.......... i dont have any idea where to start.
The CPU is mostly being used for general use, no heavy workloads, and if there are, there's very few and far in between.

Im coming from a 2600 with fixed OC.
Problem with fixed OC on 5900x, is that with 1.2v (1.81 under load in HWINFO), it's hitting 225w in prime95 small fft+ AVX, and im only reaching 4.4ghz stable (probably 4.5 with a bit of fiddling), which is 500mhz loss for gaming loads. 225w on this platform, is pretty much the stability testing limit for my setup (d15 in a meshify C with sw3) because im hitting 90ºC+ at that load.

Stock, im happy with the performance, but it's annoying the fact that temps keep spiking like crazy and under gaming loads it stays around 70-80ºC.
I thought of undervolting via offset with everything on auto, but idk how to test stability on light loads............

There's CTR which which seems to create a lot of bugs and problems..... haven't tried it.

Also PBO 2, which seems to be great except for the fact that at idle seems to be unstable for most ppl.........

Im pretty sure there's a few more options to consider that i dont even know about.............

My main GOAL is to maintain same, or most performance, while dropping the temps as much as posible. Im not worried with the temps, and im happy with the stock performance, but i want to minimize noise.


----------



## Luggage

tcclaviger said:


> I like your general approach. I tried the same but went back to CPPC enabled. Ok I see you're on a B550-E (Strix right)?
> 
> Df states - disabled
> Power supply - typical (found this totally fixes the sleeping core crashes at idle)
> Both found in AMD section.
> 
> I need to say up front, what works for me will definitely _*not*_ carry straight over to an air cooled dual CCD zen 3. I'm on a chiller and hold water at 11-15c, so the chip stays cold (Optimus block, conductonaut, 1.5 gpm flow).
> 
> I went back to CPPC enabled because of the spread on my CPU, I have a big delta between fastest 2 cores, hold effective clocks from 5130-5175(3/5) with very little float under single core loads, and my slowest 2, 4950-5020(14/15). It made performance highly variable.
> 
> The snappiness you speak of is, ever so slightly reduced, but the performance when gaming or doing CAD is monstrous and not worth trading for me.
> 
> Regarding the negative curve offset and then add 2 or 3 notches of positive offeset back comes from, originally Elmore suggested it.
> 
> I did my CO with no positive offset, then went and use benchmark scores testing from CPU vcore at auto, and 1 increment at a time raised it and retested. Each increment brought better scores up to +.01875. after that it levels off. We're talking _*very*_ small differences, like 1702 vs 1708 R23 and 281 vs 283 R15.
> 
> On my board (Strix x570-e II), it seems to be added without FIT realizing it, and the extra voltage makes VID = GET voltage under load, so the CPU is getting exactly what it wants, and happily chugs along at it's targeted frequency with almost no spikes.
> 
> Scalar 1x is not the same as Auto BTW, for me, any scalar value causes overshoot on boost target, then SMU dials it back. This is probably a low temp side effect.
> 
> My CO is tuned to +/- 2 per core on CCD 2 and CCD 1 is at +/-1 from instability, so if you're not tuned that tight it may help. I saw your CO is stable as is, sweet, makes playing with PBO power limits easier.
> 
> I have never, ever, seen my chip request VID past 1.5, however I have a "bronze" 5950 according to CTR. I imagine a much better CPU may happily request top VID in the table if it calculates the headroom is present based on all the factors.
> 
> The best part of the 5900 and 5950 imho... You can change boost aggressive behavior using EDC and TDC.
> 
> In my testing highest single core performance is achieved with TDC of 60 and EDC at 90 on my CPU. EDC has a inverse correlation to how opportunistic the boosting is. The lower EDC is, the more aggressive it will behave, at the cost of neutering multicore speeds for motherboards without dynamic oc Switcher. This effect can be used to compensate for bad cooling to some degree.
> 
> Then, as Veii has covered I've found best all around performance comes from setting EDC at FUSE limit +1, so for 5900x, if I remember right that's 201, it allows full speed cache, and by not going way too high you retain decent opportunistic behavior.
> 
> I set PPT to 300, just to get it out of the way.
> 
> TDC I set base on thermals, starting at 200, then hit with R23. I then add 2 amps to the peak observed in R23. For me, that's perfect as I'm not thermally limited, but for being or air cooling just cap it so the CPU stays under your target temp (60-70-80-90 whatever you are comfortable with).
> 
> PPT 300 TDC 162 EDC 221 is what I use for mild daily OC, then dynamic switch at 80 amps to a 1.221 GET 47.75 CCD 1 46.5 CCD2 all core OC.
> 
> On the Crosshair 7 I did lower TDC to 140 to give it some safety margin on heavy avx2 loads.
> 
> This is all contrary to what some people have observed and stated as fact. I'm sure temperature has an impact, but this is all based on testing and verifying performance.
> 
> Always keep in mind tech tubers are kind of....wave tops info. Even Steve at GN doesn't dive too far down the rabbit hole. They have an audience, it's dominated by people who will never OC anything beyond clicking auto OC and XMP, so they cater to them.
> 
> Claiming things like "water cooling/AIO are a waste of money with Ryzen" was said during Zen 2 early days. When in reality you can track single core performance along a curve that steps up effective clocks every 3 or 4 c.
> 
> TBH the only YT channel I even pay attention to anymore is Frame Chasers. He's snarky as ****, but at least he does real OCing as many of us do.


Yea with a radiator on my balcony the biggest improvements I see is with the dropping temperature. But the is also some “levels” if I can keep core under 61C means you can “max” out ppt and edc. EDC is tricky, around the optimal limit the behavior changes with just small increments. Aaaand the optimal limit changes with workload and cooling :/
Also some workloads like L3 and memory with unlimited edc and tdc as guvernor. Others like all three PBO limits tuned.
And that sc is inverse is the ****tiest design ever


----------



## tcclaviger

Shenhua said:


> I have a 5900x + b550 carbon wifi and im looking into tweaking it a bit, but there's so many options..........
> The CPU is mostly being used for general use, no heavy workloads, and if there are, there's very few and far in between.
> 
> Im coming from a 2600 with fixed OC.
> Problem with fixed OC on 5900x, is that with 1.2v (1.81 under load in HWINFO), it's hitting 225w in prime95 small fft+ AVX, and im only reaching 4.4ghz stable (probably 4.5 with a bit of fiddling), which is 500mhz loss for gaming loads. 225w on this platform, is pretty much the stability testing limit for my setup (d15 in a meshify C with sw3) because im hitting 90ºC+ at that load.
> 
> Stock, im happy with the performance, but it's annoying the fact that temps keep spiking like crazy and under gaming loads it stays around 70-80ºC.
> I thought of undervolting via offset with everything on auto, but idk how to test stability on light loads............
> 
> There's CTR which which seems to create a lot of bugs and problems..... haven't tried it.
> 
> Also PBO 2, which seems to be great except for the fact that at idle seems to be unstable for most ppl.........
> 
> My main GOAL is to maintain same, or most performance, while dropping the temps as much as posible. Im not worried with the temps, and im happy with the stock performance, but i want to minimize noise.


What cooling and what ambient temps? 4.6 -4.7 all core using PBO2 isn't too hard to hit.

My suggestion is as I outline in the post 3 above for PPT TDC and EDC. Use TDC to limit all core workloads temps.

Just accept that single core boost temps will be high. It's because of power gating of the whole CCD, so when 1 core demands 1.5v for 4900mhz, the whole CCD gets 1.5v and it creates extra heat, it's fine.

Use OCCT core cycling feature to quickly test each core out. Go to "Test" section. CPU, small, extreme,variable. Those options are what you want. Then click on number of cores, go to advanced, and check only 1 core, uncheck the rest. In the options below the core selection turn on physical and virtual, as well as cycle core. Set it to 20 seconds.

That will rough in the CO settings as quickly as possible, I start all at -15, watch the screen while it's testing so you can see which core is working when it crashes. Go back to CO menu, reduce offset by 2 or 3, try again. Once no cores are crashing, start raising the cores that never crashed by 2 or 3. Rinse and repeate till all cores are not crashing.

Then get core cycler, open config.ini. 9 minutes duration, prime95, Heavyshort preset, run while not using the PC. It keeps logs, so if it reboots while afk you can look in the log to see which core failed. 

If it fails within the first 3 minutes reduce offset by 2, if it fails after 8 minutes reduce CO for that core by 1. When all are passing change from SSE to AvX2 and repeat.

When SSE and AVX2 are both complete, I then run a 2 hour OCCT core cycle and blender benchmark with all tests. If both pass, congrats you have a stable tailored CO. If you feel the need, you can swap to 9 minute time, ycruncher, and verify with that as well.

Regarding idle crashing, set power supply = typical and DF states = off in AMD section of bios, CBS or NBIO, can't recall ATM. With those set that way I've never had an idle or low power crash again after tuning CO.

Zen 3 doesn't need ages testing like pre-,9th gen Intel when people would run prime or linpack for 24 hours.

With the methods I put above I have seen exactly 0 crashes on 6 months associated with single or multi core loads. All my crashes come from screwing with memory or tripping OCP on multicore (when it tires to pull like 500 watts).


----------



## tcclaviger

Luggage said:


> Yea with a radiator on my balcony the biggest improvements I see is with the dropping temperature. But the is also some “levels” if I can keep core under 61C means you can “max” out ppt and edc. EDC is tricky, around the optimal limit the behavior changes with just small increments. Aaaand the optimal limit changes with workload and cooling :/
> Also some workloads like L3 and memory with unlimited edc and tdc as guvernor. Others like all three PBO limits tuned.
> And that sc is inverse is the ****tiest design ever


There's another big bump in SC performance at 55c and 50c, hold it under 50 and scores jump.

By 2c water temps, so 40 SC load roughly, I can hold steady 5250 effective clocks using PBO. Temp scaling is very real.


----------



## Piers

tcclaviger said:


> I like your general approach. I tried the same but went back to CPPC enabled. Ok I see you're on a B550-E (Strix right)?


Unfortunately, yes, I do have the B550-E with Intel's defective I225-V REV_03 (the one where it's meant to be fixed. My other minor gripe with the board is the 3 USB 3.x ports on the back. One type-C, two type-A. Even my Z170 had more USB3.x than that, but at least it's easily fixable by getting a USB hub).



tcclaviger said:


> Df states - disabled
> Power supply - typical (found this totally fixes the sleeping core crashes at idle)
> Both found in AMD section.


Interesting. I've not witnessed any sleeping core crashes at idle. Cores go from sleeping to full AVX2 load or single-threaded SSE load without a problem (thus far).


I'll need to look in to what "Df states" are and what changing the setting does.
The 'power supply' option sounds interesting - is it as simple as it sounds?



tcclaviger said:


> I need to say up front, what works for me will definitely _*not*_ carry straight over to an air cooled dual CCD zen 3. I'm on a chiller and hold water at 11-15c, so the chip stays cold (Optimus block, conductonaut, 1.5 gpm flow).


Whereas I'm on a 360mm air-cooled radiator. Keeping that 11-15°C must cost a small fortune. What's your setup?



tcclaviger said:


> I went back to CPPC enabled because of the spread on my CPU, I have a big delta between fastest 2 cores, hold effective clocks from 5130-5175(3/5) with very little float under single core loads, and my slowest 2, 4950-5020(14/15). It made performance highly variable.


I don't quite have the same range, but irrespective of that I've so far found the system to perform as I expected - at stock, things felt 'sluggish' - and that's compared to a 6700K - and I couldn't work out why when Zen 3 has +20% IPC over Skylake and higher clocks in general.



tcclaviger said:


> The snappiness you speak of is, ever so slightly reduced, but the performance when gaming or doing CAD is monstrous and not worth trading for me.


And that's where we both seem to have different results. I find that the loss of ~1.5% for few-core usage is just outside variance, but the (up to) 10% performance gain in x264 encoding was impressive. It took an entire 63s off my test file encode time at stock.



tcclaviger said:


> Regarding the negative curve offset and then add 2 or 3 notches of positive offeset back comes from, originally Elmore suggested it.


I've been registered here for nearly 9 years, but certainly not active until I got the 5900X.. Sorry if it's rude, but who is Elmore and what's the rational behind adjusting the curve/table and then adding voltage?



tcclaviger said:


> I did my CO with no positive offset, then went and use benchmark scores testing from CPU vcore at auto, and 1 increment at a time raised it and retested. Each increment brought better scores up to +.01875. after that it levels off. We're talking _*very*_ small differences, like 1702 vs 1708 R23 and 281 vs 283 R15.


I did the ultimate noob move to start with and enabled Asus Performance Enhancement ("APE", which Asus seemed proud of) and that gave great performance with all-core AVX2 loads at ~4.525 GHz @ ~1.31v. It produced some awesome benchmark scores, but it increased the time to encode my test file by over two minutes.



tcclaviger said:


> On my board (Strix x570-e II), it seems to be added without FIT realizing it, and the extra voltage makes VID = GET voltage under load, so the CPU is getting exactly what it wants, and happily chugs along at it's targeted frequency with almost no spikes.


Am I correct in stating that FIT = the voltage (SVI2 TFN) the CPU is using when under an all-core heavy load? I've seen people use FIT and then Gamers Nexus use GET (for the 5900X and 5950X all-core 4.7 GHz overclock) and it's confusing.



tcclaviger said:


> Scalar 1x is not the same as Auto BTW, for me, any scalar value causes overshoot on boost target, then SMU dials it back. This is probably a low temp side effect.


Oh, I suppose that makes sense in many ways. I'm running Corecycler to finish testing my undervolt (author recommends 144 hours of testing - I aim for 100), but when I reboot I'll change that to Auto and run 10 hours of CoreCycler to see how much it impacts voltage.



tcclaviger said:


> My CO is tuned to +/- 2 per core on CCD 2 and CCD 1 is at +/-1 from instability, so if you're not tuned that tight it may help. I saw your CO is stable as is, sweet, makes playing with PBO power limits easier.


I prefer to keep 3 from instability just in case of vdroop. It shouldn't be too much of an impact, but I changed the most stubborn core (core 05 for me, which isn't a great core to start with) from -8 to -7 and it failed the first time, but then didn't fail after a reboot.
[/quote]



tcclaviger said:


> I have never, ever, seen my chip request VID past 1.5, however I have a "bronze" 5950 according to CTR. I imagine a much better CPU may happily request top VID in the table if it calculates the headroom is present based on all the factors.


CTR reported mine as being a "Silver" sample when following the author's instructions (setting LLC manually to level 3, or middle). I don't really trust it.



tcclaviger said:


> The best part of the 5900 and 5950 imho... You can change boost aggressive behavior using EDC and TDC.
> 
> In my testing highest single core performance is achieved with TDC of 60 and EDC at 90 on my CPU. EDC has a inverse correlation to how opportunistic the boosting is. The lower EDC is, the more aggressive it will behave, at the cost of neutering multicore speeds for motherboards without dynamic oc Switcher. This effect can be used to compensate for bad cooling to some degree.


I've been trying to understand the relationship between EDC and TDC and how it impacts behaviour of the CPU in general. Using 'motherboard limits' under PBO sets PPT to 1,000, TDC to 1,000, and EDC to 190 (or possibly 200 - can't remember) and all it did was produce heat, which is to be expected, with power draw reported about 45 watts more than stock. 

IIRC, the stock for the 5900X is PPT: 142W / TDC:90A / EDC:140A. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're achieving that high CB R23 in-part due to aggressive limits on amperage - a factor which causes the CPU to boost even more? Seems counterintuitive but still fascinating.

I don't believe my board has any sort of dynamic OC switching.



tcclaviger said:


> Then, as Veii has covered I've found best all around performance comes from setting EDC at FUSE limit +1, so for 5900x, if I remember right that's 201, it allows full speed cache, and by not going way too high you retain decent opportunistic behavior.
> 
> I set PPT to 300, just to get it out of the way.


One thing I've not tried is keeping PPT and EDC stock, but increasing TDC over that of EDC. What would you expect from that?



tcclaviger said:


> TDC I set base on thermals, starting at 200, then hit with R23. I then add 2 amps to the peak observed in R23. For me, that's perfect as I'm not thermally limited, but for being or air cooling just cap it so the CPU stays under your target temp (60-70-80-90 whatever you are comfortable with).


I've found that disabling CPPC has reduced thermals, but also when playing with PBO and even using the obscene motherboard limits, thermals remained ~10°C higher with the max spike being (I think) 83°C and the average being high 70s. Earlier on, I did a 100 minute CB R23 all-core loop and the highest temp (with fans set at 1,700 RPM out of ~2,500) was sustained at 69°C. Not bad for an all-core AVX2 load (I know I mention AVX2 a lot but I don't see how people don't realise they use it frequently in games and other applications, or at the very least use AVX if the software is very old).



tcclaviger said:


> PPT 300 TDC 162 EDC 221 is what I use for mild daily OC, then dynamic switch at 80 amps to a 1.221 GET 47.75 CCD 1 46.5 CCD2 all core OC.
> 
> On the Crosshair 7 I did lower TDC to 140 to give it some safety margin on heavy avx2 loads.


And that's where those boards offer a good value-added feature. When I ran CTR, it gave a P2 (I think it was P2 - the second one on the table) recommendation for CC0 of 4750 and CCD1 of 4500. It was at that point I uninstalled it and deleted the settings/profiles it saved as I want to try and extract as much from 'stock' settings as possible, and ideally look at ways of reducing power draw whilst maintaining performance. The cost per kWh in my part of England is £0.2144 (yes, really for decimal places) which converts to ~US$0.28. Gamers Nexus did a bit of napkin maths and looked at cost per Blender render hour with the 5950X and 12900K when taking all factors into consideration, so a very fair comparison - the latter was twice the cost which can add up quickly.



tcclaviger said:


> This is all contrary to what some people have observed and stated as fact. I'm sure temperature has an impact, but this is all based on testing and verifying performance.
> 
> Always keep in mind tech tubers are kind of....wave tops info. Even Steve at GN doesn't dive too far down the rabbit hole. They have an audience, it's dominated by people who will never OC anything beyond clicking auto OC and XMP, so they cater to them.


I do miss Steve's (and even Linus') non-scripted overclocking videos. They were enjoyable to watch and, I believe, created less confusion. At least Steve did an LN2 live stream with the 5950X and it was enjoyable.



tcclaviger said:


> Claiming things like "water cooling/AIO are a waste of money with Ryzen" was said during Zen 2 early days. When in reality you can track single core performance along a curve that steps up effective clocks every 3 or 4 c.


That's just clearly absurd. My office ambient temperature is rather warm, so I have an AIO (also on the GPU) to brute force the cooling and have done so for years. I hate to think of those in developing nations where they may not have air conditioning but see indoor temperatures of over 30°C - they certainly need AIOs/CLCs. 



tcclaviger said:


> TBH the only YT channel I even pay attention to anymore is Frame Chasers. He's snarky as ****, but at least he does real OCing as many of us do.


I will have to check him out - not heard of him before. I like to play with overclocking, but I'm more interested in the technical part of it instead of actually doing it. Perhaps that's not the best way of putting it as I'm sure most here enjoy both. For me, it's the technology (which is why I wish AMD released more detailed documentation). An example is me sitting near my PC and rather than thinking of the components, I'm more interested in the TSMC "7nm" process and Samsung's equivalent "8nm".

Sorry for the wall of text. If you made it to the end, I owe you a beer once the pandemic ends.


----------



## Piers

Shenhua said:


> I have a 5900x + b550 carbon wifi and im looking into tweaking it a bit, but there's so many options.......... i dont have any idea where to start.
> The CPU is mostly being used for general use, no heavy workloads, and if there are, there's very few and far in between.
> 
> Im coming from a 2600 with fixed OC.
> Problem with fixed OC on 5900x, is that with 1.2v (1.81 under load in HWINFO), it's hitting 225w in prime95 small fft+ AVX, and im only reaching 4.4ghz stable (probably 4.5 with a bit of fiddling), which is 500mhz loss for gaming loads. 225w on this platform, is pretty much the stability testing limit for my setup (d15 in a meshify C with sw3) because im hitting 90ºC+ at that load.
> 
> Stock, im happy with the performance, but it's annoying the fact that temps keep spiking like crazy and under gaming loads it stays around 70-80ºC.
> I thought of undervolting via offset with everything on auto, but idk how to test stability on light loads............
> 
> There's CTR which which seems to create a lot of bugs and problems..... haven't tried it.
> 
> Also PBO 2, which seems to be great except for the fact that at idle seems to be unstable for most ppl.........
> 
> Im pretty sure there's a few more options to consider that i dont even know about.............
> 
> My main GOAL is to maintain same, or most performance, while dropping the temps as much as posible. Im not worried with the temps, and im happy with the stock performance, but i want to minimize noise.


I was (and still partly am) in the same situation. I came from a 6700K to the 5900X. You might find some useful info in this thread (it's about the motherboard, but alot of info is there about the CPU and you can see values I and others suggest - plus it means you don't have to go through 40+ pages).


----------



## Shenhua

tcclaviger said:


> What cooling and what ambient temps? 4.6 -4.7 all core using PBO2 isn't too hard to hit.
> 
> My suggestion is as I outline in the post 3 above for PPT TDC and EDC. Use TDC to limit all core workloads temps.
> 
> Just accept that single core boost temps will be high. It's because of power gating of the whole CCD, so when 1 core demands 1.5v for 4900mhz, the whole CCD gets 1.5v and it creates extra heat, it's fine.
> 
> Use OCCT core cycling feature to quickly test each core out. Go to "Test" section. CPU, small, extreme,variable. Those options are what you want. Then click on number of cores, go to advanced, and check only 1 core, uncheck the rest. In the options below the core selection turn on physical and virtual, as well as cycle core. Set it to 20 seconds.
> 
> That will rough in the CO settings as quickly as possible, I start all at -15, watch the screen while it's testing so you can see which core is working when it crashes. Go back to CO menu, reduce offset by 2 or 3, try again. Once no cores are crashing, start raising the cores that never crashed by 2 or 3. Rinse and repeate till all cores are not crashing.
> 
> Then get core cycler, open config.ini. 9 minutes duration, prime95, Heavyshort preset, run while not using the PC. It keeps logs, so if it reboots while afk you can look in the log to see which core failed.
> 
> If it fails within the first 3 minutes reduce offset by 2, if it fails after 8 minutes reduce CO for that core by 1. When all are passing change from SSE to AvX2 and repeat.
> 
> When SSE and AVX2 are both complete, I then run a 2 hour OCCT core cycle and blender benchmark with all tests. If both pass, congrats you have a stable tailored CO. If you feel the need, you can swap to 9 minute time, ycruncher, and verify with that as well.
> 
> Regarding idle crashing, set power supply = typical and DF states = off in AMD section of bios, CBS or NBIO, can't recall ATM. With those set that way I've never had an idle or low power crash again after tuning CO.
> 
> Zen 3 doesn't need ages testing like pre-,9th gen Intel when people would run prime or linpack for 24 hours.
> 
> With the methods I put above I have seen exactly 0 crashes on 6 months associated with single or multi core loads. All my crashes come from screwing with memory or tripping OCP on multicore (when it tires to pull like 500 watts).


Tbh i would take 4.6-4.7 even on few cores, while keeping multicore intact, if i can reduce peak voltage on low loads to something like 1.35-1.4v and shave off 10ºC.

22ºC ambient. D15 (only middle fan), sw3 front, 1 nf a15 (replacing HDD drive cage). Case is meshify C with front filter removed and back pcie slots removed.
Stock cinebench mutlicore at 134w is hitting 64ºC at max fan speed. 4.4ghz fixed, 1.2v in prime95 small fft+avx hits 225w and 95ºC. (i might have the cooler not seated completely perfect. will check).

Tnx a lot for the guide. Will try exactly as mentioned and if it works, will come back with results and pass it on to others. Few abbreviations to sort out. CO=curve optimizer. DF=?
I understand this will mostly reduce temps at low loads and high voltage spikes, with multicore remaining similar or slightly better.


----------



## tcclaviger

Some screen shots of where to turn of DF and set power to typical, these recommendations from both AMD and ASUS to resolve idle/low load spontaneous reboots and they work:














OCCT settings for rapid CO tuning:














CTR is a rough guideline imho, I don't trust it either and I don't use it, I can do what it does better and faster.

SET = what you set in bios
GET = what you get under load after vdroop

Elmore is a former Asus engineer, or was until l think about a year ago, OCing guru who had a hand in design of these boards and their features he sometimes pops in and drops knowledge bombs on us, as does Shamino. 2 People to pay attention to: Shamino and Elmore.

Increasing PBO limits, IMHO is 100% safe. I've been blasting Zen top sku chips since the 1800x and not a single iota of degradation.
5800x has the same 95/140/142 limits. They are 95/140/142 because way back when AMD designed AM4 that's what they told MB manufacturers to build for. It has zero to do with voltage tolerance of Zen 3.

Example:
5800x = 142 watt allowance - 17 watts for SOC, so 125 watt power budget for cores and cache. 125/8 = 15.625 watts per core
5900x = 142 watt allowance - 17 watts for SOC, so 125 watt power budget for cores and cache. 125/12 = 10.416 watts per core
5950x = 142 watt allowance - 17 watts for SOC, so 125 watt power budget for cores and cache. 125/16 = 7.8125 watts per core

For 5900x, 12x15.625 watts = 187.5 watts for cores+ 17 for SOC = 204.5 PPT just to match the power density of the 5800x and 267 watts for the 5950x.
That power density level comes with warranty on the 5800x, so its safe unless AMD are morons (they're not).
So adding a conservative (as far as OCing goes) 10% more power to those numbers and vwala you reach 293 watts on 5950 and 225 watts on the 5900, that's roughly where my 300 PPT value comes from and PBO will allow you to achieve exactly this level and not much beyond it really, remember, there's an ARM processor running your cpu (called SMU) which monitors and adjusts all the dynamic voltage and clocks, I incorrectly said FIT in my post and it should have been SMU.

One other note, the process node 7nm/8nm etc means exactly zero. It tells you only how small some of the gates on the chip are, not all. It informs the consumer none about the thickness of the walls between the vias or the thickness of the conductor in them. This is why Zen tolerates 1.5v without issue, the cores have thicker conductors than the process node would lead you to believe. The worry of high voltage on all core load comes from the total current flowing to the chip, not the per core current. All those chips share the same power circuitry outside the CCD and that has a limit, which is why people recommend 1.2-1.3 depending who you ask as max all core loaded voltage. This comes directly from an AMD whitepaper I read, can't recall the name, was very...boring.


----------



## tcclaviger

Shenhua said:


> Tbh i would take 4.6-4.7 even on few cores, while keeping multicore intact, if i can reduce peak voltage on low loads to something like 1.35-1.4v and shave off 10ºC.
> 
> 22ºC ambient. D15 (only middle fan), sw3 front, 1 nf a15 (replacing HDD drive cage). Case is meshify C with front filter removed and back pcie slots removed.
> Stock cinebench mutlicore at 134w is hitting 64ºC at max fan speed. 4.4ghz fixed, 1.2v in prime95 small fft+avx hits 225w and 95ºC. (i might have the cooler not seated completely perfect. will check).
> 
> Tnx a lot for the guide. Will try exactly as mentioned and if it works, will come back with results and pass it on to others. Few abbreviations to sort out. CO=curve optimizer. DF=?
> I understand this will mostly reduce temps at low loads and high voltage spikes, with multicore remaining similar or slightly better.


Correct on CO.
Df you can see in pics above.

Just to give you some expectations on temps.
Delta T for single core is likely going to be 40c ish. So at 22c, realistically mid 60s is about right.
Delta T for multicore is going to be need to be controlled by your TDC setting, an unlimited PPT EDC and TDC on air in 22c is going to hit 85c+ _*very*_ quickly.

It's really ok, just don't mine at 80c+ 24/7 at max load and there will be no issue. If you do plan on mining or something 24/7 high load just cut the TDC down and hold it at 65-70c.

Also don't freak out during memory testing and stuff when it boosts to like 4.8ghz+ at 1.4+ volts but only 50tdc. Also ok, it's a very light load, just looks weird on readouts.


----------



## tcclaviger

Here, I did a little thing for the zen 3 new comers.









Clav's method for Zen 3 OC


I suppose I should write out the easier to follow step by step, since as mentioned it's a PITA to piece this all together. This is exactly how it I tuned my setup, just look for tcclaviger or Claviger in various benchmark databases, it performs very well. There are other methods people use...




www.overclock.net


----------



## Imprezzion

I got a B550-XE Gaming WiFi + 5900X under custom loop with a TechN block. 

For now 2x16GB DR B-Die @ 3600C16 DOCP, 1800 FCLK. 

If I run PBO with "Motherboard" power limits, +200, -20 curve, it hits about 1.392v SET 1.337v GET multi-core in Cinebench R23 and sits around 4650Mhz all-core.
Temps 70-72c.

All voltages left Auto for now. 

If I run PBO Advanced with Scalar 2x and fMAX limit tweak it sits way way lower voltage wise and way way higher clock wise but scores are much worse. It hits 4850-4900 all-core at supposedly 1.296v SET 1.260v GET but that is basically impossible and scores drop over 1000 points as well lol. 

So, with the enormous amount of things and settings and voltages to tweak on AMD I really wanna know how to do this lol.
I mean, this chip can do WAY higher then 4650 all core but max PBO is +200 so how do I make it higher??


----------



## tcclaviger

Click the link 1 post up 

Clock stretching is what you're seeing because of Scalar.


----------



## Imprezzion

tcclaviger said:


> Click the link 1 post up
> 
> Clock stretching is what you're seeing because of Scalar.


I don't understand why this board has 2 different PBO menu's with different settings. There's one in basic AI Tweaker and a more complicated one in AMD Overclocking which has curve optimizer in it and such.

I still can't get it to boost any higher then 4650 all core no matter what I set and it can do that super easily even on -30 curve all core. 

I really want like at least 4850 maybe higher lol.


----------



## jura11

Imprezzion said:


> I got a B550-XE Gaming WiFi + 5900X under custom loop with a TechN block.
> 
> For now 2x16GB DR B-Die @ 3600C16 DOCP, 1800 FCLK.
> 
> If I run PBO with "Motherboard" power limits, +200, -20 curve, it hits about 1.392v SET 1.337v GET multi-core in Cinebench R23 and sits around 4650Mhz all-core.
> Temps 70-72c.
> 
> All voltages left Auto for now.
> 
> If I run PBO Advanced with Scalar 2x and fMAX limit tweak it sits way way lower voltage wise and way way higher clock wise but scores are much worse. It hits 4850-4900 all-core at supposedly 1.296v SET 1.260v GET but that is basically impossible and scores drop over 1000 points as well lol.
> 
> So, with the enormous amount of things and settings and voltages to tweak on AMD I really wanna know how to do this lol.
> I mean, this chip can do WAY higher then 4650 all core but max PBO is +200 so how do I make it higher??


Hi there 

70-72°C in Cinebench is good, this what I'm getting on my 5950X with Bykski waterblock

Can you check in HWiNFO effective clocks in Cinebench with fMAX enabled,fMAX you shouldn't use with 5xxx CPUs

In my case my 5950X pulls like 240-248W in Cinebench with motherboard limits, can you please check how much your CPU pulls in Cinebench?

You can also try running static OC for core like 4.7GHz and more

Hope this helps 

Thanks, Jura


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> I don't understand why this board has 2 different PBO menu's with different settings. There's one in basic AI Tweaker and a more complicated one in AMD Overclocking which has curve optimizer in it and such.
> 
> I still can't get it to boost any higher then 4650 all core no matter what I set and it can do that super easily even on -30 curve all core.
> 
> I really want like at least 4850 maybe higher lol.



Make sure any Performance Enhancement is turned off. On the Asus boards, that's a few options under the DOCP selector in AI Tweaker.
You could try loading optimised defaults and then boot into Windows (make sure to check if you're using Secure Boot, TPM etc. and back up OS keys. 
Always use the overclocking options in the Advanced area (Advanced > AMD Overclocking > Precision Boost Overdrive 
I think you wrote 5900X, so I would start by enabling PBO (see above) and select ADVANCED or Manual (it's in the PBO drop down), set power limits to Disabled, Scalar to Auto, Temp to Auto, Boost/MHz to 0, then open Curve Optimiser and select 'per core'. 
Now in the Curve Optimiser area, make sure all boxes that say 'positive' are changed to 'negative'
If you know your best 4 cores (Ryzen Master shows you these, as can HWINFO) set those to - 6 and the rest to - 15. That's a fair starting point. If you don't know your best cores, you should try and find out using Ryzen Master, but otherwise set all to - 8 and start from there. 
Save settings and exit BIOS. 
Next you can follow the OCCT advice above, or use the default Corecycler settings and let the script run overnight. That should pass with the relatively conservative values you entered. You can also check your boost speeds and, if you haven't changed any other BIOS settings, should see all cores boosting (NOT at the same time) to over 4.65-4.70. 
I would personally do benchmarks before and after and with each change. A good selection is Blender BMW, Cinebench R23, Aida64 cache, OCCT benchmark and stress test, and X264 encoding. 
I would usually test with OCCT after a night if Corecycler as I've had one core show an error after 18 iterations of testing. 
Typing on my phone so thumb is now dead. Hope that helps and sorry for any spelling mistakes.


----------



## Imprezzion

Piers said:


> Make sure any Performance Enhancement is turned off. On the Asus boards, that's a few options under the DOCP selector in AI Tweaker.
> You could try loading optimised defaults and then boot into Windows (make sure to check if you're using Secure Boot, TPM etc. and back up OS keys.
> Always use the overclocking options in the Advanced area (Advanced > AMD Overclocking > Precision Boost Overdrive
> I think you wrote 5900X, so I would start by enabling PBO (see above) and select ADVANCED or Manual (it's in the PBO drop down), set power limits to Disabled, Scalar to Auto, Temp to Auto, Boost/MHz to 0, then open Curve Optimiser and select 'per core'.
> Now in the Curve Optimiser area, make sure all boxes that say 'positive' are changed to 'negative'
> If you know your best 4 cores (Ryzen Master shows you these, as can HWINFO) set those to - 6 and the rest to - 15. That's a fair starting point. If you don't know your best cores, you should try and find out using Ryzen Master, but otherwise set all to - 8 and start from there.
> Save settings and exit BIOS.
> Next you can follow the OCCT advice above, or use the default Corecycler settings and let the script run overnight. That should pass with the relatively conservative values you entered. You can also check your boost speeds and, if you haven't changed any other BIOS settings, should see all cores boosting (NOT at the same time) to over 4.65-4.70.
> I would personally do benchmarks before and after and with each change. A good selection is Blender BMW, Cinebench R23, Aida64 cache, OCCT benchmark and stress test, and X264 encoding.
> I would usually test with OCCT after a night if Corecycler as I've had one core show an error after 18 iterations of testing.
> Typing on my phone so thumb is now dead. Hope that helps and sorry for any spelling mistakes.


That definitely helped. CB23 multicore scores about 22700. Little over 200w in CB23 @ 4625-4650Mhz.
In The Division 2 it boosts to 4.8-4.850 now. Voltage is quite high tho. 1.456v ish.

I'll keep tweaking on it for a bit and see what happens before I start to OC the RAM lol. Just leave it at DOCP 3600C16 with FCLK 1800 for now.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Imprezzion said:


> I don't understand why this board has 2 different PBO menu's with different settings. There's one in basic AI Tweaker and a more complicated one in AMD Overclocking which has curve optimizer in it and such.
> 
> I still can't get it to boost any higher then 4650 all core no matter what I set and it can do that super easily even on -30 curve all core.
> 
> I really want like at least 4850 maybe higher lol.


Buy Hydra and it can run whatever clock u enter if your cpu can do it.


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> That definitely helped. CB23 multicore scores about 22700. Little over 200w in CB23 @ 4625-4650Mhz.
> In The Division 2 it boosts to 4.8-4.850 now. Voltage is quite high tho. 1.456v ish.
> 
> I'll keep tweaking on it for a bit and see what happens before I start to OC the RAM lol. Just leave it at DOCP 3600C16 with FCLK 1800 for now.
> 
> View attachment 2534704


Honestly, unless you are prepared to put in 50-100 hours of stability testing, don't touch the RAM. 3600 CL16 with 1:1 is great.


----------



## Imprezzion

Piers said:


> Honestly, unless you are prepared to put in 50-100 hours of stability testing, don't touch the RAM. 3600 CL16 with 1:1 is great.


Yeah it's 1:1 and at 1T as well. Might just try to drop the primary timings a bit to straight 14's with a bit more vDIMM or whatever but not pushing all the way. This kits already straight 16's @ 1.35v so. I used to run it at 4400 straight 17's on Intel @ 1.50v.

Lower number is better right in curve optimizer?

I now have Advanced PBO.
PPT 300
TDC 240
EDC 300
+200 max boost 
-30 curve all-core, lowest it's going and it's still surprisingly stable so far.

CB23 multicore boosts to 4650-4675 and hits 74c. Score was 23008. Broke 23k finally. Voltage around 1.376v.

Single core boosts to 4975-5025 in CB23 and scores 1606. Voltage around 1.472v.

Max power was 214w in multicore with 190A EDC. 

RAM at 3600C16-16-16-36-1T 1:1 1800 IF. SOC voltage at 1.081v. 

What I did notice is that it boosts way way higher in games then it does in Cinebench. Division 2 sees 5000 quite regularly.


----------



## PJVol

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Buy Hydra and it can run whatever clock u enter if your cpu can do it.


Or let the CPU do it's work without fearing for the occasional crashes due to operating beyond the control of the very advanced built-in power management and monitoring system.


Piers said:


> I would personally do benchmarks before and after and with each change. A good selection is Blender BMW, Cinebench R23, Aida64 cache, OCCT benchmark and stress test, and X264 encoding.


I'd use Blender Koro scene instead, since it's probably among the best tools, as well as y-cruncher for detecting too agressive v/f curves.


tcclaviger said:


> On my board (Strix x570-e II), it seems to be added without FIT realizing it, and the extra voltage makes VID = GET voltage under load


Of course, fw have no clue what mb features are engaged, i.e. Vcore offset and LLC.


tcclaviger said:


> Regarding idle crashing, set power supply = typical and DF states = off


Based on my experience, disabling DF-states does nothing but lowering SC performance, so i'd avoid turning it off unless you OC fabric beyond 1900.
If you aware of how does locking DF states affect core boost, i'd be intetested to learn.


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> Yeah it's 1:1 and at 1T as well. Might just try to drop the primary timings a bit to straight 14's with a bit more vDIMM or whatever but not pushing all the way. This kits already straight 16's @ 1.35v so. I used to run it at 4400 straight 17's on Intel @ 1.50v.


So 3600 CL16 1T, and 1:1 (dual or single rank?). Regardless, for the 0.5% improvement in benchmark scores you'll get, but the silent corruption over months - or possibly random instability that makes no sense (imagine playing a song and it crashes), it's really not worth it. You've already got one of the fastest and most efficient CPUs ever mass produced!

All that being said, obviously it's your system and your choice. Just make sure with Ryzen you do extra stability testing as it's more sensitive to clocks and timings, as well as instability.

You mentioned a high PPT - what did you set up in the BIOS?


----------



## Imprezzion

Piers said:


> So 3600 CL16 1T, and 1:1 (dual or single rank?). Regardless, for the 0.5% improvement in benchmark scores you'll get, but the silent corruption over months - or possibly random instability that makes no sense (imagine playing a song and it crashes), it's really not worth it. You've already got one of the fastest and most efficient CPUs ever mass produced!
> 
> All that being said, obviously it's your system and your choice. Just make sure with Ryzen you do extra stability testing as it's more sensitive to clocks and timings, as well as instability.
> 
> You mentioned a high PPT - what did you set up in the BIOS?


Dual-rank Trident-Z Neo's.
Well, -30 curve with +200 works fine in CB23 but it almost instantly hard rebooted in Division 2. I saw several cores go as high as 5175 and it did not like that lol. 

Now I gotta find a balance between curve level and + max boost. Or at least figure out what causes a hard reboot / shutdown in games lol.


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> Dual-rank Trident-Z Neo's.
> Well, -30 curve with +200 works fine in CB23 but it almost instantly hard rebooted in Division 2. I saw several cores go as high as 5175 and it did not like that lol.
> 
> Now I gotta find a balance between curve level and + max boost. Or at least figure out what causes a hard reboot / shutdown in games lol.


Nice RAM! - 30 with +200 is just silly 😋 

Your absolute best option is to try the values I suggested. 

Do you know which cores are your best for each CCD?
If you nail down the right Curve, you'll find the CPU boosting to 4.950 GHz *without* clock stretching.
Outside of a few use-cases, there's little point in applying additional MHz. Leave it at 0 or max 25 while you find the right Curve.

If done correctly, it'll take days of solid stress testing but you'll end up with a system with rock-solid performance. 

For example, my Curve is (IIRC) -20 on majority of cores, -7 on best four cores (two per CCD), and -6 for a dud core in CCD0. 

Your best bet is to set your test Curve, download Corecycler, start the script with HWINFO running in the background (sensors only), and let it complete 20-30 iterations. If no errors, decrease Curve values by 2.


----------



## Imprezzion

Piers said:


> Nice RAM! - 30 with +200 is just silly 😋
> 
> Your absolute best option is to try the values I suggested.
> 
> Do you know which cores are your best for each CCD?
> If you nail down the right Curve, you'll find the CPU boosting to 4.950 GHz *without* clock stretching.
> Outside of a few use-cases, there's little point in applying additional MHz. Leave it at 0 or max 25 while you find the right Curve.
> 
> If done correctly, it'll take days of solid stress testing but you'll end up with a system with rock-solid performance.
> 
> For example, my Curve is (IIRC) -20 on majority of cores, -7 on best four cores (two per CCD), and -6 for a dud core in CCD0.
> 
> Your best bet is to set your test Curve, download Corecycler, start the script with HWINFO running in the background (sensors only), and let it complete 20-30 iterations. If no errors, decrease Curve values by 2.


Yeah best cores are 0-1 and 8-11. 
I'm at -20 now with +25Mhz boost and the all-core clocks in Division 2 are only around 4775-4850 and I expected higher. Or am I wrong and are those the correct clocks for those PBO settings.


----------



## Gmill

I am new to AMD and just recently purchased a 5900x with a gigabyte x570s aorus master. I read a few different guides but could still use a bit more guidance. I went through the entire CO process testing with core cycler and have ended up with majority on -30 except for core 2 at -15, core 6 at -20, core 7 at 28 and core 10 at -29. According to ryzen master on CCD 0 core 6 is best and core 2 is second and CCD 1 core 9 is best and 10 is second. When it comes to PBO with it set to motherboard control it maxes PPT at about 1200, TDC 700 and EDC 215. When running cinebench r23 PPT hits 184, TDC 115 and EDC will peg at the 215 all while hitting about 83c. I've set my own limits to PPT 185, TDC 125, EDC 160 and thats where I have had my best cinebench r23 score at 22382 but that still runs at about 83c also. If i run a game which is mostly what this PC does it runs about 65c or a few degrees higher at not all that high of cpu usage, maybe 45% at the most. Being new I'm not exactly sure if i should be backing down on some of the PBO numbers while changing the CO also. This is also with +0 boost also and scalar set to auto. I have an Arctic LF 280 mounted front with the two fans mounted in pull. My ram is a set of 4x8gb 3200mh cl14 trident z rbg that i have had a while all while being on intel. If i left anything important out or if there is other information need please let me know! Thank you in advance!


----------



## tcclaviger

@PJVol

DF states disabled, in my testing has shown zero performance regression, not saying it doesn't for others, if very well may with how sensitive SMU is.

I don't recall all the details, been quite a while, I think it was the Stilt or Elmore who was talking about it. From what I vaguely recall it was something along the lines of the race to sleep for the very lowest core state from the 2nd lowest or preventing it., I may be miss remembering though.

For those using board limits:

Smacking a dual CCD zen 3 with max - offset, cranking up PBO limits to the moon and setting override to 200 has and always will result in a clock stretching, over boosting cpu, that looks like it's performing well, but it's not. I have yet to see a single dual CCD Zen 3 that is truly using all +200 with all core -30 unless well below 0c temp.

Single CCD overclocking is an entirely different animal, don't base Dual CCD settings on what works for 5600x or 5800x.

Scores don't lie, speed reporting software does, R23 and CPU-z scores are predictable, OS efficiency and RAM does have a minor impact but:

5.1 ghz effective ~ 1701 R23 / 716 CPU-Z
5 ghz effective ~ 1665 / 702 CPU-Z
4.9 ghz effective ~ 1635 / 688 CPU-Z
4.8 ghz effective ~ 1602 / 674 CPU-Z

R23 will test gold star core in Ryzen master (or perf#1 in hwinfo), CPU-Z always tests core 0 unless manipulated.

Zen 3 SC is about finesse, finding that just right balance point of temp, power, speed.

PS: My guide is the most cookie cutter method you'll get on how to find the balance, there is no exact right way since values differ per CPU.


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> Yeah best cores are 0-1 and 8-11.
> I'm at -20 now with +25Mhz boost and the all-core clocks in Division 2 are only around 4775-4850 and I expected higher. Or am I wrong and are those the correct clocks for those PBO settings.


Those clocks are perfectly reasonable. Remember to go by benchmarking results, not clocks. It's not hard to get my 5900X showing over 5GHz on multiple cores, but performance is below stock (clock stretching).

I would select five or six different benchmarking tools _(with a mixture of instruction sets and core utilisation - the ones I suggested earlier are a good start. You could add the 2018 Intel Linx test as well for the ultimate stability and thermal headroom test, but be careful with it)_ and record scores each time you make changes.

Once you have found the best values for your chip (again, ignore clocks and go by actual performance measured in benchmarks), that's when you need to take the time to leave the PC stability testing with Corecycler (as mentioned earlier in more detail). If you have thermal headroom, you could change the Scalar to 3 or 4x but there's usually little point.

Edit: with your CPU, and based on what you've written, I'd try - 10 on the 'best' four cores and - 22 on the rest. You need to generally have less of an offset in your Curve for the better cores so they can boost higher in lightly-threaded workloads. 

There's not much point in try games straight away;

Leave vcore and LLC on Auto 
Set Curve values
Only go with sensible power limits, or select 'disabled' so stock limits are used which tends to reduce heat. 
Boot into OS (assuming Windows)
Open notepad or spreadsheet software and write down the names of the tests/benchmarking software you've chosen.
Open HWINFO64 and let average core utilisation settle below 1%.
Perform each benchmark, recording down scores and voltage/effective clock speeds in your notepad file /spreadsheet. Be sure to reset values in HWINFO between each benchmark run.
If all pass and you're happy with scores/performance, test a lightly-threaded game (CSGO is a good test, Civ 6 is a great test). 
If that works without incident, then leave the PC with Corecycler running for at least 24 hours/20 iterations. 
If that shows as stable, use the OCCT instructions from earlier on.


----------



## Piers

Gmill said:


> I am new to AMD and just recently purchased a 5900x with a gigabyte x570s aorus master. I read a few different guides but could still use a bit more guidance. I went through the entire CO process testing with core cycler and have ended up with majority on -30 except for core 2 at -15, core 6 at -20, core 7 at 28 and core 10 at -29. According to ryzen master on CCD 0 core 6 is best and core 2 is second and CCD 1 core 9 is best and 10 is second. When it comes to PBO with it set to motherboard control it maxes PPT at about 1200, TDC 700 and EDC 215. When running cinebench r23 PPT hits 184, TDC 115 and EDC will peg at the 215 all while hitting about 83c. I've set my own limits to PPT 185, TDC 125, EDC 160 and thats where I have had my best cinebench r23 score at 22382 but that still runs at about 83c also. If i run a game which is mostly what this PC does it runs about 65c or a few degrees higher at not all that high of cpu usage, maybe 45% at the most. Being new I'm not exactly sure if i should be backing down on some of the PBO numbers while changing the CO also. This is also with +0 boost also and scalar set to auto. I have an Arctic LF 280 mounted front with the two fans mounted in pull. My ram is a set of 4x8gb 3200mh cl14 trident z rbg that i have had a while all while being on intel. If i left anything important out or if there is other information need please let me know! Thank you in advance!


Woah, those are some high limits. Have you tried disabling power limit changes (using stock AMD values) with a Curve? You may be surprised by the results (and get less heat output).

I've found that setting PPT to 160, TDC to 105, and EDC to 150 (and even using AMD stock values) produces solid performance with less heat output. It's the EDC value that's going to make a big difference in terms of temperatures. You may find with a high value that you get 2% more performance in real workloads for 10-15°C more heat (which in my opinion isn't worth it).

As for Curve values, which method of stability testing have you performed? With negative Curve values, you really need to test lightly-threaded and near-idle workloads (Corecycler is excellent for this).



tcclaviger said:


> Smacking a dual CCD zen 3 with max - offset, cranking up PBO limits to the moon and setting override to 200 has and always will result in a clock stretching, over boosting cpu, that looks like it's performing well, but it's not. I have yet to see a single dual CCD Zen 3 that is truly using all +200 with all core -30 unless well below 0c temp.


I couldn't agree any more. Ignore clocks, go with benchmarking results. My 5900X produces better performance in AVX2, all-core workloads at 4.175 GHz effective (stock boost) than at 4.45 GHz (reported).


----------



## Imprezzion

So, it ran corecycler with no issues overnight for about 13 hours now at -20 on the wordt cores, -12 on the best 4, +100 on max clocks. 

I see (effective) clocks in HWInfo64 well over 5Ghz on some cores and most of them sit at 4900 or 4950 however they don't sustain those clocks if you know what I mean.

They peak shortly at those clocks or in lighter loads but a heavy single core or multi core load sees it drop to 4700-4750 ish. Why is that? There's no EDC, TDC or thermal limit being reached. Or is it the temperature vs boost drop above 50c as it does get to like 70-72c in those scenarios. Fans are set very low on the rads so.


----------



## Luggage

Imprezzion said:


> So, it ran corecycler with no issues overnight for about 13 hours now at -20 on the wordt cores, -12 on the best 4, +100 on max clocks.
> 
> I see (effective) clocks in HWInfo64 well over 5Ghz on some cores and most of them sit at 4900 or 4950 however they don't sustain those clocks if you know what I mean.
> 
> They peak shortly at those clocks or in lighter loads but a heavy single core or multi core load sees it drop to 4700-4750 ish. Why is that? There's no EDC, TDC or thermal limit being reached. Or is it the temperature vs boost drop above 50c as it does get to like 70-72c in those scenarios. Fans are set very low on the rads so.


The workload is too heavy for either PBO or FIT limits with your cooling.
Run occt mem test and watch what they boost to for a very light all core workload…


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> So, it ran corecycler with no issues overnight for about 13 hours now at -20 on the wordt cores, -12 on the best 4, +100 on max clocks.
> 
> I see (effective) clocks in HWInfo64 well over 5Ghz on some cores and most of them sit at 4900 or 4950 however they don't sustain those clocks if you know what I mean.
> 
> They peak shortly at those clocks or in lighter loads but a heavy single core or multi core load sees it drop to 4700-4750 ish. Why is that? There's no EDC, TDC or thermal limit being reached. Or is it the temperature vs boost drop above 50c as it does get to like 70-72c in those scenarios. Fans are set very low on the rads so.


*Regarding Corecycler*
You need to run Corecycler for longer. I had it pass 17 iterations over ~17 hours, then fail on one core at the end of iteration 18. Clearly that core was only very slightly unstable and might have been fine for _most_ use cases, but it proves a point. Since then, I've tested with a minimum of either 24h or 20-22 iterations.

*Regarding clocks observed*
I would drop the +100 down to +25. You'll likely see similar clocks (effective and in real world use) but less heat which allows more room for the chip to boost. It sounds counterintuitive but think of Zen 3 like Nvidia's boost algorithm.

*Regarding sustained clocks *
You won't see an all-core clock in SSE workloads of more than ~4500-4650, and in AVX2 workloads of more than ~4200-4500. That's totally normal boost behaviour and the advertised boost speed is *only for one core*, assuming non-LN2/exotic cooling, even with all power limits removed.

With the temperature points of 50, 72 etc. I notice no difference in effective clocks and performance. My CPU will boost the same at 50°C as it will at 70-75°C. I was under the impression that boosts related to temperatures is a feature aimed at Zen 2 where more voltage was required for sustained clocks (e.g 1.3v for 4250).

In most games, you should find that clocks are sustained at somewhere around 4500-4850. For example, in Civilisation VI which is CPU-intensive, I see sustained clocks of 4750 on the cores the game uses. This is normal boost behaviour.

*Regarding fixed-clock overclocking *
If heat output and silicon lifespan is of little concern, and you have a need for an all-core overclock, that is possible on a per-CCD basis. For example, 1.300v at 4700 MHz on CCD0 and 4450 on CCD1. That's a figure that would work on my system, but yours will be different. *It's strongly advised you don't perform a fixed overclock* on Zen 3, but people here have with little, if any, drawbacks. Just be incredibly careful with the voltage you use. You'll also find some hybrid options on extreme high-end motherboards where PBO2 can be used in conjunction with a fixed value. My board doesn't support that feature so I can't offer advice.

*Additional tools*
If you want a quick and dirty way of checking real-world performance, there's an old tool called FHD Benchmark (guru3d) (uses 22 threads/most cores with AVX2 - similar to modern AAA games) which takes less than a minute to run and give you a standardised result. I was able to make average FPS go from 77.x to 86.x with tweaking (and disabling CPPC). That translates into higher Cyberpunk FPS.

It's an undervalued tool. It also usually crashes a system with a very unstable OC in less than a minute.

I hope I've been of some help.


----------



## Imprezzion

Piers said:


> *Regarding Corecycler*
> You need to run Corecycler for longer. I had it pass 17 iterations over ~17 hours, then fail on one core at the end of iteration 18. Clearly that core was only very slightly unstable and might have been fine for _most_ use cases, but it proves a point. Since then, I've tested with a minimum of either 24h or 20-22 iterations.
> 
> *Regarding clocks observed*
> I would drop the +100 down to +25. You'll likely see similar clocks (effective and in real world use) but less heat which allows more room for the chip to boost. It sounds counterintuitive but think of Zen 3 like Nvidia's boost algorithm.
> 
> *Regarding sustained clocks *
> You won't see an all-core clock in SSE workloads of more than ~4500-4650, and in AVX2 workloads of more than ~4200-4500. That's totally normal boost behaviour and the advertised boost speed is *only for one core*, assuming non-LN2/exotic cooling, even with all power limits removed.
> 
> With the temperature points of 50, 72 etc. I notice no difference in effective clocks and performance. My CPU will boost the same at 50°C as it will at 70-75°C. I was under the impression that boosts related to temperatures is a feature aimed at Zen 2 where more voltage was required for sustained clocks (e.g 1.3v for 4250).
> 
> In most games, you should find that clocks are sustained at somewhere around 4500-4850. For example, in Civilisation VI which is CPU-intensive, I see sustained clocks of 4750 on the cores the game uses. This is normal boost behaviour.
> 
> *Regarding fixed-clock overclocking *
> If heat output and silicon lifespan is of little concern, and you have a need for an all-core overclock, that is possible on a per-CCD basis. For example, 1.300v at 4700 MHz on CCD0 and 4450 on CCD1. That's a figure that would work on my system, but yours will be different. *It's strongly advised you don't perform a fixed overclock* on Zen 3, but people here have with little, if any, drawbacks. Just be incredibly careful with the voltage you use. You'll also find some hybrid options on extreme high-end motherboards where PBO2 can be used in conjunction with a fixed value. My board doesn't support that feature so I can't offer advice.
> 
> *Additional tools*
> If you want a quick and dirty way of checking real-world performance, there's an old tool called FHD Benchmark (guru3d) (uses 22 threads/most cores with AVX2 - similar to modern AAA games) which takes less than a minute to run and give you a standardised result. I was able to make average FPS go from 77.x to 86.x with tweaking (and disabling CPPC). That translates into higher Cyberpunk FPS.
> 
> It's an undervalued tool. It also usually crashes a system with a very unstable OC in less than a minute.
> 
> I hope I've been of some help.


Wow thanks for the huge post! 

What I did notice with the many tests I have done is that a very high EDC limit does not always help. EDC @ 240A has a lower score then limiting it at 190A by almost 400 points in CB23 even tho 190A technically throttles it and 240A does not.

I will not do a all-core OC, PBO2 and boost is fine with me. I had my 10900KF on Turbo mode OC as well with all-core x51, 4 cores x53 and 2 cores x54.

I will keep tweaking again.


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> Wow thanks for the huge post!
> 
> What I did notice with the many tests I have done is that a very high EDC limit does not always help. EDC @ 240A has a lower score then limiting it at 190A by almost 400 points in CB23 even tho 190A technically throttles it and 240A does not.
> 
> I will not do a all-core OC, PBO2 and boost is fine with me. I had my 10900KF on Turbo mode OC as well with all-core x51, 4 cores x53 and 2 cores x54.
> 
> I will keep tweaking again.


You're more than welcome.

If I were you, I'd start again (load optimised defaults) with PBO2 enabled, AMD power limits, 0 or 25 MHz, scalar Auto or 1x, and the same Curve you've tested and go from there.

I would then test that with the tools I and others have recommended, log the data, then reboot and up PPT by 10-20W and keep TDC and EDC on stock.

Then run the same tests and log results. Compare figures (ignore clocks). If performance is higher, either lower clocks Curve values by 2 or increase TDC by 10A.

Repeat the process (don't forget to save BIOS profiles for tested, stable settings) until you reach a point where you're happy with performance, power usage, and heat output.

I need to stick my phone on charge (all replies have been from my phone) as the wife and I are having a lazy Sunday on the couch watching Quantum Leap, so may not be able to reply for a while as charger is upstairs. Please keep us updated and I'll check back later.

Edit: popped back to the PC and thought I'd add this screenshot to see if it helps. It shows the current load in Cinebench R23 after 400 minutes of cycling.

This is using CO without any additional PBO features enabled (AMD power limits only - PPT: 142, TDC: 95, EDC: 140 - and no additional boost with scalar on auto), but with XMP/AMP/DOCP enabled - 2*16GB Single Rank 3600 CL18. The CB R23 score averages ~21,500. That's over 1,000 points more than stock (compared to day-1 reviews and my own benchmarking) without a Curve but with CPPC disabled, so hopefully this demonstrates the importance of the Curve.

The single core boosts go up to 4950, but this was taken after starting the CB R23 cycle so only shows behaviour during the AVX2 load.


----------



## Imprezzion

Piers said:


> You're more than welcome.
> 
> If I were you, I'd start again (load optimised defaults) with PBO2 enabled, AMD power limits, 0 or 25 MHz, scalar Auto or 1x, and the same Curve you've tested and go from there.
> 
> I would then test that with the tools I and others have recommended, log the data, then reboot and up PPT by 10-20W and keep TDC and EDC on stock.
> 
> Then run the same tests and log results. Compare figures (ignore clocks). If performance is higher, either lower clocks Curve values by 2 or increase TDC by 10A.
> 
> Repeat the process (don't forget to save BIOS profiles for tested, stable settings) until you reach a point where you're happy with performance, power usage, and heat output.
> 
> I need to stick my phone on charge (all replies have been from my phone) as the wife and I are having a lazy Sunday on the couch watching Quantum Leap, so may not be able to reply for a while as charger is upstairs. Please keep us updated and I'll check back later.
> 
> Edit: popped back to the PC and thought I'd add this screenshot to see if it helps. It shows the current load in Cinebench R23 after 400 minutes of cycling.
> 
> This is using CO without any additional PBO features enabled (AMD power limits only - PPT: 142, TDC: 95, EDC: 140 - and no additional boost with scalar on auto), but with XMP/AMP/DOCP enabled - 2*16GB Single Rank 3600 CL18. The CB R23 score averages ~21,500. That's over 1,000 points more than stock (compared to day-1 reviews and my own benchmarking) without a Curve but with CPPC disabled, so hopefully this demonstrates the importance of the Curve.
> 
> The single core boosts go up to 4950, but this was taken after starting the CB R23 cycle so only shows behaviour during the AVX2 load.
> 
> View attachment 2534772


I have done that now and am at -22 for the worse cores and -15 for the top 4 cores with +25 boost, but I do have the limits set quite high at 300 PPT, 210 TDC, 250 EDC. Temps still peak at 71c in CB23 and games are more like 55c. And that is still with like 550 RPM radiator fan speed lol. The TechN block is really really good lol.

CB23 gives around 22500-22600 multicore which seems fine. I can make it run 23xxx but that needs -30 curve and that gave a 0xc005 BSOD in Corecycler even with 0 max boost. 22 is about the lowest it can do on the worse cores and 18 ish on the best ones. Probably settle for 20 worse 15 best so I don't have to test for days and days.


----------



## PJVol

tcclaviger said:


> From what I vaguely recall it was something along the lines of the race to sleep for the very lowest core state from the 2nd lowest or preventing it.


I can only assume they were talking about core C-states, because fabric C-states (DF) seem to have no direct relationship with a CCD powersaving but indirectly or as a result of some buggy behavior, that might be fixed already, need to check.


----------



## 1devomer

Piers said:


> *Regarding fixed-clock overclocking *
> If heat output and silicon lifespan is of little concern, and you have a need for an all-core overclock, that is possible on a per-CCD basis. For example, 1.300v at 4700 MHz on CCD0 and 4450 on CCD1. That's a figure that would work on my system, but yours will be different. *It's strongly advised you don't perform a fixed overclock* on Zen 3, but people here have with little, if any, drawbacks. Just be incredibly careful with the voltage you use. You'll also find some hybrid options on extreme high-end motherboards where PBO2 can be used in conjunction with a fixed value. My board doesn't support that feature so I can't offer advice.


Simply nope!

Don't provide bad advises, there is nothing wrong running fixed core clocks.
If you don't want to have the flow of instruction stalled, by the constant clock changes!
Boost algorithm are not free of performance overhead.

So depending on the application, like compiling or encoding 24/7, you want to run a fixed core clock.
Because when the cpu is full load, the boost algorithm is doing nothing, since the cpu clock is locked to its max core achievable speed!


----------



## PJVol

1devomer said:


> Don't provide bad advises, there is nothing wrong running fixed core clocks.


I see nothing wrong with his advice, let alone "bad", though can agree, that "it's strongly advised" is a bit of exaggeration


----------



## 1devomer

PJVol said:


> I see nothing wrong with his advice, let alone "bad", though can agree, that "it's strongly advised" is a bit of exaggeration


*



It's strongly advised you don't perform a fixed overclock

Click to expand...

*It is a bad advice to give to other new users, that may read this thread.

As all the other invented stupid things about AMD cpu like:
-The WHEA were due to the wifi/lan card.
-That running all cores clock is bad.
-That running more than 1.3v on the core will kill your cpu.
-The WHEA and cpu crash are due AGESA and motherboard manufacturers.
-Etc, etc,

Do i need to add more of the fantasies i found on this forum, before we come to a point of decency.
And the time it took to cleanse all the misconception users left over time, on AMD cpu?


----------



## PJVol

1devomer said:


> -The WHEA were due to the wifi/lan card.
> -That running all cores clock is bad.
> -That running more than 1.3v on the core will kill your cpu.
> -The WHEA and cpu crash are due AGESA and motherboard manufacturers.


Even though I can 100% agree with the above, still not sure "bad advice" is a right word.
What I personally don't agree with is just stating things in an unambiguous and emphatical way.


----------



## 1devomer

PJVol said:


> Even though I can 100% agree with the above, still not sure "bad advice" is a right word. Why not take it just as an advice of a person, who may be equally right or wrong with another.
> What I personally don't agree with is just stating things in an unambiguous and emphatical way.


Because a good advice is letting the user choose how to manage its cpu, without stating that one configuration is better than the other without proof.
A better advice is explaining when and how to use a particular configuration, based on the user need and knowledge.

This is what i call a good advice, and it is how i answered to users post that seek help.
So once again, saying that it is strongly advised to avoid all core clocks, is a bad advice, that may fit the poster case, but not apply to everyone!


----------



## Imprezzion

I'm used to some conflicting advices from Intel users as well, everyone is just trying to help and i'm super happy for all the help.

I managed this so far. This setup has by far the highest scores both single core and multicore. 









229xx in CB23 btw.
210w package power 237A EDC, 137A TDC in CB23. 

Now to see if this is actually stable lol.


----------



## Piers

1devomer said:


> Simply nope!
> 
> Don't provide bad advises, there is nothing wrong running fixed core clocks.


For someone entirely new with Ryzen, it's fair to say what I wrote; "It's strongly advised you don't perform a fixed overclock on Zen 3, _but people here have with little, if any, drawbacks._"

That's certainly stating personal opinion, but I don't want to encourage people entirely new to Zen to treat their chips like Intel's and run a fixed vcore of 1.xxV without giving much thought to each CCD and ignoring PBO2. It's irresponsible to encourage fixed OCs _(exception being for hybrid overclocks like the Asus Dynamic OC)_ until PBO2 has been exhausted. 




1devomer said:


> Because when the cpu is full load, the boost algorithm is doing nothing, since the cpu clock is locked to its max core achievable speed!


Complete rubbish. A separate chip outside the CCD takes thousands of readings per second, including from power sources (even the L2 cache has its own power supply within the CCD) and controls boost behaviour based on those readings. With every ms the algorithm tries to boost unless instructed not to (e.g running at fixed clocks) or if there's no headroom. 



1devomer said:


> If you don't want to have the flow of instruction stalled, by the constant clock changes!
> 
> Boost algorithm are not free of performance overhead.


 "flow of instruction stalled" by using a highly sophisticated algorithm based on many hundreds of sensors? Without trying to be rude, are you high? That's complete tosh. 



1devomer said:


> So depending on the application, like compiling or encoding 24/7, you want to run a fixed core clock.


No, you really don't on any application. There's no need. I encode video every day and compile a couple of times per week. What terrible advice.


----------



## 1devomer

Piers said:


> For someone entirely new with Ryzen, it's fair to say what I wrote; "It's strongly advised you don't perform a fixed overclock on Zen 3, _but people here have with little, if any, drawbacks._"
> 
> That's certainly stating personal opinion, but I don't want to encourage people entirely new to Zen to treat their chips like Intel's and run a fixed vcore of 1.xxV without giving much thought to each CCD and ignoring PBO2. It's irresponsible to encourage fixed OCs _(exception being for hybrid overclocks like the Asus Dynamic OC)_ until PBO2 has been exhausted.
> 
> 
> 
> Complete rubbish. A separate chip outside the CCD takes thousands of readings per second, including from power sources (even the L2 cache has its own power supply within the CCD) and controls boost behaviour based on those readings. With every ms the algorithm tries to boost unless instructed not to (e.g running at fixed clocks) or if there's no headroom.
> 
> "flow of instruction stalled" by using a highly sophisticated algorithm based on many hundreds of sensors? Without trying to be rude, are you high? That's complete tosh.
> 
> 
> No, you really don't on any application. There's no need. I encode video every day and compile a couple of times per week. What terrible advice.


Yeah whatever, you are not the first, nor the last stating being a new user, but still manage to have a strong idea on how stuff works.
Strange it happens only on AMD cpu, because i can get on the 12Th Gen Intel cpu thread, and everything is explained as it should, cpu binning include, strange indeed.

And by the way, GamerNexux video or any other Influencer Youtuber content, are not receivable and should not be used to provide advices to users.

Just you get both things straight, don't give advices on things that have already been discussed, as not having any influence on the cpu.
Don't share Influencers contents, as they say the truth, since most of them adhere to the marketing materials, that companies send to them!

Once there is this disclaimer available to other readers, you shall continue to push your view.


----------



## Piers

1devomer said:


> As all the other invented stupid things about AMD cpu like:
> -The WHEA were due to the wifi/lan card.
> -That running all cores clock is bad.
> -That running more than 1.3v on the core will kill your cpu.
> -The WHEA and cpu crash are due AGESA and motherboard manufacturers.
> -Etc, etc,


Except I've not made any of those claims and the comparison is absurd. Phone AMD support and ask them - they were the ones who advised me about fixed overclocks vs PB2 vs PBO2 behaviour, with the conclusion being that Zen 3 offers little benefits for the average user on a fixed overclock (again, there are exceptions such as motherboards offering hybrid overclocking options). 

But sure, go ahead and advise those coming from older Intel overclocking to treat their chips the same and set 1.40v fixed with each CCD at 4.80 GHz - I'm sure users will be grateful for the heat output, likely shorted lifespan (over years, although der8auer's voltage experiment showed interesting results), and definite instability. 

So far I've not seen you offer any detailed advice for fixed overclocks, only criticism, so please explain the steps with detail so users can follow.


----------



## Piers

1devomer said:


> Yeah whatever, you are not the first, not the last stating being a new user but, still manage to have a strong idea on how stuff works.


Not "whatever". He is a new user of Zen 3 and asked for advice. I merely added to what other people have rightly said.



1devomer said:


> Strange it happens only on AMD cpu, because i can get on the 12Th Gen Intel cpu threard, and everything is explained as it should, cpu binning include.


I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make. Are you trying to say there's deliberate misinformation on this website for new AMD users? If so, that sounds like fanboy talk. If not, please explain. 



1devomer said:


> And by the way, GamerNexux video or any other Youtuber content, is not receivable and should not be used to provide advices to users.


Oh, I see. So not only do you know better than AMD, you also know better than a respected technology journalist (that started and continues as a website outside of YouTube, but I'm sure you knew that... 👀). Specifically regarding Gamers Nexus, what have they been wrong about in terms of Zen 3 overclocking? Provide one example. 



1devomer said:


> Just you get both thing straight, don't give advices that have already been discussed as not having any influence on the cpu.


- Which part of my PBO2 advice is incorrect and 'doesn't have any influence on the CPU'?

- I've shared a link to Gamers Nexus in (I think) a different thread. Regardless, I will wait for you to provide a single example of where Gamers Nexus has been wrong with Zen 3 overclocking either on its YT channel or website. 



1devomer said:


> Don't share Influencers contents, as they say the truth, since most of them adhere to the marketing materials, that companies send to them!



Once again, I will wait for you to provide a single example of where Gamers Nexus has been wrong about Zen 3 overclocking.
I will also wait for you to provide evidence that GN 'adheres to marketing materials' in a negative or misleading way (which can easily be disproven with the recent Alderlake reviews... 🤦‍♂️).

The only time I've experienced this sort of conspiracy theory level of crap is when speaking with fanboys. 


1devomer said:


> Once there is this disclaimer to other reader, you shall continue to push your view.


1. I don't require your permission. 
2. You've not sourced any of your claims, so it's less a disclaimer and more simple forum abuse.


----------



## 1devomer

Piers said:


> Not "whatever". He is a new user of Zen 3 and asked for advice. I merely added to what other people have rightly said.
> 
> I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make. Are you trying to say there's deliberate misinformation on this website for new AMD users? If so, that sounds like fanboy talk. If not, please explain.
> 
> 
> Oh, I see. So not only do you know better than AMD, you also know better than a respected technology journalist (that started and continues as a website outside of YouTube, but I'm sure you knew that... 👀). Specifically regarding Gamers Nexus, what have they been wrong about in terms of Zen 3 overclocking? Provide one example.
> 
> 
> - Which part of my PBO2 advice is incorrect and 'doesn't have any influence on the CPU'?
> 
> - I've shared a link to Gamers Nexus in (I think) a different thread. Regardless, I will wait for you to provide a single example of where Gamers Nexus has been wrong with Zen 3 overclocking either on its YT channel or website.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, I will wait for you to provide a single example of where Gamers Nexus has been wrong about Zen 3 overclocking.
> I will also wait for you to provide evidence that GN 'adheres to marketing materials' in a negative or misleading way (which can easily be disproven with the recent Alderlake reviews... 🤦‍♂️).
> 
> The only time I've experienced this sort of conspiracy theory level of crap is when speaking with fanboys.
> 
> 1. I don't require your permission.
> 2. You've not sourced any of your claims, so it's less a disclaimer and more simple forum abuse.


You are going against the windmill, like Don Quixote.

Furthermore, you are wasting your time if you believe that this kind of behavior works.
My posting history and the knowledge i shared on this forum speak by itself, it is up to the users to understand who is in good faith, who isn't.


----------



## Piers

1devomer said:


> Because a good advice is letting the user choose how to manage its cpu, without stating that one configuration is better than the other without proof.
> A better advice is explaining when and how to use a particular configuration, based on the user need and knowledge.
> 
> This is what i call a good advice, and it is how i answered to users post that seek help.
> So once again, saying that it is strongly advised to avoid all core clocks, is a bad advice, that may fit the poster case, but not apply to everyone!


1. The user asked for assistance with a starting point, and I and others provided that. I've only warned against starting off with a fixed overclock in bold to emphasise that it's better (in my opinion) to start with PBO2. I stated that people do run fixed OCs without issue.
2. I find you mentioning proof odd, since you've not provided any to back up any of your wild claims. Again, I warned against a fixed OC but stated that others use it without issue. I'm not sure how many times I have to state that.
3. The user mentioned his needs/requirements in the form of mentioning games. Using PBO2 with Curve Optimiser is a perfectly valid piece of advice to offer to improve results.
4. You've not provided any advice to the user, only criticism of me and abuse towards me.
5. For a user whose come from Intel to Ryzen, I stand by my statement that it's strongly advised to not do a fixed OC, and instead try PBO2 first. One more as you appear to have issues comprehending it, I stated that people do run fixed OCs without issue.

Finally, the only "advice" you've offered me is that I have 'bad silicon', which goes against AMD's verdict based on sending them files and logs. AMD 2nd level support said my 5900X was performing higher than expected based on a 90MB CSV with tens of thousands of measurements.



1devomer said:


> You are going against the windmill, like Don Quixote.
> 
> Furthermore, you are wasting your time if you believe that this kind of behavior works.
> My posting history and the knowledge i shared on this forum speak by itself, it is up to the users to understand who is in good faith, who isn't.


You've made a series of claims without any evidence whatsoever. You've attempted to discredit every single YouTuber, technology journalists, and even AMD. In terms of what "kind of behaviour works", you the one throwing around accusations and being abusive without obvious cause.

Accusing me of posting in bad faith is the same as me accusing you of being bitter because you're French. It's insulting and baseless. I suggest you learn how to communicate with other people in a civil manner.

I then suggest you provide the evidence about Gamers Nexus and sources I've requested that allegedly support your claims.



Imprezzion said:


> I have done that now and am at -22 for the worse cores and -15 for the top 4 cores with +25 boost, but I do have the limits set quite high at 300 PPT, 210 TDC, 250 EDC. Temps still peak at 71c in CB23 and games are more like 55c. And that is still with like 550 RPM radiator fan speed lol. The TechN block is really really good lol.
> 
> CB23 gives around 22500-22600 multicore which seems fine. I can make it run 23xxx but that needs -30 curve and that gave a 0xc005 BSOD in Corecycler even with 0 max boost. 22 is about the lowest it can do on the worse cores and 18 ish on the best ones. Probably settle for 20 worse 15 best so I don't have to test for days and days.


That's a really nice result on the most powerful cores, and good benchmark results. As you have thermal headroom, those power limits should be good as well. I'd still follow the advice from earlier and do a 2 hour OCCT test in additional to Corecycler. I can't remember the exact post but it was a few after you first asked for advice.



Imprezzion said:


> 229xx in CB23 btw.
> 210w package power 237A EDC, 137A TDC in CB23.
> 
> Now to see if this is actually stable lol.


So you've set the limits in BIOS to that, or you see those limits being reached in HWINFO64? If the latter and it's stable, that gives you the option to reduce heat output more by lowering limits in the BIOS to about 10 over those. I'd still want to see what an x265 encode using all 24 threads does - if that's completely stable in additional to Corecycler for 24+ hours/22+ iterations then that's a very nicely optimised curve.


----------



## 1devomer

Piers said:


> Accusing me of posting in bad faith is the same as me accusing you of being bitter because you're French. It's insulting and baseless. I suggest you learn how to communicate with other people in a civil manner.




I'm not French, even if i live in France! 🤷‍♀️

Edit: It is a bit late to correct yourself, next time think of, before writing down such stuff!


----------



## Piers

1devomer said:


> I'm not French, even if i live in France! 🤷‍♀️


It was an example of a generalisation to demonstrate a point. OK, I'll simply state you're abusive, rude, immature and ask that you grow up and learn how to politely communicate.



1devomer said:


> Edit: It is a bit late to correct yourself, next time think of, before writing down such stuff!


I didn't 'correct myself'. You appear to have misquoted and missed that part. The part I added is your "advice" and the following paragraph. The revision history moderators have access to will show that.

This is the part I added:


> Finally, the only "advice" you've offered me is that I have 'bad silicon', which goes against AMD's verdict based on sending them files and logs. AMD 2nd level support said my 5900X was performing higher than expected based on a 90MB CSV with tens of thousands of measurements.


----------



## Imprezzion

Piers said:


> It was an example of a generalisation to demonstrate a point. OK, I'll simply state you're abusive, rude, immature and ask that you grow up and learn how to politely communicate.
> 
> 
> I didn't 'correct myself'. You appear to have misquoted and missed that part. The part I added is your "advice" and the following paragraph. The revision history moderators have access to will show that.
> 
> This is the part I added:


To get back on topic, I will obviously do a longer test later but right now i'm like it's "stable enough" to do some other things and try if it even stands a chance of working.
Well, one of those things is 3800 1T RAM with 1900 IF 1:1. So far, it works lol. 

1.081v SOC, 1.500v DRAM, just stock XMP / DOCP timings, forced to 1T, Power Down disabled, Gear Down enabled but it doesn't serve any real purpose right now. I will disable it when I go to 15-15-15-32 obviously. 




















I find one thing very odd. There seems to be no real way to read the DRAM Voltage in HWINFO64 or even the BIOS. It's almost like there's just simply no sensor for it on this board. None of the values in HWINFO64 for the "unknown" VIN* match DRAM at all so.. weird..


----------



## PJVol

Imprezzion said:


> I find one thing very odd


Welcome to the asus so called "proprietary" sensor data reporting.


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> To get back on topic, I will obviously do a longer test later but right now i'm like it's "stable enough" to do some other things and try if it even stands a chance of working.
> Well, one of those things is 3800 1T RAM with 1900 IF 1:1. So far, it works lol.
> 
> 1.081v SOC, 1.500v DRAM, just stock XMP / DOCP timings, forced to 1T, Power Down disabled, Gear Down enabled but it doesn't serve any real purpose right now. I will disable it when I go to 15-15-15-32 obviously.


Yes, I'd much rather continue the conversation. I would make sure your CPU overclock is 100% stable, or at least stable enough with mixed instruction set and core workloads to the point where you're happy with it with every day use, before trying to tune RAM. 

Having the IF at 1900 is nice, but what sort of performance uplift are you noticing outside of benchmark software (obviously if you use Cinema 4D or similar software on a regular basis, then Cinebench is a good example of real world use)?



Imprezzion said:


> View attachment 2534788
> 
> 
> I find one thing very odd. There seems to be no real way to read the DRAM Voltage in HWINFO64 or even the BIOS. It's almost like there's just simply no sensor for it on this board. None of the values in HWINFO64 for the "unknown" VIN* match DRAM at all so.. weird..


I don't think I've ever owned an Asus board with correct DRAM voltage reporting, if the board even reports it. I tend to regard DRAM voltage reporting and temperature sensors like BMC/IPMI - enterprise features, even though DRAM voltage and temperature reporting (if the chips support it) is available on a decent range of mainboards today - even relatively inexpensive ones - and is part of the DDR5 specification.

Although as it's Asus, it's fair to say it's probably deliberate. Even HWINFO64 find the Asus VRM sensors archaic in design.

I think the following sums it up: 



PJVol said:


> Welcome to the asus so called "proprietary" sensor data reporting.


----------



## Gmill

> Woah, those are some high limits. Have you tried disabling power limit changes (using stock AMD values) with a Curve? You may be surprised by the results (and get less heat output).
> 
> I've found that setting PPT to 160, TDC to 105, and EDC to 150 (and even using AMD stock values) produces solid performance with less heat output. It's the EDC value that's going to make a big difference in terms of temperatures. You may find with a high value that you get 2% more performance in real workloads for 10-15°C more heat (which in my opinion isn't worth it).


I also thought they were quite high considering what i have read people were setting their limits at. Keeping an eye on HWiNFO however PPT and TDC would never even get close but EDC would max right out. I was setting my curve initially at the start with stock limits and then when I had found things were running stable I then started to change limits manually. I am going to go back and try lowering them slightly down from what I have them set at now to your suggested values.



> As for Curve values, which method of stability testing have you performed? With negative Curve values, you really need to test lightly-threaded and near-idle workloads (Corecycler is excellent for this).


I have been running corecycler at its standard 1 thread per 6 minutes and random tests and had finally got to the point in my curve where i am at right now. My best cores going by ryzen master on CCD0 are core 6 at -20 and core 2 at -15 and on CCD1 they are core 9 which is at -30 and core 10 at -29. Core 6 is best on CCD0 and core 9 is best on CCD1. All other cores are at -30 and I am guessing that if I started running corecycler for longer extents of time i will start getting errors?

I was also in contact with Arctic about the rev4 offset mounting and should be getting that at some point. Right now I have it mounted with the rev2 version so hopefully I will be able to run a few degrees cooler overall once I do receive that. Looking at a lot of these numbers that people are posting are really giving me the feeling I need to go custom water cooling or bigger than a 280 AIO. My base temperatures at idle are not horrible however so I am happy with that. I generally idle around 34-40c with the random spikes into the 40s so I am thinking that is pretty good.

When it comes to RAM I'm currently running them XMP at 3200mhz 14-14-14-34. I was looking into OCing them slightly to try and get to 3600mhz however I am not all to familiar with OCing let alone on AMD. Will I benefit much from trying to achieve this or could I even push them a little further while loosening timings even slightly more?

*EDIT: *After having adjusted to your power limits i hit max 73c in cinebench r23 with a score of 21769. Before I adjusted I was at PPT 175, TDC 125, EDC 160 and i hit a score of 22265 but was also hitting about 84c.The higher scores were all hitting 84c or so because of higher limits I was using


----------



## Imprezzion

I played a round of 2042 and temps are good still, quite high, as high as Cinebench with the GPU adding heat to the loop, but still under 75c for all cores at 550 (idle) - 700 (load) RPM fanspeed. 

Boost speeds in game bottom out at 4700 and usually run around 4775-4825.

Performance is hard to test with that abomination of a game as with a 3080 @ 1080p with all ultra and ray tracing enabled the FPS is all over the place. I will do some benches of GTA V, Watch Dogs Legion, Cyberpunk 2077, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Division 2 and Far Cry 6 as I have benches from all those games with the same GPU but with a 10900KF @ 5.1 with 4400C17 RAM. I'm curious if there is any improvement at the exact same GPU settings lol.


----------



## Luggage

Gmill said:


> I also thought they were quite high considering what i have read people were setting their limits at. Keeping an eye on HWiNFO however PPT and TDC would never even get close but EDC would max right out. I was setting my curve initially at the start with stock limits and then when I had found things were running stable I then started to change limits manually. I am going to go back and try lowering them slightly down from what I have them set at now to your suggested values.
> 
> 
> 
> I have been running corecycler at its standard 1 thread per 6 minutes and random tests and had finally got to the point in my curve where i am at right now. My best cores going by ryzen master on CCD0 are core 6 at -20 and core 2 at -15 and on CCD1 they are core 9 which is at -30 and core 10 at -29. Core 6 is best on CCD0 and core 9 is best on CCD1. All other cores are at -30 and I am guessing that if I started running corecycler for longer extents of time i will start getting errors?
> 
> I was also in contact with Arctic about the rev4 offset mounting and should be getting that at some point. Right now I have it mounted with the rev2 version so hopefully I will be able to run a few degrees cooler overall once I do receive that. Looking at a lot of these numbers that people are posting are really giving me the feeling I need to go custom water cooling or bigger than a 280 AIO. My base temperatures at idle are not horrible however so I am happy with that. I generally idle around 34-40c with the random spikes into the 40s so I am thinking that is pretty good.
> 
> When it comes to RAM I'm currently running them XMP at 3200mhz 14-14-14-34. I was looking into OCing them slightly to try and get to 3600mhz however I am not all to familiar with OCing let alone on AMD. Will I benefit much from trying to achieve this or could I even push them a little further while loosening timings even slightly more?
> 
> *EDIT: *After having adjusted to your power limits i hit max 73c in cinebench r23 with a score of 21769. Before I adjusted I was at PPT 175, TDC 125, EDC 160 and i hit a score of 22265 but was also hitting about 84c.The higher scores were all hitting 84c or so because of higher limits I was using
> 
> View attachment 2534794


After much testing with corecycler - I still got error in Blender Benchmark scene Koro and running y-cruncher over night. … not the same cores that I had to lower with corecycler though.


----------



## Piers

Gmill said:


> My best cores going by ryzen master on CCD0 are core 6 at -20 and core 2 at -15 and on CCD1 they are core 9 which is at -30 and core 10 at -29. Core 6 is best on CCD0 and core 9 is best on CCD1. All other cores are at -30 and I am guessing that if I started running corecycler for longer extents of time i will start getting errors?


That's really impressive for your best cores. From what I've seen, most have issues setting those cores to more than negative 10, and some have to add positive values (generally people using a scalar value of 5-10x and additional MHz).

I very much assume you'll get errors with those values. Personally, I'd change those to -10 on best, -20 on rest. However, you can try your existing values but make sure you let Corecycler go for at least 18-20 iterations without you using the PC. Using it whilst it's testing negates the test as more than one core will always be active, which totally defeats the purpose of checking for instability with undervolting (technically adjusting tables) via Curve Optimiser.



Gmill said:


> Looking at a lot of these numbers that people are posting are really giving me the feeling I need to go custom water cooling or bigger than a 280 AIO. My base temperatures at idle are not horrible however so I am happy with that. I generally idle around 34-40c with the random spikes into the 40s so I am thinking that is pretty good.


Those are great idle temperatures.

What's your airflow like?
Ambient temperature?
VRM temperature?
Fan curve? 
Fan type and CFM? 
Pump speed? 
Coolant temperature? 
I have a 360mm radiator for the CPU, but a 280mm one should be absolutely fine (at stock and with a minor increase in PPT and EDC). Even AMD recommends a 280mm CLC or massive aluminium tower for the R9 chips.



Gmill said:


> When it comes to RAM I'm currently running them XMP at 3200mhz 14-14-14-34. I was looking into OCing them slightly to try and get to 3600mhz however I am not all to familiar with OCing let alone on AMD. Will I benefit much from trying to achieve this or could I even push them a little further while loosening timings even slightly more?


The obvious advantage of overclocking your RAM to 3600 is 1800:1800 FCLK:UCLK, but the time required for really properly testing any overclocked RAM is, in my opinion, not remotely worth it. You're looking at over 100 hours truly test the stability of the RAM. Some people will still overclock it, test for a few hours, then consider it stable whilst their operating system slowly corrupts in the background.

It's entirely your choice, but I never recommend going over the XMP/AMP/DOCP (was easier when everyone used Intel's naming scheme) values, and even then I test stability for 24h with XMP enabled.



Gmill said:


> *EDIT: *After having adjusted to your power limits i hit max 73c in cinebench r23 with a score of 21769. Before I adjusted I was at PPT 175, TDC 125, EDC 160 and i hit a score of 22265 but was also hitting about 84c.The higher scores were all hitting 84c or so because of higher limits I was using


Are you happy with that performance? Did you download the old (but still useful) FHD Benchmark tool a couple of pages back? It may be an old tool, but with a single click it'll encode a small file using up to 24 threads, and give you a standardised fps value at the end. It's also good (nowhere near as good as Corecycler) at crashing unstable systems - all in less than one minute.



Imprezzion said:


> I played a round of 2042 and temps are good still, quite high, as high as Cinebench with the GPU adding heat to the loop, but still under 75c for all cores at 550 (idle) - 700 (load) RPM fanspeed.
> 
> Boost speeds in game bottom out at 4700 and usually run around 4775-4825.


Even during CSGO I see about 70°C as it doesn't utilise all cores. It's totally normal to see higher temperatures in games as they tend to use 2-8 cores max. so the CPU will boost higher, meaning more voltage and higher temperatures. What sort of SVI2 TFN does HWINFO record during gaming?



Imprezzion said:


> Performance is hard to test with that abomination of a game as with a 3080 @ 1080p with all ultra and ray tracing enabled the FPS is all over the place. I will do some benches of GTA V, Watch Dogs Legion, Cyberpunk 2077, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Division 2 and Far Cry 6 as I have benches from all those games with the same GPU but with a 10900KF @ 5.1 with 4400C17 RAM. I'm curious if there is any improvement at the exact same GPU settings lol.


Which resolution do you game at? I also have a 3080 (240mm radiator) and in GTA V with all standard graphics settings on ultra and high (1st and 3rd sliders at minimum - can't remember what the options are), with no advanced graphics settings enabled, I frequently hit the engine's limit (~166 FPS) which causes stuttering.

In Nvidia Control Panel under 'Manage 3D settings' and then the second tab to customise settings per game, you can limit maximum FPS (on a per-game basis) without having to enable vsync, which is really useful. I limited GTA V to 150 FPS and the stuttering mostly disappeared (a few stutters when loading extensive assets is not concerning).




Luggage said:


> After much testing with corecycler - I still got error in Blender Benchmark scene Koro and running y-cruncher over night. … not the same cores that I had to lower with corecycler though.


How many iterations did Corecycler complete? How many hours? A log file is automatically produced and saved into the 'logs' directory.

There's also an option in Corecycler's config file to use y-cruncher (I think it's that) which is already included, as well as Aida64 (you have to download and use the engineer version and it's not the best test compared to the other two options) instead of Prime95 SSE.


----------



## Luggage

Piers said:


> That's really impressive for your best cores. From what I've seen, most have issues setting those cores to more than negative 10, and some have to add positive values (generally people using a scalar value of 5-10x and additional MHz).
> 
> I very much assume you'll get errors with those values. Personally, I'd change those to -10 on best, -20 on rest. However, you can try your existing values but make sure you let Corecycler go for at least 18-20 iterations without you using the PC. Using it whilst it's testing negates the test as more than one core will always be active, which totally defeats the purpose of checking for instability with undervolting (technically adjusting tables) via Curve Optimiser.
> 
> 
> Those are great idle temperatures.
> 
> What your airflow like?
> Ambient temperature?
> VRM temperatures?
> 
> How about your fan curve and pump speed? I have a 360mm radiator for the CPU, but a 280mm one should be absolutely fine (at stock and with a minor increase in PPT and EDC). Even AMD recommends a 280mm CLC or massive aluminium tower for the R9 chips.
> 
> 
> 
> The obvious advantage of overclocking your RAM to 3600 is 1800:1800 FCLK:UCLK, but the time required for really properly testing any overclocked RAM is, in my opinion, not remotely worth it. You're looking at over 100 hours truly test the stability of the RAM. Some people will still overclock it, test for a few hours, then consider it stable whilst their operating system slowly corrupts in the background.
> 
> It's entirely your choice, but I never recommend going over the XMP/AMP/DOCP (was easier when everyone used Intel's naming scheme) values, and even then I test stability for 24h with XMP enabled.
> 
> 
> Are you happy with that performance? Did you download the old (but still useful) FHD Benchmark tool a couple of pages back? It may be an old tool, but with a single click it'll encode a small file using up to 24 threads, and give you a standardised fps value at the end. It's also good (nowhere near as good as Corecycler) at crashing unstable systems - all in less than one minute.
> 
> 
> Even during CSGO I see about 70°C as it doesn't utilise all cores. It's totally normal to see higher temperatures in games as they tend to use 2-8 cores max. so the CPU will boost higher, meaning more voltage and higher temperatures. What sort of SVI2 TFN does HWINFO record during gaming?
> 
> 
> Which resolution do you game at? I also have a 3080 (240mm radiator) and in GTA V with all standard graphics settings on ultra and high (1st and 3rd sliders at minimum - can't remember what the options are), with no advanced graphics settings enabled, I frequently hit the engine's limit (~166 FPS) which causes stuttering.
> 
> In Nvidia Control Panel under 'Manage 3D settings' and then the second tab to customise settings per game, you can limit maximum FPS (on a per-game basis) without having to enable vsync, which is really useful. I limited GTA V to 150 FPS and the stuttering mostly disappeared (a few stutters when loading extensive assets is not concerning).
> 
> 
> 
> How many iterations did Corecycler complete? How many hours? A log file is automatically produced and saved into the 'logs' directory.
> 
> There's also an option in Corecycler's config file to use y-cruncher (I think it's that) which is already included, as well as Aida64 (you have to download and use the engineer version and it's not the best test compared to the other two options) instead of Prime95 SSE.


I don’t really know this was over a couple of weeks running corecycler over night and tweaking. 6 minutes and 20 minutes per core though. But no I never bothered testing all sizes or y-cruncher or Aida in corecycler. My crashes where all core load though… so, more tools in the arsenal. Koro takes like 5 minutes…


----------



## Piers

Luggage said:


> I don’t really know this was over a couple of weeks running corecycler over night and tweaking. 6 minutes and 20 minutes per core though. But no I never bothered testing all sizes or y-cruncher or Aida in corecycler. My crashes where all core load though… so, more tools in the arsenal. Koro takes like 5 minutes…


Ah, I use the BMW test as part of my benchmarks (which I run before stability testing - completes in 1m 49s). All-core loads crashing the system should show with Linpack tests such as the old Intel Burn Test (uses dlls from about 8 years ago, can be used on AMD despite the name) or the more recent (with newer dlls) Linpack Xtreme. Either one (even with the older dlls) can generally crash a system if unstable in all-core loads. Just make sure whichever you choose, if any, to set them to use at least 50% of your RAM and let it run for 20-30 cycles (might take about four hours total with 32GB RAM, assuming no crashes) and make sure your system is cooled (fans on high) as it'll put a huge load on your system - more than AVX2 generally does. At least it takes less time compared to some other methods.


----------



## Luggage

Piers said:


> Ah, I use the BMW test as part of my benchmarks (which I run before stability testing - completes in 1m 49s). All-core loads crashing the system should show with Linpack tests such as the old Intel Burn Test (uses dlls from about 8 years ago, can be used on AMD despite the name) or the more recent (with newer dlls) Linpack Xtreme. Either one (even with the older dlls) can generally crash a system if unstable in all-core loads. Just make sure whichever you choose, if any, to set them to use at least 50% of your RAM and let it run for 20-30 cycles (might take about four hours total with 32GB RAM, assuming no crashes) and make sure your system is cooled (fans on high) as it'll put a huge load on your system - more than AVX2 generally does. At least it takes less time compared to some other methods.


Ran the whole blender benchmark, only Koro failed to finish consistently until I fixed one core.
Perhaps I need to run linx longer than an hour but since it didn’t push temps as much as y-cruncher I figured y-cruncher was heavier?


----------



## Piers

Luggage said:


> Ran the whole blender benchmark, only Koro failed to finish consistently until I fixed one core.
> Perhaps I need to run linx longer than an hour but since it didn’t push temps as much as y-cruncher I figured y-cruncher was heavier?


That's genuinely interesting. Will need to test Blender's Koro again. How much RAM did you set with Linpack? What sort of voltages did you record with both y-cruncher and Linpack?


----------



## Luggage

Now that you mention, probably only 10 - damn now I have to re-test..


----------



## Gmill

> That's really impressive for your best cores. From what I've seen, most have issues setting those cores to more than negative 10, and some have to add positive values (generally people using a scalar value of 5-10x and additional MHz).
> 
> I very much assume you'll get errors with those values. Personally, I'd change those to -10 on best, -20 on rest. However, you can try your existing values but make sure you let Corecycler go for at least 18-20 iterations without you using the PC. Using it whilst it's testing negates the test as more than one core will always be active, which totally defeats the purpose of checking for instability with undervolting (technically adjusting tables) via Curve Optimiser.


At this point I do have additional MHz but I have not messed with the scalar. I haven't looked into changing that to know enough about the true affects and benefits. I agree I will probably get some errors with those values. I haven't run corecycler for that many iterations as of now. Should I just be running corecycler as it comes initially setup and run it for those 18-20 iterations or should i be changing the 6m stock timing?



> Those are great idle temperatures.
> 
> 
> What's your airflow like?
> Ambient temperature?
> VRM temperature?
> Fan curve?
> Fan type and CFM?
> Pump speed?
> Coolant temperature?
> I have a 360mm radiator for the CPU, but a 280mm one should be absolutely fine (at stock and with a minor increase in PPT and EDC). Even AMD recommends a 280mm CLC or massive aluminium tower for the R9 chips.


I have pretty good airflow. Its an Arctic Liquid Freerer II 280 front mounted to my case. My case is a Phanteks Entho Pro M TG. I go from keeping the front panel completely off to also having it on. Generally in the summer I keep the panel off to keep the cool AC going in and the winter months I can put the front panel back on. I have been contemplating whether to get a new case or not. Something along the lines of the Phanteks p400/500 airflow cases or something similar.

My ambient temps are typically 22c. Currently as I am typing I have Skyrim Special Addition(_which is not very demanding)_ running in background and my VRMs are at about 45c with the CPU sitting at 45c at 4,750MHz.

I have a custom fan curve set in bios that I couldn't really tell you off the top of my head but at these temps the fans are running at about 960rpm and I can't even hear them. The fans are the stock arctic fans that come on the AIO and are the arctic p14 pwm fans that run 200-1700rpm and 72.8cfm_(according to their website). _The one thing with the Arctic AIOs are that you can't control pump speed and can't read out coolant temps unless there is a way that I don't know about which is possible. 

One thing I did like about my MSI board on intel was some of the software that allowed you to mess with fan curves while in windows. It allowed me to really set my points where I wanted for noise and performance and then apply it in bios. With this gigabyte board I haven't come across anything to try and do something similar. There is also the option in bios to change the fan curve to a stepping instead of a slant curve. I noticed with the slant curve fans would rev up and down at times quickly just because of the temperature spikes here and there but with the stepping it removed that.



> The obvious advantage of overclocking your RAM to 3600 is 1800:1800 FCLK:UCLK, but the time required for really properly testing any overclocked RAM is, in my opinion, not remotely worth it. You're looking at over 100 hours truly test the stability of the RAM. Some people will still overclock it, test for a few hours, then consider it stable whilst their operating system slowly corrupts in the background.
> 
> It's entirely your choice, but I never recommend going over the XMP/AMP/DOCP (was easier when everyone used Intel's naming scheme) values, and even then I test stability for 24h with XMP enabled.


That is what I was kind of afraid of so I will probably just leave my current RAM set at XMP and be done with it. I don't really find the need to go out and spend more money on a new RAM kit if it isn't really going to give me to much more. 



> Are you happy with that performance? Did you download the old (but still useful) FHD Benchmark tool a couple of pages back? It may be an old tool, but with a single click it'll encode a small file using up to 24 threads, and give you a standardised fps value at the end. It's also good (nowhere near as good as Corecycler) at crashing unstable systems - all in less than one minute.


I'd say I'm pretty happy with where I am sitting at right now. I'm just about at the same all core clocks I was at on my 9900k which i'd say is pretty good. I will have to certainly download it and check it out.


----------



## KedarWolf

Piers said:


> Ah, I use the BMW test as part of my benchmarks (which I run before stability testing - completes in 1m 49s). All-core loads crashing the system should show with Linpack tests such as the old Intel Burn Test (uses dlls from about 8 years ago, can be used on AMD despite the name) or the more recent (with newer dlls) Linpack Xtreme. Either one (even with the older dlls) can generally crash a system if unstable in all-core loads. Just make sure whichever you choose, if any, to set them to use at least 50% of your RAM and let it run for 20-30 cycles (might take about four hours total with 32GB RAM, assuming no crashes) and make sure your system is cooled (fans on high) as it'll put a huge load on your system - more than AVX2 generally does. At least it takes less time compared to some other methods.


What CPU do you have?

On my 5950x I get 119 seconds in BMW.


----------



## Piers

Gmill said:


> At this point I do have additional MHz but I have not messed with the scalar. I haven't looked into changing that to know enough about the true affects and benefits.


The way I understand it, changing the Scalar multiplier allows the CPU to hold frequency boosts for longer periods of time by adjusting the equivalent of PL2. In theory, it only seems to produce negligible performance improvements at the cost of heat. I've yet to read of someone with a two CCD Zen 3 CPU who found Scalar essential to their overclock. I'm happy to be corrected, but with my own tests between 1x and 6x I see no difference in real-world tests, only an increase in heat.



Gmill said:


> I agree I will probably get some errors with those values. I haven't run corecycler for that many iterations as of now. Should I just be running corecycler as it comes initially setup and run it for those 18-20 iterations or should i be changing the 6m stock timing?


In my experience, running Corecycler with the default SSE gives the cores a chance to boost higher. This is likely to expose more instability. The author recommends 144 hours of Corecycler for SSE and another 144 hours for AVX2. However, being realistic I've found that major error instability is picked up within the first 12 iterations, with cores needing just a tiny more voltage on the curve being picked within about 20 iterations. The author also agrees that it's unrealistic to expect people to run a stability test for a combined 288 hours (12 days solid), but does explain that after about (IIRC) 10 iterations the algorithm repeats, so technically it's acceptable to stop the test and then restart it.

Essentially, one method he suggested is to conduct an initial test (as many iterations as you have time for), and if that passes to then use the PC if needed and for each night let Corecycler run again with the aim of getting to 144 hours at least with SSE.



Gmill said:


> I have pretty good airflow. Its an Arctic Liquid Freerer II 280 front mounted to my case. My case is a Phanteks Entho Pro M TG. I go from keeping the front panel completely off to also having it on. Generally in the summer I keep the panel off to keep the cool AC going in and the winter months I can put the front panel back on. I have been contemplating whether to get a new case or not. Something along the lines of the Phanteks p400/500 airflow cases or something similar.


Great cooler and I believe one of the highest reviewed (I was going to go for the 360mm version but was concerned by the tiny VRM fan and VRM heatsink clearance, so went with the Corsair H150i "Pro XT" (silly names). 

If you decide to get a new case, I can highly recommend the Fractal Meshify 2 (Fractal website link) if you like the look and can stretch the budget by about an extra £30 (~US$40). It's without question the easiest case in terms of building and maintenance I've ever owned. Some features I like:

Front, both side, and top panels removeable without the need for tools, yet secure
Taking the front and top panels off doesn't require any cables to be disconnected for the IO ports. It's a sensible design
All filters can be removed without the need for tools (and it front, top, bottom filters)
The airflow is amazing and it comes with three reasonable fans (1,000 RPM) and a fan hub PCB (which I don't use)
It supports 360mm radiators on the front and top (technically there's room for a thin 420mm) so allows for sensible future upgrade paths
Good front IO - 3.5mm headphone | 3.5mm microphone | power | reset | 2*USB 3.0 type-A | 1*USB 3.1 Gen 2 (10 gbps) type-C
I realise you didn't ask for a recommendation - sorry about that.



Gmill said:


> My ambient temps are typically 22c. Currently as I am typing I have Skyrim Special Addition(_which is not very demanding)_ running in background and my VRMs are at about 45c with the CPU sitting at 45c at 4,750MHz.


That's a great temperature for the VRM. It seems like the tiny VRM fan is doing its job, or you have excellent airflow in general.



Gmill said:


> I have a custom fan curve set in bios that I couldn't really tell you off the top of my head but at these temps the fans are running at about 960rpm and I can't even hear them.


That's even better. I only have two case fans (one bottom, one rear) as the rest of the space is taken up by radiators (3x120mm top, 2x140 front). I usually require higher speeds for benchmarking, but they certainly quieter than my old build where I had five Noctua PPC 3000 RPM industrial fans to force air in and out of the case (the case was the truly awful-for-airflow Corsair Obsidian 750D).



Gmill said:


> One thing I did like about my MSI board on intel was some of the software that allowed you to mess with fan curves while in windows. It allowed me to really set my points where I wanted for noise and performance and then apply it in bios. With this gigabyte board I haven't come across anything to try and do something similar. There is also the option in bios to change the fan curve to a stepping instead of a slant curve.


I know Asus has horrific software to control parts of the BIOS from Windows, but it seems most companies that offer some sort of Windows-BIOS (well, technically UEFI) control release badly coded software filled with security issues. Asus has even gone a step too far and now has a BIOS option to automatically install its buIIs**t software on first boot into Windows - and it's enabled by default! It's like malware built into the BIOS.



Gmill said:


> That is what I was kind of afraid of so I will probably just leave my current RAM set at XMP and be done with it. I don't really find the need to go out and spend more money on a new RAM kit if it isn't really going to give me to much more.


In the UK, DDR4 is quite cheap at the moment. The kit I have (32GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3600 CL18) is £115 from Corsair's website (remember that the UK includes 20% VAT, or sales tax, in the display price). That being said, could you do an Aida64 cache and memory test and post the results? Here's a screenshot of mine (OCN link) so you can compare and see if it's worth getting different RAM (it probably isn't).



Gmill said:


> I'd say I'm pretty happy with where I am sitting at right now. I'm just about at the same all core clocks I was at on my 9900k which i'd say is pretty good.


That's great to read. Based on what you've said, it seems like the only thing left for you to do is extensively test stability. 



KedarWolf said:


> What CPU do you have?
> 
> On my 5950x I get 119 seconds in BMW.


I have the 5900X. Stock performance on BMW is 1m 54s. With a curve, scalar 1x, stock power limits, and most importantly CPPC *disabled*, it's reduced by a few seconds. However, performance in an actual large Blender render is reduced by about 7%. x264/x265 encodes are also reduced by ~5-8% depending on the settings (I have a set of 5 test files for encoding, along with settings saved). I honestly don't mind sacrificing a tiny percentage of single core performance for the massive increase in multi core performance, especially in AVX(2) workloads.


----------



## Piers

Luggage said:


> After much testing with corecycler - I still got error in Blender Benchmark scene Koro and running y-cruncher over night. … not the same cores that I had to lower with corecycler though.


Just ran the Koro benchmark scene and it completed, although clocks dropped down to 4.02 GHz and the cursor was very laggy (which is the case with every Blender benchmark, even at totally stock settings). Do you experience cursor lag as well? Time to complete Koro was 3m47s. I have no idea if that's good or not.


----------



## Luggage

Piers said:


> Just ran the Koro benchmark scene and it completed, although clocks dropped down to 4.02 GHz and the cursor was very laggy (which is the case with every Blender benchmark, even at totally stock settings). Do you experience cursor lag as well? Time to complete Koro was 3m47s. I have no idea if that's good or not.


Never touch the system while benching 😉
Testing now, brb…


----------



## Luggage

Piers said:


> That's genuinely interesting. Will need to test Blender's Koro again. How much RAM did you set with Linpack? What sort of voltages did you record with both y-cruncher and Linpack?





http://imgur.com/a/iOOVtOb


But Koro crashed - so I don't know if I fibbed the curve after last bios wipe or it's just boosting too much with this colder weather... back to the tuning i guess.


----------



## Gmill

> I know Asus has horrific software to control parts of the BIOS from Windows, but it seems most companies that offer some sort of Windows-BIOS (well, technically UEFI) control release badly coded software filled with security issues. Asus has even gone a step too far and now has a BIOS option to automatically install its buIIs**t software on first boot into Windows - and it's enabled by default! It's like malware built into the BIOS.


This gigabyte board also has that same setting in the BIOS. Before I knew it I was installing a bunch of crap that I didn't necessarily want.

I'm also going to let corecycler run overnight and see how many iterations I can get and what errors I have in the morning. I only have 3 fans in my case currently. The 2 140mm fans on the radiator and one 140mm at the rear that runs at lower rpms and is set to run off system temps not cpu. I try to do this as to try and push more cool air into the case and not have it being sucked straight out the back or top and let the warm air rise out. I would however at some point prefer a case where the front panel is full airflow and my current case has about a quarter of it as a solid panel for a 3.5" drive bay.

*EDIT: *Of course as I start running corecycler for the night the first 3 cores to run failed. Is this effected by an added +mhz to the boost?

Here is my Aida64 cache and memory test


----------



## Luggage

Best fan software I found was Argus monitor. Not free but you can mix and match temperature sources and set really fancy curves and relations.

Now I’ve moved over to Aqua computer to control my custom loop from water temp with an octo.


----------



## Imprezzion

@Piers Well, I played several hours of BF2042 128 player multiplayer with 3 buddies at -23 for the weaker cores and -20 for the stronger ones. +50 max boost, 300 PPT 220 TDC 240 EDC. RAM at DOCP 3600 straight 16 1.35v, IF 1:1 1800 @ 1.081v SoC. It held up great. No weirdness, no WHEA's, no crashes. Even using ReBAR and HAGS on latest W11 insider beta channel.

Temps sat in the low 60's with peaks of 70-72c while loading.

SVI2 TFN around 1.472-1.480v.

I saw most cores with an effective clock of around 4775Mhz most of the time with the stronger 4 often hitting as high as 4900Mhz.

I game at 1080p 280hz btw.


----------



## KedarWolf

Piers said:


> The way I understand it, changing the Scalar multiplier allows the CPU to hold frequency boosts for longer periods of time by adjusting the equivalent of PL2. In theory, it only seems to produce negligible performance improvements at the cost of heat. I've yet to read of someone with a two CCD Zen 3 CPU who found Scalar essential to their overclock. I'm happy to be corrected, but with my own tests between 1x and 6x I see no difference in real-world tests, only an increase in heat.
> 
> In my experience, running Corecycler with the default SSE gives the cores a chance to boost higher. This is likely to expose more instability. The author recommends 144 hours of Corecycler for SSE and another 144 hours for AVX2. However, being realistic I've found that major error instability is picked up within the first 12 iterations, with cores needing just a tiny more voltage on the curve being picked within about 20 iterations. The author also agrees that it's unrealistic to expect people to run a stability test for a combined 288 hours (12 days solid), but does explain that after about (IIRC) 10 iterations the algorithm repeats, so technically it's acceptable to stop the test and then restart it.
> 
> Essentially, one method he suggested is to conduct an initial test (as many iterations as you have time for), and if that passes to then use the PC if needed and for each night let Corecycler run again with the aim of getting to 144 hours at least with SSE.
> 
> 
> Great cooler and I believe one of the highest reviewed (I was going to go for the 360mm version but was concerned by the tiny VRM fan and VRM heatsink clearance, so went with the Corsair H150i "Pro XT" (silly names).
> 
> If you decide to get a new case, I can highly recommend the Fractal Meshify 2 (Fractal website link) if you like the look and can stretch the budget by about an extra £30 (~US$40). It's without question the easiest case in terms of building and maintenance I've ever owned. Some features I like:
> 
> Front, both side, and top panels removeable without the need for tools, yet secure
> Taking the front and top panels off doesn't require any cables to be disconnected for the IO ports. It's a sensible design
> All filters can be removed without the need for tools (and it front, top, bottom filters)
> The airflow is amazing and it comes with three reasonable fans (1,000 RPM) and a fan hub PCB (which I don't use)
> It supports 360mm radiators on the front and top (technically there's room for a thin 420mm) so allows for sensible future upgrade paths
> Good front IO - 3.5mm headphone | 3.5mm microphone | power | reset | 2*USB 3.0 type-A | 1*USB 3.1 Gen 2 (10 gbps) type-C
> I realise you didn't ask for a recommendation - sorry about that.
> 
> 
> That's a great temperature for the VRM. It seems like the tiny VRM fan is doing its job, or you have excellent airflow in general.
> 
> 
> That's even better. I only have two case fans (one bottom, one rear) as the rest of the space is taken up by radiators (3x120mm top, 2x140 front). I usually require higher speeds for benchmarking, but they certainly quieter than my old build where I had five Noctua PPC 3000 RPM industrial fans to force air in and out of the case (the case was the truly awful-for-airflow Corsair Obsidian 750D).
> 
> 
> I know Asus has horrific software to control parts of the BIOS from Windows, but it seems most companies that offer some sort of Windows-BIOS (well, technically UEFI) control release badly coded software filled with security issues. Asus has even gone a step too far and now has a BIOS option to automatically install its buIIs**t software on first boot into Windows - and it's enabled by default! It's like malware built into the BIOS.
> 
> 
> In the UK, DDR4 is quite cheap at the moment. The kit I have (32GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3600 CL18) is £115 from Corsair's website (remember that the UK includes 20% VAT, or sales tax, in the display price). That being said, could you do an Aida64 cache and memory test and post the results? Here's a screenshot of mine (OCN link) so you can compare and see if it's worth getting different RAM (it probably isn't).
> 
> 
> That's great to read. Based on what you've said, it seems like the only thing left for you to do is extensively test stability.
> 
> 
> I have the 5900X. Stock performance on BMW is 1m 54s. With a curve, scalar 1x, stock power limits, and most importantly CPPC *disabled*, it's reduced by a few seconds. However, performance in an actual large Blender render is reduced by about 7%. x264/x265 encodes are also reduced by ~5-8% depending on the settings (I have a set of 5 test files for encoding, along with settings saved). I honestly don't mind sacrificing a tiny percentage of single core performance for the massive increase in multi core performance, especially in AVX(2) workloads.


I tried just CPPC disabled and CPPC and CPPC Preferred Cpore disabled and my times went up from 79 seconds to 116 and 119 in BMW.


----------



## Piers

Gmill said:


> This gigabyte board also has that same setting in the BIOS. Before I knew it I was installing a bunch of crap that I didn't necessarily want.


I think reviewers should class that as BIOS-level malware and deduct points for manufacturers forcing atrociously-coded software full of security flaws onto users. But maybe that's a tad extreme a view to some 😋


Gmill said:


> I'm also going to let corecycler run overnight and see how many iterations I can get and what errors I have in the morning.


Hehe. Based on your edit, it seems you jinxed it by writing that. 


Gmill said:


> I only have 3 fans in my case currently. The 2 140mm fans on the radiator and one 140mm at the rear that runs at lower rpms and is set to run off system temps not cpu. I try to do this as to try and push more cool air into the case and not have it being sucked straight out the back or top and let the warm air rise out.


If you have the budget and time, is definitely upgrade to a new case. And as I fanboyed over earlier, the Meshify 2 really is a superb case for the price, but obviously looks are important as well and that's entirely subjective. 



Gmill said:


> I would however at some point prefer a case where the front panel is full airflow and my current case has about a quarter of it as a solid panel for a 3.5" drive bay.


The Meshify 2 has a full mesh front (with shaped fractals - looks interesting) and then a removable nylon filter which does a great job at keeping dust out, especially as I use the GPU 240mm radiator in the front as an intake. 



Gmill said:


> Of course as I start running corecycler for the night the first 3 cores to run failed. Is this effected by an added +mhz to the boost?


At least it failed before you went to sleep. Did you reboot, bump up the curve values, then try again? It can be impacted by the additional voltage - especially at ridiculous (for most users) values of 100+. At 25 MHz it shouldn't make much of a difference



Imprezzion said:


> Well, I played several hours of BF2042 128 player multiplayer with 3 buddies at -23 for the weaker cores and -20 for the stronger ones. +50 max boost, 300 PPT 220 TDC 240 EDC. RAM at DOCP 3600 straight 16 1.35v, IF 1:1 1800 @ 1.081v SoC. It held up great. No weirdness, no WHEA's, no crashes. Even using ReBAR and HAGS on latest W11 insider beta channel.


My first PBO2 Curve was -25 on most cores, with -15 on the best four plus one dud. It handled Cyberpunk perfectly but then crashed whilst taking a screenshot. It's always worth spending the time testing stability for as long as you can. Why did you go with such high power limits? I would have thought those could be reduced by ~20% and you'd have the same performance. 



Imprezzion said:


> Temps sat in the low 60's with peaks of 70-72c while loading.


Great temperatures. I played some GTA V (4K) earlier and apart from hitting engine limits, the CPU sustained a boost of ~4700 MHz @ 1.366v on what seemed like 12(ish) threads at ~65°C. The present extreme cold snap certainly helped reduce the average temperature. 



Imprezzion said:


> SVI2 TFN around 1.472-1.480v.


So within specification for a few-core sustained boost. 



Imprezzion said:


> I saw most cores with an effective clock of around 4775Mhz most of the time with the stronger 4 often hitting as high as 4900Mhz.
> 
> I game at 1080p 280hz btw.


That's certainly great average effective clocks. I only tend to see 4950 during loading screens and in the menus. 



KedarWolf said:


> I tried just CPPC disabled and CPPC and CPPC Preferred Cpore disabled and my times went up from 79 seconds to 116 and 119 in BMW.


That's really weird and somewhat surprising. Perhaps I saw increased performance due to Windows 11's new scheduler. What's you PBO2 configuration?


----------



## Imprezzion

Piers said:


> I think reviewers should class that as BIOS-level malware and deduct points for manufacturers forcing atrociously-coded software full of security flaws onto users. But maybe that's a tad extreme a view to some 😋
> 
> Hehe. Based on your edit, it seems you jinxed it by writing that.
> 
> If you have the budget and time, is definitely upgrade to a new case. And as I fanboyed over earlier, the Meshify 2 really is a superb case for the price, but obviously looks are important as well and that's entirely subjective.
> 
> 
> The Meshify 2 has a full mesh front (with shaped fractals - looks interesting) and then a removable nylon filter which does a great job at keeping dust out, especially as I use the GPU 240mm radiator in the front as an intake.
> 
> 
> At least it failed before you went to sleep. Did you reboot, bump up the curve values, then try again? It can be impacted by the additional voltage - especially at ridiculous (for most users) values of 100+. At 25 MHz it shouldn't make much of a difference
> 
> 
> My first PBO2 Curve was -25 on most cores, with -15 on the best four plus one dud. It handled Cyberpunk perfectly but then crashed whilst taking a screenshot. It's always worth spending the time testing stability for as long as you can. Why did you go with such high power limits? I would have thought those could be reduced by ~20% and you'd have the same performance.
> 
> 
> Great temperatures. I played some GTA V (4K) earlier and apart from hitting engine limits, the CPU sustained a boost of ~4700 MHz @ 1.366v on what seemed like 12(ish) threads at ~65°C. The present extreme cold snap certainly helped reduce the average temperature.
> 
> 
> So within specification for a few-core sustained boost.
> 
> 
> That's certainly great average effective clocks. I only tend to see 4950 during loading screens and in the menus.
> 
> 
> That's really weird and somewhat surprising. Perhaps I saw increased performance due to Windows 11's new scheduler. What's you PBO2 configuration?


I use this high of a PPT/EDC cause I can basically and CB23 pulls up to 232A EDC an scores still scale. 21780 @ 190 EDC 22794 @ 240 EDC and temps hold up so why not. 

It will hit 5000Mhz in lighter threaded loads quite often. I tried +100 @ 5050 but that failed core cycler.


----------



## KedarWolf

Piers said:


> I think reviewers should class that as BIOS-level malware and deduct points for manufacturers forcing atrociously-coded software full of security flaws onto users. But maybe that's a tad extreme a view to some 😋
> 
> Hehe. Based on your edit, it seems you jinxed it by writing that.
> 
> If you have the budget and time, is definitely upgrade to a new case. And as I fanboyed over earlier, the Meshify 2 really is a superb case for the price, but obviously looks are important as well and that's entirely subjective.
> 
> 
> The Meshify 2 has a full mesh front (with shaped fractals - looks interesting) and then a removable nylon filter which does a great job at keeping dust out, especially as I use the GPU 240mm radiator in the front as an intake.
> 
> 
> At least it failed before you went to sleep. Did you reboot, bump up the curve values, then try again? It can be impacted by the additional voltage - especially at ridiculous (for most users) values of 100+. At 25 MHz it shouldn't make much of a difference
> 
> 
> My first PBO2 Curve was -25 on most cores, with -15 on the best four plus one dud. It handled Cyberpunk perfectly but then crashed whilst taking a screenshot. It's always worth spending the time testing stability for as long as you can. Why did you go with such high power limits? I would have thought those could be reduced by ~20% and you'd have the same performance.
> 
> 
> Great temperatures. I played some GTA V (4K) earlier and apart from hitting engine limits, the CPU sustained a boost of ~4700 MHz @ 1.366v on what seemed like 12(ish) threads at ~65°C. The present extreme cold snap certainly helped reduce the average temperature.
> 
> 
> So within specification for a few-core sustained boost.
> 
> 
> That's certainly great average effective clocks. I only tend to see 4950 during loading screens and in the menus.
> 
> 
> That's really weird and somewhat surprising. Perhaps I saw increased performance due to Windows 11's new scheduler. What's you PBO2 configuration?





Piers said:


> Just ran the Koro benchmark scene and it completed, although clocks dropped down to 4.02 GHz and the cursor was very laggy (which is the case with every Blender benchmark, even at totally stock settings). Do you experience cursor lag as well? Time to complete Koro was 3m47s. I have no idea if that's good or not.


On my Strix OC RTX 3090 in five of the six of the OpenData benchmarks, my benchmark was #1 in the world for a RTX 3090. Only someone was faster in Victor.






Blender - Open Data Benchmark


Blender Open Data is a platform to collect, display and query the results of hardware and software performance tests - provided by the public.




opendata.blender.org


----------



## tcclaviger

Imprezzion said:


> I use this high of a PPT/EDC cause I can basically and CB23 pulls up to 232A EDC an scores still scale. 21780 @ 190 EDC 22794 @ 240 EDC and temps hold up so why not.
> 
> It will hit 5000Mhz in lighter threaded loads quite often. I tried +100 @ 5050 but that failed core cycler.


Due to the nature of how EDC works, more is not necessarily better. I bet if you drop just EDC to 201, you will lose nothing on multi-core and see slight gains in single core.


----------



## tcclaviger

KedarWolf said:


> On my Strix OC RTX 3090 in five of the six of the OpenData benchmarks, my benchmark was #1 in the world for a RTX 3090. Only someone was faster in Victor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blender - Open Data Benchmark
> 
> 
> Blender Open Data is a platform to collect, display and query the results of hardware and software performance tests - provided by the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> opendata.blender.org


3090s really are beastly, it's really a shame about the way the market turned :/

This is locked at 2205 core/8300 memory on a shunt modded 2080ti, much closer to 3070 than others.






Blender - Open Data Benchmark


Blender Open Data is a platform to collect, display and query the results of hardware and software performance tests - provided by the public.




opendata.blender.org


----------



## Piers

KedarWolf said:


> On my Strix OC RTX 3090 in five of the six of the OpenData benchmarks, my benchmark was #1 in the world for a RTX 3090. Only someone was faster in Victor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blender - Open Data Benchmark
> 
> 
> Blender Open Data is a platform to collect, display and query the results of hardware and software performance tests - provided by the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> opendata.blender.org


But that's rendering with the GPU, unless I misunderstand? We're testing rendering with the CPU.


----------



## Luggage

KedarWolf said:


> On my Strix OC RTX 3090 in five of the six of the OpenData benchmarks, my benchmark was #1 in the world for a RTX 3090. Only someone was faster in Victor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blender - Open Data Benchmark
> 
> 
> Blender Open Data is a platform to collect, display and query the results of hardware and software performance tests - provided by the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> opendata.blender.org


More off topic but…
Like my 2080ti






Blender - Open Data Benchmark


Blender Open Data is a platform to collect, display and query the results of hardware and software performance tests - provided by the public.




opendata.blender.org


----------



## KedarWolf

Piers said:


> But that's rendering with the GPU, unless I misunderstand? We're testing rendering with the CPU.


Yes, I'm quite aware it's rendering with the GPU. I just wanted to try it to see how different it is from the CPU, if it was faster etc.

I tested it and what quite pleased I topped the results for 3090s with my GPU.

And I DO believe we were talking about Blender, and its Blender benchmarks.


----------



## Luggage

And cpu, in September so not as good temps as I should get now.
And since it scales with cores very difficult to compare r7 vs r9






Blender - Open Data Benchmark


Blender Open Data is a platform to collect, display and query the results of hardware and software performance tests - provided by the public.




opendata.blender.org


----------



## KedarWolf

Luggage said:


> More off topic but…
> Like my 2080ti
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blender - Open Data Benchmark
> 
> 
> Blender Open Data is a platform to collect, display and query the results of hardware and software performance tests - provided by the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> opendata.blender.org


What settings did you use? CUDA, 2.93? If you punch those in and check on the BMW, your benchmark is like eight seconds faster than the fastest and your result is not showing.

Edit: You ran Optix, I'm going to have to try that. :/


----------



## Piers

KedarWolf said:


> Yes, I'm quite aware it's rendering with the GPU. I just wanted to try it to see how different it is from the CPU, if it was faster etc.
> 
> I tested it and what quite pleased I topped the results for 3090s with my GPU.
> 
> And I DO believe we were talking about Blender, and its Blender benchmarks.


We were discussing Blender in relation to CPUs in a thread about the 5900X and 5950X. A GPU render is entirely different and will always be faster (assuming a modern GPU). It's like comparing NVENC H265 to x265. Regardless, it's still interesting seeing the results.


----------



## tcclaviger

What is interesting to me, a 5950 can out render a 2080 super... Bigger gap from 2080 super to 2080ti than I had realized.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Does the cpu or gpu affect the min fps guys?


----------



## tcclaviger

Yes. They both impact min FPS, as does RAM and FCLK, but it's engine specific and game specific. You can check fairly easily in a number of way which is contributing the most by limiting the speed of any 1 of them and seeing if decreases, then doing the same for the other 2, limit 1 at a time to identify the choke point, or conversely boosting the speed of 1 at a time by a lot and see if minimums increase. Watching monitoring software doesn't always show which component is the issue, as sometimes a CPU can bottleneck you without any cores being at 100% load (badly optimized games, nearly all of them these days), RAM bottlenecks generally don't show up clearly, and GPU bottlenecks can occur both at 100% load and sub 100%.

Any game you have in mind in particular?


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

tcclaviger said:


> Yes. They both impact min FPS, as does RAM and FCLK, but it's engine specific and game specific. You can check fairly easily in a number of way which is contributing the most by limiting the speed of any 1 of them and seeing if decreases, then doing the same for the other 2, limit 1 at a time to identify the choke point, or conversely boosting the speed of 1 at a time by a lot and see if minimums increase. Watching monitoring software doesn't always show which component is the issue, as sometimes a CPU can bottleneck you without any cores being at 100% load (badly optimized games, nearly all of them these days), RAM bottlenecks generally don't show up clearly, and GPU bottlenecks can occur both at 100% load and sub 100%.
> 
> Any game you have in mind in particular?


Shadow of tomb raider 1080p lowest


----------



## Piers

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Shadow of tomb raider 1080p lowest


Do you think your CPU is the bottleneck, or do you always play at low settings 1080p?


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Piers said:


> Do you think your CPU is the bottleneck, or do you always play at low settings 1080p?


Just for benchmark


----------



## tcclaviger

It's usually the CPU Game minimum frame rate holding it back (on Nvidia). It scales all the way up to 2000fclk/4000mt/s (and more).
RAM throughput and latency plus sheer clock speed of CPU when using 70ish TDC and under, have a massive impact on score.


----------



## Imprezzion

Hmm, I really do not understand how AMD works 

I decided to play around a bit with LLC and Offset voltage after having set a PBO2 OC of -20 curve all-core and +50 max clock.
SVI2 TFN was usually around 1.476-1.488v with massive vdroop to 1.337v in Cinebench R23 for example but in games like BF2042 it would stay around 1.456-1.460v so over 0.120v spread which I don't like. 

So, I set my phase control to Optimized, 140% current, LLC 2, Offset -0.100, same PBO2 curve -20 all-core and +100 max clock.

This results in 1.400v SVI2 TFN idle and 1.288v in CB23 and 1.300v in CPU-Z. Still a lot of deviation, about the same, but way lower voltage. And so far it doesn't seem unstable. Effective and read clocks aren't as high however, what I don't understand, both CB23 and CPU-Z scores are higher then they've ever been and by a good margin as well..CB23 easily pushed 23k multi now and even CPU-Z goes over 10K consistently now which it never has.. Even single-core is 664 now while before it was 652 at higher observed clocks. Temps are like 10c less, barely touching 65c now even in CB23. 

So, less voltage, less power draw, somehow higher scores and the weirdest of it all is that it pulls WAY more EDC now. It hit 245A.. I had it limited to 250 but still. I never saw higher then 232A on 1.488v.. 

So, I can appearantly run 4.6-4.625 all-core AVX loads at 1.288v just fine. Didn't expect that at all.


----------



## Luggage

Imprezzion said:


> Hmm, I really do not understand how AMD works
> 
> I decided to play around a bit with LLC and Offset voltage after having set a PBO2 OC of -20 curve all-core and +50 max clock.
> SVI2 TFN was usually around 1.476-1.488v with massive vdroop to 1.337v in Cinebench R23 for example but in games like BF2042 it would stay around 1.456-1.460v so over 0.120v spread which I don't like.
> 
> So, I set my phase control to Optimized, 140% current, LLC 2, Offset -0.100, same PBO2 curve -20 all-core and +100 max clock.
> 
> This results in 1.400v SVI2 TFN idle and 1.288v in CB23 and 1.300v in CPU-Z. Still a lot of deviation, about the same, but way lower voltage. And so far it doesn't seem unstable. Effective and read clocks aren't as high however, what I don't understand, both CB23 and CPU-Z scores are higher then they've ever been and by a good margin as well..CB23 easily pushed 23k multi now and even CPU-Z goes over 10K consistently now which it never has.. Even single-core is 664 now while before it was 652 at higher observed clocks. Temps are like 10c less, barely touching 65c now even in CB23.
> 
> So, less voltage, less power draw, somehow higher scores and the weirdest of it all is that it pulls WAY more EDC now. It hit 245A.. I had it limited to 250 but still. I never saw higher then 232A on 1.488v..
> 
> So, I can appearantly run 4.6-4.625 all-core AVX loads at 1.288v just fine. Didn't expect that at all.


Just one thing quickly. Droop on Ryzen is the difference between current VID and SVI2TFN. Not the difference between light/idle and heavy.


----------



## Imprezzion

Luggage said:


> Just one thing quickly. Droop on Ryzen is the difference between current VID and SVI2TFN. Not the difference between light/idle and heavy.


That makes me understand it even less lol. Then how do you adjust the difference between light and heavy loads? I wanna just regulate it to the point where it always has the minimum needed and no huge overshoot. I don't need to run 1.488v for gaming but if I just set -200 offset it will obviously crash under heavy loads. 

It's on iteration 3 now in Corecycler on -100 offset LLC2. Voltage hovers around 1.300-1.337v depending on which core it loads, a gold, silver or normal one, but so far no errors yet.

How long should I test a full all-core load to simulate the worst-case load and droop? Like, 2x 30 min of CB23 loop and maybe a hour or 2 of TestMem5? Gotta test RAM OC soon anyway so..


----------



## tcclaviger

Imprezzion said:


> Hmm, I really do not understand how AMD works
> 
> I decided to play around a bit with LLC and Offset voltage after having set a PBO2 OC of -20 curve all-core and +50 max clock.
> SVI2 TFN was usually around 1.476-1.488v with massive vdroop to 1.337v in Cinebench R23 for example but in games like BF2042 it would stay around 1.456-1.460v so over 0.120v spread which I don't like.
> 
> So, I set my phase control to Optimized, 140% current, LLC 2, Offset -0.100, same PBO2 curve -20 all-core and +100 max clock.
> 
> This results in 1.400v SVI2 TFN idle and 1.288v in CB23 and 1.300v in CPU-Z. Still a lot of deviation, about the same, but way lower voltage. And so far it doesn't seem unstable. Effective and read clocks aren't as high however, what I don't understand, both CB23 and CPU-Z scores are higher then they've ever been and by a good margin as well..CB23 easily pushed 23k multi now and even CPU-Z goes over 10K consistently now which it never has.. Even single-core is 664 now while before it was 652 at higher observed clocks. Temps are like 10c less, barely touching 65c now even in CB23.
> 
> So, less voltage, less power draw, somehow higher scores and the weirdest of it all is that it pulls WAY more EDC now. It hit 245A.. I had it limited to 250 but still. I never saw higher then 232A on 1.488v..
> 
> So, I can appearantly run 4.6-4.625 all-core AVX loads at 1.288v just fine. Didn't expect that at all.


Think of it like your tweaking the curve boosting control in MSI afterburner for a CPU, but doing it without being able to see the table directly, and if you move any value too far, it ignores what you put in. It's also 2 or more 3d tables instead of one 2d table.

EDC is not a "power draw" metric, it's a boost allowance metric, power draw is PPT, current drawn in TDC. Higher EDC doesn't always perform better, but in most scenarios higher EDC = higher multi-core performance.

Vdroop you're seeing isn't actual Vdroop, it's SMU control reducing the core speed/voltage based on temperature, VID shown is the upper allowed limit if the chip had infinite thermal headroom, SVI2 TFN is the current location on the scale SMU is setting minus actual vdroop(actual vdroop is less than 10mv typically and SMU adjusts it on the fly to match demanded voltage as closely as it can to delivered voltage).

When you see a VID at say 1.5 and SVI2 TFN at 1.494, that's vdroop.
When you see a VID at 1.4 and SVI2 TFN at 1.281, that's SMU pulling the CPU back from max speed because of one of the four conditions tripping a limit(Temperature/Voltage/Amperage/Power).
When you see TDC/EDC match, you're getting full speed allowed by SMU for that given workload and temperature because you're not hitting any limits.
When you see TDC under EDC, you're getting some scaling back by SMU on speeds set. You can observe this by enabling Frequency Limit - Global in HWinfo and comparing it to effective clock during multi-core workloads, but only if not hitting TDC or PPT limits. The ultimate goal in PBO multi-core overclocking is narrow the gap between effective speed and global limit as much as possible, while raising the global limit for a given voltage, to make gains in performance.

You're seeing a bigger SVI2 TFN to VID mismatch in R23 because it's a all core load, so the CPU is limiting based on all core load telemetry, pulling it further back from global limit.
You're seeing a smaller SVI2 TFN to VID mismatch in gaming, because they never load all cores, lighter load = more boost on fewer cores = more aggressive on the freq/volt scale = narrower gap between global limit and effective clock which results in closer SVI2 TFN and VID numbers.

Vdroop doesn't care what you like, it's not intel and seeing SVI2 TFN and VID deviation is not in any way a problem. I made the same mistake for a long time when switching over, trying to minimize vdroop. Best performance was ultimately achieved by LLC=Auto and using other variables to narrow the Global limit to Effective speed gap.

"LLC 2, Offset -0.100, same PBO2 curve -20 all-core and +100 max clock"

Will essentially do this:
LLC 2 = gives more voltage observed than SMU was expecting when commanding a specific VID, so SMU scales the point it maintains on freq/volt curve down (your observed "effective speed" being lower).
offset -0.1 = brings voltage down a touch from where LLC 2 and SMU target when there is no vcore offset would have had it, allowing the CPU to maintain better effective clocks vs no offset, within the limits of the SMU set freq/voltage, this is indirectly allows you to manipulate SMU targeting. It is helping the CPU maintain a higher % of SMU set target clock (thus your score increases).
CO -20 = altering your freq/volt curve SMU uses (why you're seeing almost the same deviation in vdroop from your earlier settings for a given work load despite different speeds/scores).
+100mhz = doing nothing if you're not actually boosting into the speeds above where it would normally be limited. It extends the scale for freq/voltage, so SMU can target higher, but doesn't at all mean it will (in fact, too much +mhz offset can reduce effective speeds slightly).

You would almost certainly achieve the same by using
LLC = Auto, Offset = value less than -0.1 (like -0.5 or -0.2), PBO 2 Curve -20 and +whatever is the max your cpu actually uses (it may be 100 but keep in mind the generally only effects 1-4 core loads, beyond that heat starting impacting heavily).

The key difference is LLC 2 is providing a static ramp rate that SMU adjusts to compensate for. LLC Auto allows SMU to adjust the rate based on the specific task the CPU is working on and all the other variables. LLC Auto will have much smaller overshoot/undershoot, but LLC 2 will provide that instant kick of voltage with no calculation needed, so is faster (by a tiny bit) and may allow for more aggressive CO (which has better ultimate performance...have to test which works better on your CPU/MB).

You have independently arrived at exactly how I achieved max performance on the 3000 series CPUs, before we could manipulate CO, because you are manipulating the curve, indirectly.


----------



## PJVol

o.m.f.g.
Dude, it's really hard to keep up with your train of thoughts (what it was? I want some )


----------



## Imprezzion

tcclaviger said:


> Think of it like your tweaking the curve boosting control in MSI afterburner for a CPU, but doing it without being able to see the table directly, and if you move any value too far, it ignores what you put in. It's also 2 or more 3d tables instead of one 2d table.
> 
> EDC is not a "power draw" metric, it's a boost allowance metric, power draw is PPT, current drawn in TDC. Higher EDC doesn't always perform better, but in most scenarios higher EDC = higher multi-core performance.
> 
> Vdroop you're seeing isn't actual Vdroop, it's SMU control reducing the core speed/voltage based on temperature, VID shown is the upper allowed limit if the chip had infinite thermal headroom, SVI2 TFN is the current location on the scale SMU is setting minus actual vdroop(actual vdroop is less than 10mv typically and SMU adjusts it on the fly to match demanded voltage as closely as it can to delivered voltage).
> 
> When you see a VID at say 1.5 and SVI2 TFN at 1.494, that's vdroop.
> When you see a VID at 1.4 and SVI2 TFN at 1.281, that's SMU pulling the CPU back from max speed because of one of the four conditions tripping a limit(Temperature/Voltage/Amperage/Power).
> When you see TDC/EDC match, you're getting full speed allowed by SMU for that given workload and temperature because you're not hitting any limits.
> When you see TDC under EDC, you're getting some scaling back by SMU on speeds set. You can observe this by enabling Frequency Limit - Global in HWinfo and comparing it to effective clock during multi-core workloads, but only if not hitting TDC or PPT limits. The ultimate goal in PBO multi-core overclocking is narrow the gap between effective speed and global limit as much as possible, while raising the global limit for a given voltage, to make gains in performance.
> 
> You're seeing a bigger SVI2 TFN to VID mismatch in R23 because it's a all core load, so the CPU is limiting based on all core load telemetry, pulling it further back from global limit.
> You're seeing a smaller SVI2 TFN to VID mismatch in gaming, because they never load all cores, lighter load = more boost on fewer cores = more aggressive on the freq/volt scale = narrower gap between global limit and effective clock which results in closer SVI2 TFN and VID numbers.
> 
> Vdroop doesn't care what you like, it's not intel and seeing SVI2 TFN and VID deviation is not in any way a problem. I made the same mistake for a long time when switching over, trying to minimize vdroop. Best performance was ultimately achieved by LLC=Auto and using other variables to narrow the Global limit to Effective speed gap.
> 
> "LLC 2, Offset -0.100, same PBO2 curve -20 all-core and +100 max clock"
> 
> Will essentially do this:
> LLC 2 = gives more voltage observed than SMU was expecting when commanding a specific VID, so SMU scales the point it maintains on freq/volt curve down (your observed "effective speed" being lower).
> offset -0.1 = brings voltage down a touch from where LLC 2 and SMU target when there is no vcore offset would have had it, allowing the CPU to maintain better effective clocks vs no offset, within the limits of the SMU set freq/voltage, this is indirectly allows you to manipulate SMU targeting. It is helping the CPU maintain a higher % of SMU set target clock (thus your score increases).
> CO -20 = altering your freq/volt curve SMU uses (why you're seeing almost the same deviation in vdroop from your earlier settings for a given work load despite different speeds/scores).
> +100mhz = doing nothing if you're not actually boosting into the speeds above where it would normally be limited. It extends the scale for freq/voltage, so SMU can target higher, but doesn't at all mean it will (in fact, too much +mhz offset can reduce effective speeds slightly).
> 
> You would almost certainly achieve the same by using
> LLC = Auto, Offset = value less than -0.1 (like -0.5 or -0.2), PBO 2 Curve -20 and +whatever is the max your cpu actually uses (it may be 100 but keep in mind the generally only effects 1-4 core loads, beyond that heat starting impacting heavily).
> 
> The key difference is LLC 2 is providing a static ramp rate that SMU adjusts to compensate for. LLC Auto allows SMU to adjust the rate based on the specific task the CPU is working on and all the other variables. LLC Auto will have much smaller overshoot/undershoot, but LLC 2 will provide that instant kick of voltage with no calculation needed, so is faster (by a tiny bit) and may allow for more aggressive CO (which has better ultimate performance...have to test which works better on your CPU/MB).
> 
> You have independently arrived at exactly how I achieved max performance on the 3000 series CPUs, before we could manipulate CO, because you are manipulating the curve, indirectly.


So. In CB23 my frequency limit goes down to ~4590Mhz so most cores bounce between 4575 and 4600. Core voltage (SVI2 TFN) reads 1.281-1.294v. Score is around 22900 so very good score for the frequency considering this is a full fat Windows 11 boot up with all the game launchers, aura sync, chrome, youtube, discord whatever all in the background.











But, how can I make it boost higher now lol. Temps are barely even hitting 68c under the TechN block and my rads can easily handle the heat output even on idle fan speed so why would I not wanna push higher. I have +100 as it does actually hit 5050Mhz (which is +100) quite often on the CCX1 top core in just idle / very light loads and i'm more like, why not, if it can, and it works, why not. 

As you can see, VID is pretty much exactly 0.100 higher then what it gets now which is fine.


----------



## PJVol

Imprezzion said:


> In CB23 my frequency limit goes down to ~4590Mhz so most cores bounce between 4575 and 4600


Before you dive down into that rabbit hole (a good place to bury one's mind), I'd strongly advise to update HWInfo to the latest release, and turn on "CPU snapshot polling" in a starting popup window settings.


----------



## tcclaviger

CO. Tuning CO tightly will get it to go higher.

Temperature will help, there's no single point where it starts limiting, the whole curve is impacted by temps down to below zero, a 5c drop is like 20mhz increase (roughly).
Scalar, if your CPU responds to it, some don't, like mine, start at like 2x and test as you raise it, but not until CO is fully tuned.

For single core or low thread count speed you can try dropping EDC to 201 and testing up/down increments of like 30 from there. As EDC rises boost aggressiveness reduces in low thread loads. There's a balance point where it is as aggressive as possible low thread and high enough for max boost on multicore/all thread.

Ran a test for you real quick to demonstrate temps and various limits in TDC/PPT/EDC.

Some constraint or "just" above constraining is best on electrical settings TDC/EDC/PPT.

At 65.5c CPU tcl/die temps, speeds of 4630-4640 all core, SVI2 tfn of roughly 1.325.
TDC 200 PPT 300 EDC 201 - R23 of 30454
TDC 170 PPT 300 EDC 201 - R23 of 30655

At 61.5c CPU tcl/die temps, speeds of 4660 steady all core, SVI2 TFN of roughly 1.325.
TDC 170 PPT 300 EDC 201 - R23 of 30984


----------



## tcclaviger

Your current efficiency is pretty good. Hate to say it, but you don't have a lot of room to go up at this point in PBO allcore. Single core and low thread should be your focus from here.

An easy way to check for efficiency is set static 4ghz speed of CPU. Run R23 3 times. Average the score.

Now average score / 4000 = R23 coefficient

You can predict performance with R23 Coefficient * MHz. = Score.

EG
30984/4660=6.6489
6.6489*4700=31,249

My atual 4700 static score is 31,700ish.


The deviation from predicted score to actual score will show how much pbo floats on all core work loads vs static, despite hwinfo showing it steady at 1 speed, it should be fairly close.

Large deviations are an easy check for clock stretching.


----------



## Imprezzion

tcclaviger said:


> Your current efficiency is pretty good. Hate to say it, but you don't have a lot of room to go up at this point in PBO allcore. Single core and low thread should be your focus from here.
> 
> An easy way to check for efficiency is set static 4ghz speed of CPU. Run R23 3 times. Average the score.
> 
> Now average score / 4000 = R23 coefficient
> 
> You can predict performance with R23 Coefficient * MHz. = Score.
> 
> EG
> 30984/4660=6.6489
> 6.6489*4700=31,249
> 
> My atual 4700 static score is 31,700ish.
> 
> 
> The deviation from predicted score to actual score will show how much pbo floats on all core work loads vs static, despite hwinfo showing it steady at 1 speed, it should be fairly close.
> 
> Large deviations are an easy check for clock stretching.


Aight so, I made a slight mistake in previous post, I'm actually at -23 all core not -20. Doesn't matter much probably but k. I dropped EDC to 201 like you used in the example, didn't change anything in scores or frequency limit. 

I really really feel like just trying a all-core or per CCX OC. I mean, my single core is now usually 4.85-4.9 when properly loaded with like corecycler, CB23 or CPU-Z single core.

What if. Big what if. But what if this chip is capable of a full 4.9 all core OC or even 1 CCX 4.9 and one like 4.7 or something. It would in theory by the same single core performance but way way better multicore.

Just a bit scared to actually try it as I know full well Ryzen 5 does not like constant 1.4v+ voltages for all-core loads. And for full 4.9 I do think I'll have to push pretty close to or even past 1.40v..


----------



## tcclaviger

You're correct

I just ran another sanity check.

TDC 170 EDC 300 PPT 300 - R23 score 30571
The difference being now it hit 69c, hit 283 EDC, reported clock was lower at 4560. So 100mhz lower, much hotter and gained 120 points.

Single core boost is down by 100hmz and scores reflect it, 1675.

Going down to 
TDC 170 EDC 220 PPT 300 - R23 score 30807
67c 4620 speed.

Gained most of the missing single core back at 1691.

This is what I mean about finding the right balance for your CPU/MB/Cooling.

Regarding more multi core speed. I guarantee you can go -49x CCD1 -47x ccd2 with enough voltage. It's not healthy lol. Mine tops out at 50 and 48.5 1.394 GET.

This is why so much drama over what is safe static OC voltage, or was in the past. The chips are stable at levels not healthy to them, so restraint is needed by user.


----------



## Imprezzion

tcclaviger said:


> You're correct
> 
> I just ran another sanity check.
> 
> TDC 170 EDC 300 PPT 300 - R23 score 30571
> The difference being now it hit 69c, hit 283 EDC, reported clock was lower at 4560. So 100mhz lower, much hotter and gained 120 points.
> 
> Single core boost is down by 100hmz and scores reflect it, 1675.
> 
> Going down to
> TDC 170 EDC 220 PPT 300 - R23 score 30807
> 67c 4620 speed.
> 
> Gained most of the missing single core back at 1691.
> 
> This is what I mean about finding the right balance for your CPU/MB/Cooling.
> 
> Regarding more multi core speed. I guarantee you can go -49x CCD1 -47x ccd2 with enough voltage. It's not healthy lol. Mine tops out at 50 and 48.5 1.394 GET.
> 
> This is why so much drama over what is safe static OC voltage, or was in the past. The chips are stable at levels not healthy to them, so restraint is needed by user.


Yeah that last part is hard for me lol. I'm never very restrained with my hardware. Both voltage wise and hardware itself. Well, YOLO I guess. I just wanna know what it can do.

I adjusted it to max clock +25, per-core curve -23 on the strong ones -30 on the rest. Zero difference in scores, temps and voltages compared to just running -23 all core.

It is odd how I can do -23 with -0.100 offset fine but -25 all-core with no offset crashes something as simple as The Division 2 in minutes.. AMD is weird.

Tried to play with the scalar. 2x zero difference in scores, 10x zero difference, I don't think scalar does anything on my CPU.

So. My next step is trying to get my RAM dialed in a bit better on 3600 1:1 IF. And dropping SoC voltage a but as I don't think I need 1.081 (auto) for 3600C16 tuned.


----------



## PJVol

Imprezzion said:


> I wanna just regulate it to the point where it always has the minimum needed and no huge overshoot.


You don't really need to.


Imprezzion said:


> I don't need to run 1.488v for gaming but if I just set -200 offset it will obviously crash under heavy loads.
> ...
> I decided to play around a bit with LLC and Offset voltage


The CPU knows very well when and what voltage to apply, especially if you avoid using things it doesn't understand, such as voltage offset and LLC.
Basically, the only metric worth paying attention to is PPT and the actual SCORE, since they both telling you how much work your CPU is able to do given the power it consumed. All other metrics are irrelevant.

@both of you

Vdroop is your friend - it protects your CPU from high voltage spikes during the high transient loads, by lowering the initial voltage for the spike to start from, and is implemented in a load-line VRM circuit, so the higher transient load, the more Vdroop is. This is why in CB multicore, where much higher current flows, compared to an average game, Vcore drooped more.
By messing with LLC you just raising that initial voltage back, which leads to higher overshoots.


----------



## tcclaviger

Cool.
Nice to see your results, going to order a Tech-N tonight to compare to Optimus Foundation, allegedly it holds a degree or so lower...very curious.

I use LLC Auto. 3000 series it helped, 5000 not so much. I was demonstrating the difference between different PBO values, The only thing that matters is move PPT and TDC out of the way (if you can cool it) and tune EDC on 5000.

Higher PPT drawn does not always translate to higher score on 5000 series.


----------



## PJVol

tcclaviger said:


> Higher PPT drawn does not always translate to higher score on 5000 series.


Yeah, that is how hidden internal limiters work, and if it occur, you just hit it.
It seems 1usmus managed to reveal some of them in his project.


----------



## Imprezzion

PJVol said:


> You don't really need to.
> 
> The CPU knows very well when and what voltage to apply, especially if you avoid using things it doesn't understand, such as voltage offset and LLC.
> Basically, the only metric worth paying attention to is PPT and the actual SCORE, since they both telling you how much work your CPU is able to do given the power it consumed. All other metrics are irrelevant.
> 
> @both of you
> 
> Vdroop is your friend - it protects your CPU from high voltage spikes during the high transient loads, by lowering the initial voltage for the spike to start from, and is implemented in a load-line VRM circuit, so the higher transient load, the more Vdroop is. This is why in CB multicore, where much higher current flows, compared to an average game, Vcore drooped more.
> By messing with LLC you just raising that initial voltage back, which leads to higher overshoots.


I know and agree, however, let's just say that setting phases to 140 and optimized mode and LLC forced to level 2 (ASUS) gives me a much higher stable PBO2 curve offset OC. And temperatures and such stay in check. Then why not.

I mean, all-core -30 curve with everything else on Auto couldn't even pass CB23 multicore without either hard crashing or spitting a bunch of WHEA's. Now with LLC on 2 and phases set up differently I'm on -30, way higher scores and clocks, temps are fine, and it's running a 30 min stress test in CB23, 12 minutes in, no errors yet. Even with -0.100 offset voltage. So I might just get away with it lol.

It now scores 231xx multicore, 4725Mhz all-core consistently, single goes as high as 4975Mhz and in CPU-Z went from 663 to 672 single core (and 10060 multi to 10206).

Not going all-core or CCX OC btw. It doesn't down clock in idle anymore and power goes from like 30w idle to 65w idle which is totally unnecessary.

EDIT: Ok, -30 is fine under load but very unstable in idle / light load. It froze when opening Chrome lol..
Back to -23 and played with EDC a bit more.
Actually lowering it quite far somehow improved my scores a LOT.
Now at EDC 190 in stead of 245 and this is the highest score I have ever gotten so far in CB23.


----------



## PJVol

Imprezzion said:


> Then why not.


I can partly agree that LLC combined with a neg. offset resembling curve behavior at some degree. Basically it was one of the question, the amd Robert was asked during some launch date stream, iirc on the pcworld channel, when they were discussing pbo2. But that approach have many caveats, and you may be actually fine with it, if your sample is of good quality.
But, lets get back to it after you have been through all "real world" scenarios ))


----------



## tcclaviger

Yep, it does work. LLC + vcore offset It had my 3900x consistently boosting over 4700 using this method single at a time when AGESA was trash basically everyone was stuck at 4600ish without tweaking.

It's no coincidence 190 EDC works better  Your very near the FUSE limit, the internal limiter that throttles things you can't normally see, a good thing.

I highly recommend at this point you slow down and do the core cycler/occt CO testing to get CO just right and ensure it's stable. Once CO is dialed in right you don't need to mess it with again really.


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> That makes me understand it even less lol. Then how do you adjust the difference between light and heavy loads? I wanna just regulate it to the point where it always has the minimum needed and no huge overshoot. I don't need to run 1.488v for gaming but if I just set -200 offset it will obviously crash under heavy loads.
> 
> It's on iteration 3 now in Corecycler on -100 offset LLC2. Voltage hovers around 1.300-1.337v depending on which core it loads, a gold, silver or normal one, but so far no errors yet.
> 
> How long should I test a full all-core load to simulate the worst-case load and droop? Like, 2x 30 min of CB23 loop and maybe a hour or 2 of TestMem5? Gotta test RAM OC soon anyway so..


It's 100% normal for 1-3 core loads to pull over 1.45v under load, and all-core loads to drop to 1.2v. 

For example, on my system:
➡ CB R23 1 core = 1.48v / 4850-4950
➡ CB R23 12 core 1.18v / 4175-4300

Even playing CSGO - not the most demanding title - sees ~6T being used @~1.36v - 1.40v / 4700.
The longer you test with Corecycler, the more likely it is to find issues. That being said,, it should pick up very unstable overclock within 5 iterations, and slightly unstable with 20 iterations. I always let it run for 24h/22 iterations.


----------



## Piers

tcclaviger said:


> EDC on 5000





Imprezzion said:


> -30 is fine under load but very unstable in idle / light load. It froze when opening Chrome lol


That's what Corecycler detects. It runs randomised core loads in order to try and find instability, especially on default settings (SSE).


----------



## Piers

What are your stock scores, are you only using Cinebench to test, and are you keeping a spreadsheet or even text file with results? Ideally you should have a number of different benchmarking tools using different loads and instruction sets. Otherwise you'll likely find AVX2 workloads are stable, but SSE4 loads can crash you system, for example. 

I generally start (and record data for each point) with recording stock performance, then setting a curve, then adjusting power limits, then stability testing, then tweaking limits, then adding MHz, etc. I've taken over 3,000 data points so I know what's stable and with what exact settings.


----------



## dk_mic

Imprezzion said:


> I know and agree, however, let's just say that setting phases to 140 and optimized mode and LLC forced to level 2 (ASUS) gives me a much higher stable PBO2 curve offset OC. And temperatures and such stay in check. Then why not.
> 
> I mean, all-core -30 curve with everything else on Auto couldn't even pass CB23 multicore without either hard crashing or spitting a bunch of WHEA's. Now with LLC on 2 and phases set up differently I'm on -30, way higher scores and clocks, temps are fine, and it's running a 30 min stress test in CB23, 12 minutes in, no errors yet. Even with -0.100 offset voltage. So I might just get away with it lol.
> 
> It now scores 231xx multicore, 4725Mhz all-core consistently, single goes as high as 4975Mhz and in CPU-Z went from 663 to 672 single core (and 10060 multi to 10206).
> 
> Not going all-core or CCX OC btw. It doesn't down clock in idle anymore and power goes from like 30w idle to 65w idle which is totally unnecessary.
> 
> EDIT: Ok, -30 is fine under load but very unstable in idle / light load. It froze when opening Chrome lol..
> Back to -23 and played with EDC a bit more.
> Actually lowering it quite far somehow improved my scores a LOT.
> Now at EDC 190 in stead of 245 and this is the highest score I have ever gotten so far in CB23.


cinebench is useless to test stability, it's too easy to pass and when it crashes, something is really off.
use corecycler, for a start
set runtimePerCore = auto (so each core has to go through all FFT sizes you select)
FFTSize = Heavy
mode = AVX
let it run overnight and I almost want to guarantee you that some of your -23 CO cores will crash.
Later try FFTSize = Moderate, also change to AVX2 with different FFT sizes. 
It all depends how stable is stable enough for you. But if you really want to dial in that curve, it takes a _lot_ of time.


----------



## Imprezzion

I usually run CB23 to compare scores and very high loads, then CPU-Z 1.97.0 bench 5 loops, and for stress testing corecycler, TM5 and I can add some stuff to that. 

On the other hand. I never fully tested my 10900KF OC either with stress tests, and I'm sure it would've failed them, but it never gave me one single crash or error in my normal daily usage which is what in the end matters. 

This rig is pure for gaming and content consumption. All my important stuff is done in my server which is stock lol. 

I know -23 is the best I can do to fully pass corecycler for 20 hours. I have tested that. But that was without the -0.100 offset.

The saga continues after work hehe.


----------



## Piers

dk_mic said:


> cinebench is useless to test stability, it's too easy to pass and when it crashes, something is really off.
> use corecycler, for a start
> set runtimePerCore = auto (so each core has to go through all FFT sizes you select)
> FFTSize = Heavy
> mode = AVX
> let it run overnight and I almost want to guarantee you that some of your -23 CO cores will crash.
> Later try FFTSize = Moderate, also change to AVX2 with different FFT sizes.
> It all depends how stable is stable enough for you. But if you really want to dial in that curve, it takes a _lot_ of time.


Makes more sense to test with SSE first, then AVX.


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> but it never gave me one single crash or error in my normal daily usage which is what in the end matters.


Subtle corruption should be of concern. If you wanted absolute best clocks and frame times, regardless of any other factor, why not wait for Alderlake? I have a home server (Xeon) as well, but I still want my workstation stable and you should too, even if just for gaming.


----------



## dk_mic

Piers said:


> Makes more sense to test with SSE first, then AVX.


yes sorry, meant SSE


----------



## Imprezzion

Piers said:


> Subtle corruption should be of concern. If you wanted absolute best clocks and frame times, regardless of any other factor, why not wait for Alderlake? I have a home server (Xeon) as well, but I still want my workstation stable and you should too, even if just for gaming.


I did wait for it. And I did order a 12900K with a ASUS Z690-A D4. They just never showed, the shop cancelled the order claiming no stock on the board and CPU, then 2 days later re-listed them both for way more money.

DDR5 is absolutely impossible to get in the Netherlands itself, I'd have to import it at scalper prices and it would still be bad DDR5. D4 does not have a lot of board options and the Z690-A D4 being one of the best while still being borderline low-end is concerning.

So yeah, I decided to go with a much cheaper 5900X + B550-XE which is a top of the line B550 board and upgrade the chip later to the 3D V-Cache ones while keeping the board and my D4 meaning I'd spend less than half the money, even with me buying a brand new waterblock for the AMD as my old block had no AMD mounts.

And I like to experiment and learn new hardware and OC techniques. Only issue is not a lot of time with work and all so I kinda rely on you guys a bit more in stead of figuring everything out on my own .

So yeah, I'm going to try to test some different EDC's at -23 all core -0.100 offset for the best score scaling, then I'm going to try to get -30 to somehow hold in SSE4 / light load conditions. If I'm done with that then it's RAM time. I am aiming for 3800C14 1T but I doubt my mediocre bin B-Die DR's will do that so probably either 3800C14/15 2T or 3600C14 1T. Assuming 1T with GDM disabled is even possible on this hardware.

EDIT: The whole EDC / TDC stuff still has me confused. I dropped EDC further from 190 to 180 and scores went up again well outside of margin of error and repeatable in at least CB23 and CPU-Z. Both single core and multi core. How can lowering a limit mean more performance. I really do not get it lol. Well, time to try 170 I guess.

EDIT2: 170 EDC raised CPU-Z scores by a lot but dropped CB23 a little. So SSE is better but AVX worse on 170 I guess?


----------



## 1devomer

Piers said:


> What are your stock scores, are you only using Cinebench to test, and are you keeping a spreadsheet or even text file with results? Ideally you should have a number of different benchmarking tools using different loads and instruction sets. Otherwise you'll likely find AVX2 workloads are stable, but SSE4 loads can crash you system, for example.
> 
> I generally start (and record data for each point) with recording stock performance, then setting a curve, then adjusting power limits, then stability testing, then tweaking limits, then adding MHz, etc. I've taken over 3,000 data points so I know what's stable and with what exact settings.


Unlikely, you will crash running SSE4 instruction set loads, if already stable under AVX2 instruction set loads.
And since most of the users test or asses the cpu stability with Cinebench, you got the AVX instruction already covered.
Which is the most common source of instability, when gaming or in application workloads.

I suppose that it had more to do with the aggressiveness of the boost, when exposed to different amount of loads.
Like when the cpu is relatively cool, and boost from idle to 2/4/6 cores, full blast.

I noticed that in your case, you are running a lot of AVX2 loads, which push the cpu to its limits.
Switching all the cores transistors that could be switched ON, when computing AVX2 instructions.
IMO, crunching AVX2 24/7 is another kind of setup, than more dynamic_ "lighter"_ workloads.


----------



## Piers

1devomer said:


> Unlikely, you will crash running SSE4 instruction set loads, if already stable under AVX2 instruction set loads.
> Since most of the users test or asses the cpu stability with Cinebench, you got the AVX instruction already covered.
> 
> I suppose that it had more to do with the aggressiveness of the boost, when exposed to different amount of loads.
> Like when the cpu is relatively cool, and boost from idle to 2/4/6 cores, full blast.


The reason to test with the SSE4.x instruction set is because (generally) the CPU will boost higher, compared with AVX2 (as used in Cinebench). It's certainly recommended to test with both, but SSE is likely to expose instabilities more quickly, and generally more accurately.


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> I did wait for it. And I did order a 12900K with a ASUS Z690-A D4. They just never showed, the shop cancelled the order claiming no stock on the board and CPU, then 2 days later re-listed them both for way more money.
> 
> DDR5 is absolutely impossible to get in the Netherlands itself, I'd have to import it at scalper prices and it would still be bad DDR5. D4 does not have a lot of board options and the Z690-A D4 being one of the best while still being borderline low-end is concerning.
> 
> So yeah, I decided to go with a much cheaper 5900X + B550-XE which is a top of the line B550 board and upgrade the chip later to the 3D V-Cache ones while keeping the board and my D4 meaning I'd spend less than half the money, even with me buying a brand new waterblock for the AMD as my old block had no AMD mounts.
> 
> And I like to experiment and learn new hardware and OC techniques. Only issue is not a lot of time with work and all so I kinda rely on you guys a bit more in stead of figuring everything out on my own .
> 
> So yeah, I'm going to try to test some different EDC's at -23 all core -0.100 offset for the best score scaling, then I'm going to try to get -30 to somehow hold in SSE4 / light load conditions. If I'm done with that then it's RAM time. I am aiming for 3800C14 1T but I doubt my mediocre bin B-Die DR's will do that so probably either 3800C14/15 2T or 3600C14 1T. Assuming 1T with GDM disabled is even possible on this hardware.
> 
> EDIT: The whole EDC / TDC stuff still has me confused. I dropped EDC further from 190 to 180 and scores went up again well outside of margin of error and repeatable in at least CB23 and CPU-Z. Both single core and multi core. How can lowering a limit mean more performance. I really do not get it lol. Well, time to try 170 I guess.
> 
> EDIT2: 170 EDC raised CPU-Z scores by a lot but dropped CB23 a little. So SSE is better but AVX worse on 170 I guess?


Fair points. 

When it comes to EDC, each CPU has a sweet spot. Try 170PPT, 140TDC, 140EDC without any offsets (other than Curve). Sometimes increasing EDC only decreases performance. 

Alternatively, 180PPT, 120TDC, 120EDC. See how MC and SC results are in CBR 23.

Why are you trying to use an offset with a negative Curve? It's best to use one or the other (many prefer Curve, but I see a small negative offset (0.0400v) as reasonable if not using a Curve. On my CPU, a 0.0400v negative offset with everything else on stock (PBO disabled) gives CBR 23 scores of 21,200 and ~1,580 at stock clocks - higher than auto voltage at stock.


----------



## Luggage

Imprezzion said:


> I did wait for it. And I did order a 12900K with a ASUS Z690-A D4. They just never showed, the shop cancelled the order claiming no stock on the board and CPU, then 2 days later re-listed them both for way more money.
> 
> DDR5 is absolutely impossible to get in the Netherlands itself, I'd have to import it at scalper prices and it would still be bad DDR5. D4 does not have a lot of board options and the Z690-A D4 being one of the best while still being borderline low-end is concerning.
> 
> So yeah, I decided to go with a much cheaper 5900X + B550-XE which is a top of the line B550 board and upgrade the chip later to the 3D V-Cache ones while keeping the board and my D4 meaning I'd spend less than half the money, even with me buying a brand new waterblock for the AMD as my old block had no AMD mounts.
> 
> And I like to experiment and learn new hardware and OC techniques. Only issue is not a lot of time with work and all so I kinda rely on you guys a bit more in stead of figuring everything out on my own .
> 
> So yeah, I'm going to try to test some different EDC's at -23 all core -0.100 offset for the best score scaling, then I'm going to try to get -30 to somehow hold in SSE4 / light load conditions. If I'm done with that then it's RAM time. I am aiming for 3800C14 1T but I doubt my mediocre bin B-Die DR's will do that so probably either 3800C14/15 2T or 3600C14 1T. Assuming 1T with GDM disabled is even possible on this hardware.
> 
> EDIT: The whole EDC / TDC stuff still has me confused. I dropped EDC further from 190 to 180 and scores went up again well outside of margin of error and repeatable in at least CB23 and CPU-Z. Both single core and multi core. How can lowering a limit mean more performance. I really do not get it lol. Well, time to try 170 I guess.
> 
> EDIT2: 170 EDC raised CPU-Z scores by a lot but dropped CB23 a little. So SSE is better but AVX worse on 170 I guess?


Tuning PBO limits is a pita, especially just around what’s optimal for a workload. To make matters worse - if you get better cooling you basically can start over…



http://imgur.com/a/BT0dCct


my testing from earlier this fall is not really valid now with colder weather.


----------



## Imprezzion

Piers said:


> Fair points.
> 
> When it comes to EDC, each CPU has a sweet spot. Try 170PPT, 140TDC, 140EDC without any offsets (other than Curve). Sometimes increasing EDC only decreases performance.
> 
> Alternatively, 180PPT, 120TDC, 120EDC. See how MC and SC results are in CBR 23.
> 
> Why are you trying to use an offset with a negative Curve? It's best to use one or the other (many prefer Curve, but I see a small negative offset (0.0400v) as reasonable if not using a Curve. On my CPU, a 0.0400v negative offset with everything else on stock (PBO disabled) gives CBR 23 scores of 21,200 and ~1,580 at stock clocks - higher than auto voltage at stock.


The negative offset was more of a "I'm curious what would happen if I did this" thing. And it even with -0.100 it remains stable as a rock in gaming, stress tests and even corecycler (ran for like 10 hours when I was at work and no errors) so why not. Less volts is more better right? Lol.

It will not in any way do lower then -23 on all-core even with no offset. I can tune individual cores but that's for a later time. 

I'm focussing on RAM / IF now first.


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> The negative offset was more of a "I'm curious what would happen if I did this" thing. And it even with -0.100 it remains stable as a rock in gaming, stress tests and even corecycler (ran for like 10 hours when I was at work and no errors) so why not. Less volts is more better right? Lol.
> 
> It will not in any way do lower then -23 on all-core even with no offset. I can tune individual cores but that's for a later time.
> 
> I'm focussing on RAM / IF now first.


Just had the Covid booster vaccination and feeling crappy, so thought I'd create a new BIOS profile and test out a three-step (believe Asus uses increments of 0.00625) negative offset as there's been discussion of it here, so I hope it helps someone (I plan to return to my previous profile). On Asus, I believe each step is 0.00625v, so a three-step negative offset applies a 0.01875v offset to the auto vcore, which is roughly -4/-5 if I were to use a Curve (each Curve point represents between 3mV and 5mV) - please correct me if my maths is wrong.

I also added a one-step positive offset to the SoC, so auto with an additional 0.00625v as the system under full AVX2 loads saw the SoC under 1.1v. Despite testing the XMP/AMP/DOCP profile in memtest for 48 hours, adding a slight bump (this could have been achieved with SoC LLC) to the voltage should help. 

This produced the following result in CB R23 - auto LLC, stock power limits, no Asus 'enhancements', phases set to standard @ 100% (as I said, it's as stock as it can be, apart from the two changes I've stated). This was my result. The CB SC run stayed boosted to 4.900 GHz - very impressed with that. It's actually slightly better than setting a Curve (stock power limits) with -7 (one weak core, four 'fast' cores) to -18 (the rest). 

I hope this is of interest/useful to someone. The high score (for stock power limits) was surprising.


----------



## Shenhua

tcclaviger said:


> What cooling and what ambient temps? 4.6 -4.7 all core using PBO2 isn't too hard to hit.
> 
> My suggestion is as I outline in the post 3 above for PPT TDC and EDC. Use TDC to limit all core workloads temps.
> 
> Just accept that single core boost temps will be high. It's because of power gating of the whole CCD, so when 1 core demands 1.5v for 4900mhz, the whole CCD gets 1.5v and it creates extra heat, it's fine.
> 
> Use OCCT core cycling feature to quickly test each core out. Go to "Test" section. CPU, small, extreme,variable. Those options are what you want. Then click on number of cores, go to advanced, and check only 1 core, uncheck the rest. In the options below the core selection turn on physical and virtual, as well as cycle core. Set it to 20 seconds.
> 
> That will rough in the CO settings as quickly as possible, I start all at -15, watch the screen while it's testing so you can see which core is working when it crashes. Go back to CO menu, reduce offset by 2 or 3, try again. Once no cores are crashing, start raising the cores that never crashed by 2 or 3. Rinse and repeate till all cores are not crashing.
> 
> Then get core cycler, open config.ini. 9 minutes duration, prime95, Heavyshort preset, run while not using the PC. It keeps logs, so if it reboots while afk you can look in the log to see which core failed.
> 
> If it fails within the first 3 minutes reduce offset by 2, if it fails after 8 minutes reduce CO for that core by 1. When all are passing change from SSE to AvX2 and repeat.
> 
> When SSE and AVX2 are both complete, I then run a 2 hour OCCT core cycle and blender benchmark with all tests. If both pass, congrats you have a stable tailored CO. If you feel the need, you can swap to 9 minute time, ycruncher, and verify with that as well.
> 
> Regarding idle crashing, set power supply = typical and DF states = off in AMD section of bios, CBS or NBIO, can't recall ATM. With those set that way I've never had an idle or low power crash again after tuning CO.
> 
> Zen 3 doesn't need ages testing like pre-,9th gen Intel when people would run prime or linpack for 24 hours.
> 
> With the methods I put above I have seen exactly 0 crashes on 6 months associated with single or multi core loads. All my crashes come from screwing with memory or tripping OCP on multicore (when it tires to pull like 500 watts).





tcclaviger said:


> Correct on CO.
> Df you can see in pics above.
> 
> Just to give you some expectations on temps.
> Delta T for single core is likely going to be 40c ish. So at 22c, realistically mid 60s is about right.
> Delta T for multicore is going to be need to be controlled by your TDC setting, an unlimited PPT EDC and TDC on air in 22c is going to hit 85c+ _*very*_ quickly.
> 
> It's really ok, just don't mine at 80c+ 24/7 at max load and there will be no issue. If you do plan on mining or something 24/7 high load just cut the TDC down and hold it at 65-70c.
> 
> Also don't freak out during memory testing and stuff when it boosts to like 4.8ghz+ at 1.4+ volts but only 50tdc. Also ok, it's a very light load, just looks weird on readouts.


I´ve been doing a bit of reading, a bit of testing and probably went past your 2 comments like 10times over. Tbh im still a bit confused on how to approach what i wanna get.

I went -15 and ran occt like 6-7 times set like you said. Either no core is failing or idk where to look for it. I imagine they should appear in the area, marked with yellow in this screenshot Screenshot tried -20 and same results. Also running occt i dont see any change whatsoever..........in frecuency or temps or voltge.

However playing warzone, now seems to boost just as high, with a 2ºC drop, but it think it's boosting more cores for more time, and im seeing 4.95 more rarely....... but also seeing occasionally all cores hit 4.6-4-8ghz. The voltage seems to spike lower, around 1.45mark.

The problem with this, is the temps remains pretty much the same.

I think you might have made the wrong assumption about the all core OC or misunderstood me. Even tho i dont really need more than stock, im really fine upping the ppt. tdc. edc values and letting cinebench run at 4.6-4.7 ghz with 180-200w of load. It`s where my cooling config really shines because the load is spread........ I was stating that, because even tho doing normal stuff or running cinebench at 1.25-1.3v or even higher it's really quite OK, i cant stress test for stability with things like small fft prime95 AVX, because the power consumption reaches or goes beyond the coolers capability and not only that but i start hitting a hard thermal density wall around 220w, and high thermal density with air cooling it's really bad.......so all core OC is out the window, because even tho my cooling config can deal with it just fine, it's impossible for me to the test the stability......
That's why im hitting 70-80ºC, with 100w load playing games, while cinebench at 140w is doing 60ºC..........

What i wanna do, is shave off the top 200mhz on the upper side of the boosting behavior, but keep everything else, while also dropping the voltage. For example, if i could eliminate the 1-2-3-4 boost at the top, with their voltage requiered, and leave the CPU scaling normally up to 6-8 cores at 4.6-4.65ghz with the voltage scaling reduced for that to happen, that would be perfect........... Basically i wanna reduce the high thermal density moments at the upper end of the boosting behavior, and the high thermal variation that comes with it.

UPDATE: did some more digging and testing, and testing the CO, to gauge what it can do for me. At -30 (crashed in 5min, but that's not the point) it's hovering 3-5ºC lower than with it on auto, playing warzone. 65-74 vs 70-78, staying mostly around 69-71, instead of 73-75.
I was also wrong about the frecuency behavior in warzone. It boosts more and for my time, capping at 4950, but not more cores.


----------



## PJVol

Shenhua said:


> That's why im hitting 70-80ºC, with 100w load playing games, while cinebench at 140w is doing 60ºC..........


That's because Tctl is not cpu temp, rather it shows the temperature of the hottest core, so in light-medium loads, which games are, it never correlates well with a power drawn, unlike when being stressed with a heavy sustained load ~ 12-15W per core.


----------



## Shenhua

PJVol said:


> That's because Tctl is not cpu temp, rather it shows the temperature of the hottest core, so in light-medium loads, which games are, it never correlates well with a power drawn, unlike when being stressed with a heavy sustained load ~ 12-15W per core.


Tomato-tomato. The fan control is following tctl/tdie. So the distinction between the 2 holds no real value for practical use config.


----------



## Luggage

Shenhua said:


> Tomato-tomato. The fan control is following tctl/tdie. So the distinction between the 2 holds no real value for practical use config.


So what you really need is better fan control because what you care about is fan noise and not temps or performance.
Either set a fixed fan you can live with and set temp limit in bios that you can live with.

or get software like Argus monitor and set a progressive fancurve that is flatup to your gaming temps. Argus also can use any temp for fan control.


----------



## Shenhua

Luggage said:


> So what you really need is better fan control because what you care about is fan noise and not temps or performance.
> Either set a fixed fan you can live with and set temp limit in bios that you can live with.
> 
> or get software like Argus monitor and set a progressive fancurve that is flatup to your gaming temps. Argus also can use any temp for fan control.


Not really......
Im aware of fixed speed, and im not interested in it, because if i set it too low, at higher loads, it will be too hot...if i set it too high, there's too much noise.
The only way set a curve when thermal density is at play, is to smooth out the curve, rising minimums and dropping maximums, and it still doesnt really work when your temperature for a specific group of tasks, ranges from 35 to 65, and for the next heavier group from 55 to 80.

To make matters worst,
Im running with starting fan speed temperature for case fans and there's nothing you can do when lighter loads peak inside or above heavier loads temperature range because thermal density cannot be countered with fan speed, as the bottleneck is not dissipating the heat, but "sucking" it out.

The only counter for thermal density is keeping the coldplate cooler. That means, air cooling<liquid cooling<sub ambient cooling, and since im not interested in a trash AIO (and it would also bring other issues, while not really solving the problem), or cost and caveats of a custom loop, and a chiller is completely out of the question, the only option left for me is to decrease it manually, by tweaking the CPU.

Im using FanControl.

I just rulled out PBO2, and probably CTR it's out too, so im probably gonna try again fixed frecuency and/or per CCD OC, unless i find a way to make the stock algorithm to work with a reduced voltage range and frecuency range. Like the example of smoothing out the fan curve above. Increasing all core boosts, and decreasing the lightest 2-3-4 core boosts, and consequently the voltage for them. I probably need to reduce the peak voltage to something like 1.35 for this to work. Most likely there's no way to do it, but it doesn't hurt exploring the options............

On the other hand a mixup of your suggested fixed fan speed with my starting temperature might just work...... setting the starting temps to 60 for example, and from there running something like 800-900rpm.......which considering my setup non existent resistance, can deal with 150w+.
Tnx for the suggestions.


----------



## tcclaviger

Imprezzion said:


> The negative offset was more of a "I'm curious what would happen if I did this" thing. And it even with -0.100 it remains stable as a rock in gaming, stress tests and even corecycler (ran for like 10 hours when I was at work and no errors) so why not. Less volts is more better right? Lol.
> 
> It will not in any way do lower then -23 on all-core even with no offset. I can tune individual cores but that's for a later time.
> 
> I'm focussing on RAM / IF now first.


Generally Zen 3 has massive tolerance for undervolting through a combination of both maintaining good freqs for a given speed (efficiency) and clock stretching. Clock stretching letting it maintain stability without crashing, not saying you are, but it's a nice safety net when undervolting. Giving degraded scores instead of an outright crash.

I tested your configuration, either it's chip quality difference or temps, nothing but losses here using -.1 offset.



Shenhua said:


> Not really......
> Im aware of fixed speed, and im not interested in it, because if i set it too low, at higher loads, it will be too hot...if i set it too high, there's too much noise.
> The only way set a curve when thermal density is at play, is to smooth out the curve, rising minimums and dropping maximums, and it still doesnt really work when your temperature for a specific group of tasks, ranges from 35 to 65, and for the next heavier group from 55 to 80.
> 
> To make matters worst,
> Im running with starting fan speed temperature for case fans and there's nothing you can do when lighter loads peak inside or above heavier loads temperature range because thermal density cannot be countered with fan speed, as the bottleneck is not dissipating the heat, but "sucking" it out.
> 
> The only counter for thermal density is keeping the coldplate cooler. That means, air cooling<liquid cooling<sub ambient cooling, and since im not interested in a trash AIO (and it would also bring other issues, while not really solving the problem), or cost and caveats of a custom loop, and a chiller is completely out of the question, the only option left for me is to decrease it manually, by tweaking the CPU.
> 
> Im using FanControl.
> 
> I just rulled out PBO2, and probably CTR it's out too, so im probably gonna try again fixed frecuency and/or per CCD OC, unless i find a way to make the stock algorithm to work with a reduced voltage range and frecuency range. Like the example of smoothing out the fan curve above. Increasing all core boosts, and decreasing the lightest 2-3-4 core boosts, and consequently the voltage for them. I probably need to reduce the peak voltage to something like 1.35 for this to work. Most likely there's no way to do it, but it doesn't hurt exploring the options............
> 
> On the other hand a mixup of your suggested fixed fan speed with my starting temperature might just work...... setting the starting temps to 60 for example, and from there running something like 800-900rpm.......which considering my setup non existent resistance, can deal with 150w+.
> Tnx for the suggestions.


I can't think of an easy way to shave max boost freq off the top except this:
AMD PBO section set your PPT TDC for what you deem acceptable under all core loads. EDC @ 300.

In Curve Optimizer set per core.
Set best 4 cores at 0.
Set remaining cores at the negative value they will tolerate.

This will artificially cap 1-4 thread work loads. 300 EDC is LESS aggressive in low thread boosting than stock, so you'll see lower peaks.

By adding negative CO offset, the CPU naturally shows lower SVI2 TFN, as you observed, but as a result now boosts higher for a given voltage, which can end up being more power dense in low thread loads, as you observed.

You actually sound like a Hydra candidate. I'm doing a morning full of testing of it now, since you're trying to reverse what most attempt.

I am not endorsing or recommending it, still have a lot of testing to do of it. But it does provide increased granularity vs PBO or Manual OC.


----------



## Imprezzion

tcclaviger said:


> Generally Zen 3 has massive tolerance for undercoating through a combination of both maintaining good freqs for a given speed (efficiency) and clock stretching. Clock stretching just let's itaintain stability without crashing, not saying you are, but it's a nice safety net when undervolting.


I did try to test for clock stretch / performance loss by testing with and without the - offsets in a suite of benches but any score difference there might have been in favour of no offset was done away with by the higher temperatures without offset and thus lower clocks. I like the performance and clocks at -0.100 and I'm sticking with it for now. Easily passes 23k multicore in CB23, 10.2k in CPU-Z multi, 672 single. Game benches respond really well as well with a nice flat increase almost perfectly matching the MHz percentage in The Division 2, GTA V and Far Cry 6.

I also have a sort-of RAM + IF setup stabilized now. 3800 flat 15's 2T 1900 IF with a mere 1.081v vSOC. And it passed like 6 hours of TM5 already without WHEA's or errors. What my chip will not do however is 2000 IF. That was.. 9 errors just booting Windows already lol.. might do it with a load more volts but why should I.


----------



## Shenhua

tcclaviger said:


> I can't think of an easy way to shave max boost freq off the top except this:
> AMD PBO section set your PPT TDC for what you deem acceptable under all core loads. EDC @ 300.
> 
> In Curve Optimizer set per core.
> Set best 4 cores at 0.
> Set remaining cores at the negative value they will tolerate.
> 
> This will artificially cap 1-4 thread work loads. 300 EDC is LESS aggressive in low thread boosting than stock, so you'll see lower peaks.
> 
> By adding negative CO offset, the CPU naturally shows lower SVI2 TFN, as you observed, but as a result now boosts higher for a given voltage, which can end up being more power dense in low thread loads, as you observed.
> 
> You actually sound like a Hydra candidate. I'm doing a morning full of testing of it now, since you're trying to reverse what most attempt.


Damn!!!, that's actually really smart....... gonna try it.

By the way, here's a crazy idea. 1.3v (or 1.25+ if 1.3v is way over the board) for 4.6ghz. test it with everything i can that doesnt go over 220w. How much of a risky move is it, considering im gonna use it for general stuff and the heaviest thing i will probably run is cinebench multicore......??

I really dont like the auto OC of the ryzens.. I find the boost on less than 4 cores, highly superfluous and very annoying.......... it's what? 200extra mhz, for how much impact in real world aplications?


----------



## Piers

Shenhua said:


> Damn!!!, that's actually really smart....... gonna try it.
> 
> By the way, here's a crazy idea. 1.3v (or 1.25+ if 1.3v is way over the board) for 4.6ghz. test it with everything i can that doesnt go over 220w. How much of a risky move is it, considering im gonna use it for general stuff and the heaviest thing i will probably run is cinebench multicore......??


Many modern games use AVX2 on some cores (rather than all as with CB) meaning you'll see higher heat as more voltage is used to boost those cores as high as possible.


----------



## tcclaviger

1.3 set with auto LLC is perfectly acceptable to me as long as your MB version of Auto LLC isn't "maxed". It'll droop way down to 1.225ish under max load, safe and stay nearer 1.3 under light load, safe.

It's when you start stacking LLC to hold vdroop tighter it becomes dangerous imo, over 1.25 allcore avx2 is pretty hot and pretty high power. Much over 1.325 at high freq avx2 all core is "do not go here on air" territory because it WILL hit TJmax.

You can dump positive offset in curve optimizer on the fastest 4 cores as well to cut boosting even more on light threaded loads and keep PBO set, letting it sleep more deeply when idle.

PS: set PPT at 220 if it's your desired power cap. Test anything, it'll down clock once it reaches 220, even with manual OC.


----------



## PJVol

Shenhua said:


> The fan control is following tctl/tdie.


Yeah, I was curious, why mb vendors together with amd, of course, didnt implement one additional "sensor" which would be just an average for all cores temperature, to control fans based on its value.


----------



## tcclaviger

Not sure if others do so, but Asus provides at least some provision for picking fan control sensor (CPU package, TCL, MB, T-Probe, or an average of values). They unfortunately only give access to a few sensors, and the type are limited by which MB you own.


----------



## Piers

Under full AVX2 workloads encoding with x265 (all-core) with stock power limits, my 5900X stays at 4.3GHz at 1.17v with brief spikes to 1.21v.


----------



## Shenhua

tcclaviger said:


> 1.3 set with auto LLC is perfectly acceptable to me as long as your MB version of Auto LLC isn't "maxed". It'll droop way down to 1.225ish under max load, safe and stay nearer 1.3 under light load, safe.
> 
> It's when you start stacking LLC to hold vdroop tighter it becomes dangerous imo, over 1.25 allcore avx2 is pretty hot and pretty high power. Much over 1.325 at high freq avx2 all core is "do not go here on air" territory because it WILL hit TJmax.
> 
> You can dump positive offset in curve optimizer on the fastest 4 cores as well to cut boosting even more on light threaded loads and keep PBO set, letting it sleep more deeply when idle.
> 
> PS: set PPT at 220 if it's your desired power cap. Test anything, it'll down clock once it reaches 220, even with manual OC.


4.6 at 1.25v in prime95 small fft it's 265w. It's already past "do not go here on air" territory.

This is what cinebench looks like at 1.3v Screenshot by Lightshot (prnt.sc) 
Cinebench score was 23269


----------



## Shenhua

Piers said:


> Many modern games use AVX2 on some cores (rather than all as with CB) meaning you'll see higher heat as more voltage is used to boost those cores as high as possible.


Screenshot 
10ºC lower on avg, and this,...... running fans at 600rpm instead of 800 which is what i was running stock. Just proving a point.


----------



## Piers

Shenhua said:


> Screenshot
> 10ºC lower on avg, and this,...... running fans at 600rpm instead of 800 which is what i was running stock. Just proving a point.


Which game is that? It's under 90W, so hardly a high load.


----------



## tcclaviger

Shenhua said:


> 4.6 at 1.25v in prime95 small fft it's 265w. It's already past "do not go here on air" territory.
> 
> This is what cinebench looks like at 1.3v Screenshot by Lightshot (prnt.sc)
> Cinebench score was 23269


Yep, small ffts and 4.6 is going to be hot . Stock I think it scales back to like 3.8 right?

You can try setting the weakest LLC instead of auto, for Asus it's 1, some makers reverse the scale, and Auto isn't always the most gentle swtting. 1.281 sag from 1.3 isn't enough vdroop, if it's only sagging that far, In back off to 1.2625 vcore set on a long term static OC, and given the temps you're hitting maybe a bit more to 1.25 since heat exacerbates electron migration rapidity.

PS: Hydra has promise but it's very not ready for public use yet imo. Yuri needs to refine both algorithms and UI a bit still, should probably add a wizard also.
In a best case scenario it falls a touch short of a super tuned CO+PBO2+DOS setup.
In a worst case it gimps the hell out of a PC.


----------



## Shenhua

Ok, so i did some more digging and fidling with it, and i found a way, well 2, but's it's just reversing the same. Fixed frecuency with auto voltage or fixed voltage with auto frecuency. The one i like more, it's the last one, it's actually perfect regarding the results, but im pretty positive, it's a good way to mess up a good CPU. Here's a screenshot playing warzone Screenshot by Lightshot (prnt.sc) 
During gameplay it sustains 4.65-4.7ghz. There's no spikes above 4.8, and it only goes above 4.7 once a min or something like that, and temps stay in low 60s, but the vid and vcore........... well..........
This is what happens during cinebench. Screenshot by Lightshot (prnt.sc) I have no idea why clocks drop so much, despite having enough room and voltage to sustain much higher.........
Also did try 4.6 fixed with auto voltage. It stays around mid 60s during gameplay so im happy with that too...... It defaults to 1.28v+
Toughts? suggestions and ideas....

If any1 feels "offended" about what im doing. Dont!, it's just for science, lols, gauging real usage performance (based on my use) and understanding this mess. Ofc, once i decide something, i will tune safely and stress test accordingly.


----------



## Luggage

Shenhua said:


> Ok, so i did some more digging and fidling with it, and i found a way, well 2, but's it's just reversing the same. Fixed frecuency with auto voltage or fixed voltage with auto frecuency. The one i like more, it's the last one, it's actually perfect regarding the results, but im pretty positive, it's a good way to mess up a good CPU. Here's a screenshot playing warzone Screenshot
> During gameplay it sustains 4.65-4.7ghz. There's no spikes above 4.8, and it only goes above 4.7 once a min or something like that, and temps stay in low 60s, but the vid and vcore........... well..........
> This is what happens during cinebench. Screenshot I have no idea why clocks drop so much, despite having enough room and voltage to sustain much higher.........
> Also did try 4.6 fixed with auto voltage. It stays around mid 60s during gameplay so im happy with that too...... It defaults to 1.28v+
> Toughts? suggestions and ideas....
> 
> If any1 feels "offended" about what im doing. Dont!, it's just for science, lols, gauging real usage performance (based on my use) and understanding this mess. Ofc, once i decide something, i will tune safely and stress test accordingly.


Cant see your images...


----------



## Imprezzion

Shenhua said:


> Ok, so i did some more digging and fidling with it, and i found a way, well 2, but's it's just reversing the same. Fixed frecuency with auto voltage or fixed voltage with auto frecuency. The one i like more, it's the last one, it's actually perfect regarding the results, but im pretty positive, it's a good way to mess up a good CPU. Here's a screenshot playing warzone Screenshot by Lightshot (prnt.sc)
> During gameplay it sustains 4.65-4.7ghz. There's no spikes above 4.8, and it only goes above 4.7 once a min or something like that, and temps stay in low 60s, but the vid and vcore........... well..........
> This is what happens during cinebench. Screenshot by Lightshot (prnt.sc) I have no idea why clocks drop so much, despite having enough room and voltage to sustain much higher.........
> Also did try 4.6 fixed with auto voltage. It stays around mid 60s during gameplay so im happy with that too...... It defaults to 1.28v+
> Toughts? suggestions and ideas....
> 
> If any1 feels "offended" about what im doing. Dont!, it's just for science, lols, gauging real usage performance (based on my use) and understanding this mess. Ofc, once i decide something, i will tune safely and stress test accordingly.


The screenshot tells us it's slamming into TDC limit which is weird as it shouldn't have such a high TDC at that low a clock speed. Also 144w at base clock speeds with that low of a voltage? Something funky is going on here.

I am now settling on PBO2 curve -20 all core, +100 max boost, voltage offset -0.08125v. This means 4950-5050Mhz single core boost at 1.42v ish and game load all core around 4725-4775Mhz at 1.368v ish. EDC 170 TDC 150 PPT 300. RAM 3800C15 IF 1:1 1900 @ 1.1375v vSOC. Temps are great, 70c for the best boosting cores and the rest sits mid 60's. Pumps on 100%. Rad fans very slow, GPU pumping 340w of heat into the same loop @ 51c GPU temps. Very acceptable to me.


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> The screenshot tells us it's slamming into TDC limit which is weird as it shouldn't have such a high TDC at that low a clock speed. Also 144w at base clock speeds with that low of a voltage? Something funky is going on here.
> 
> I am now settling on PBO2 curve -20 all core, +100 max boost, voltage offset -0.08125v. This means 4950-5050Mhz single core boost at 1.42v ish and game load all core around 4725-4775Mhz at 1.368v ish. EDC 170 TDC 150 PPT 300. RAM 3800C15 IF 1:1 1900 @ 1.1375v vSOC. Temps are great, 70c for the best boosting cores and the rest sits mid 60's. Pumps on 100%. Rad fans very slow, GPU pumping 340w of heat into the same loop @ 51c GPU temps. Very acceptable to me.


And the stability? Either you have a platinum sample and won the silicon lottery, or you'll find games start to crash and corrupt. With both a negative offset and negative Curve, you're essentially doing close to - 0.200mV. I'd be incredibly surprised (and amazed!) if your CPU handles that.


----------



## Imprezzion

Piers said:


> And the stability? Either you have a platinum sample and won the silicon lottery, or you'll find games start to crash and corrupt. With both a negative offset and negative Curve, you're essentially doing close to - 0.200mV. I'd be incredibly surprised (and amazed!) if your CPU handles that.


There was a tool that showed which quality sample i have right? CTR I believe? Maybe I should try that once lol. 

I will obviously run a proper 24h long corecycler during work this week but not in the weekend. This is for gaming lol.


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> There was a tool that showed which quality sample i have right? CTR I believe? Maybe I should try that once lol.
> 
> I will obviously run a proper 24h long corecycler during work this week but not in the weekend. This is for gaming lol.


CTR is not a great tool. Set a different LLC and it'll show different chip 'quality'. For example, mine is classed as "silver" on LLC3 (the recommended one for the CTR test) yet classed as "Gold" on LLC1 which makes little sense. 

I believe CTR is the only tool that's easy to use and shows generally fair suggested tables (fixed overclocking). 

It shouldn't matter whether the system "is for gaming lol" or used as a primary workstation - it should still be tested, stable, and validated with each change. Now you've not truly checked it yet undervolted, overclocked with PBO, undervolted again but with PBO, and changed RAM timings. 

Obviously it's your system so entirely your choice, but when it fails Corecycler how will you know which specific issue caused a core to fail? When it crashes it the middle of a game, are you going to know which adjustment caused it? When it fails with one core, you'll have to adjust your entire offset, most likely change RAM timings, and adjust your PBO curve. 

Validating changes at each step saves time in the long term. 

That's why it's better to validate with each step (e.g. XMP > validate > enabling PBO > validate > adjusting PBO power limits > validate > adjusting PBO Curve > validate > adding negative vcore offset > validate > adjust RAM clocks/timings, etc.).


----------



## KedarWolf

Can peeps with a 5950x show their 3DMark CPU Profile runs?

Here is mine, recently redid my PBO with AGESA 1.2.0.5 Now I get Curve at all 30s except the top two at 16 and 26 with Boost 200, Scaler 10, Core Cycler stable.


----------



## Piers

KedarWolf said:


> Can peeps with a 5950x show their 3DMark CPU Profile runs?
> 
> Here is mine, recently redid my PBO with AGESA 1.2.0.5 Now I get Curve at all 30s except the top two at 16 and 26 with Boost 200, Scaler 10, Core Cycler stable.
> 
> View attachment 2535809


Due you think AGESA 1.2.0.5 helped achieve such an awesome negative offset? What was it before and how's stability testing going?


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Piers said:


> Due you think AGESA 1.2.0.5 helped achieve such an awesome negative offset? What was it before and how's stability testing going?


in my personal testing, it doesn't..going for more UV on my curve just gave me instability and crash on Core Cycler, may have worked wonders for others but for my chip, its just has to be the same as previous my CO values..



Piers said:


> Validating changes at each step saves time in the long term.
> 
> That's why it's better to validate with each step (e.g. XMP > validate > enabling PBO > validate > adjusting PBO power limits > validate > adjusting PBO Curve > validate > adding negative vcore offset > validate > adjust RAM clocks/timings, etc.).


Exactly the long tedious stage you have to endure as a Ryzen owner..lol..the more cores the more it gets painful (the process), then to only repeat the whole process for a new firmware update again..lol..


----------



## Piers

kairi_zeroblade said:


> in my personal testing, it doesn't..going for more UV on my curve just gave me instability and crash on Core Cycler, may have worked wonders for others but for my chip, its just has to be the same as previous my CO values..


The latest available for my motherboard is 1.2.0.3.


kairi_zeroblade said:


> Exactly the long tedious stage you have to endure as a Ryzen owner..lol..the more cores the more it gets painful (the process), then to only repeat the whole process for a new firmware update again..lol..


Leaving it running CoreCycler for about 60 hours generally picks all core undervolting issues in my experience.


----------



## KedarWolf

Piers said:


> Due you think AGESA 1.2.0.5 helped achieve such an awesome negative offset? What was it before and how's stability testing going?


Yes, I was at most cores at 30, four cores at 25, top two at 7 and 16, Scaler 6, Boost 150.

Edit: So far it's passed Core Cycler SSE and AVX2, both overnight, at settings I know my cores most often fail at.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Piers said:


> Leaving it running CoreCycler for about 60 hours generally picks all core undervolting issues in my experience.


I don't have that much liberty to just stress my setup as I use it for work..time is always Gold for me..


----------



## Piers

kairi_zeroblade said:


> I don't have that much liberty to just stress my setup as I use it for work..time is always Gold for me..


The 60 hours doesn't have to be continuous. Even the author of CoreCycler states it makes more sense to leave it running at night for as many nights as possible as the algorithm repeats.


----------



## gupsterg

Recently got a R9 5900X, batch: BG 2143SUS. It's snagged 3800MHz with ease. Gets to OS with upto 4000MHz 1:1:1 using stock voltages, not checked for more and doesn't have any "holes". Even with some tweaks have WHEA errors, so settled for 3800MHz as wanted to meddle with Curve Optimiser.

Decided to optimise based on fused core info than CPPC.



Code:


Fused    03 01 00 04 02 05 07 06 11 08 10 09

CO v1    05 05 11 12 12 12 15 15 15 15 20 20

Used stock PPT/TDC/EDC, scalar 1x. Above setup was first tinker with CO last night. Today's stability testing seems sound so far.

Below graph is RealBench stress test 15min run stock vs PBCO.



Spoiler















Kahru RAM Test is also showing gain on all cores.



Spoiler















Dunno if the CB23 is any good, not been habiting forums now for several months.



Spoiler

















Piers said:


> CTR is not a great tool. Set a different LLC and it'll show different chip 'quality'. For example, mine is classed as "silver" on LLC3 (the recommended one for the CTR test) yet classed as "Gold" on LLC1 which makes little sense.


I believe CTR maybe making it's classification on purely on voltage, not used it myself. Using LLC1 you'd have more VDROOP, thus it thinks it's a better sample. If it is, AFAIK higher leakage silicon uses lower voltage thus may come out in CTR as better sample. Where as the answer to what is a better CPU maybe more complicated.

I had 3x R9 3900X from same batch back in Dec 19. Initially I tested each with Statuscore, due to time constraint I did 2 test sets on each CPU. Loading only one real core in sequence to see max frequency for a core. Loading whole CPU in sequence of cores. Then I tested each CPU on if it gained anything from bumping PPT/TDC/EDC, I didn't change scalar or add clock offset IIRC. Then what could a CPU attained as MEMCLK whilst sticking to 1:1:1.

The CPU I picked to keep was one where 1st CCD had slightly better clocks than other two. It also attained 3800MHz/1900MHz with relevant voltages at stock. ~2C CCD to CCD temperature delta on average. All in all I reckon it's more complicated with these CPUs to bin/decide, link to some of my posts.


----------



## Luggage

KedarWolf said:


> Can peeps with a 5950x show their 3DMark CPU Profile runs?
> 
> Here is mine, recently redid my PBO with AGESA 1.2.0.5 Now I get Curve at all 30s except the top two at 16 and 26 with Boost 200, Scaler 10, Core Cycler stable.
> 
> View attachment 2535809


Well I’ve got one half of a 5950x 

1203c stock


http://imgur.com/a/dQBzTBn


1205 stock


http://imgur.com/a/Y6DP18j


1203c PBO2 200-125-700 +200 x10 offset 0.0125v curve -15 to -30









I scored 0 in CPU Profile


AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com





All testing with 1205 and PBO2 gave me a vid limit of 1.425 so single thread tanked like whoa. So I’m back on 1203c. Not comfortable with a 0.8v Vcore offset…


----------



## KedarWolf

I needed to redo my Curve settings and test them with Core Cycler. They are much better now. Also needed to adjust my PBO settings and stuff. Get the same in CB23 and CPU-Z multicore and CPU-Z single-core went up from 688 to 691. 

My PBO is 210-155-190 Scaler 10, Boost 200, Curve all 30's except top two core at 15-26, and the settings below but at 145-45. I need to mess with them more and I only did a few tests and I might actually improve more by adjusting the VDD and PPT etc.


----------



## gpdemers




----------



## Piers

gpdemers said:


> View attachment 2535913


Nice MC score but what happened with the SC score? Which Agesa version?


----------



## PJVol

Piers said:


> what happened with the SC score?


Manual OC - 4550, so is the SC frequency.


----------



## Piers

PJVol said:


> Manual OC - 4550, so is the SC frequency.


Ah, that makes sense. In fairness, I don't think I run any software that uses a single thread (apart from benchmarking software).


----------



## PJVol

Piers said:


> I don't think I run any software that uses a single thread


It cripples not only SC loads, but in a whole range from 1 to max#cores, though it becomes less restrictive towards the max used cores.


----------



## Piers

PJVol said:


> It cripples not only SC loads, but in a whole range from 1 to max#cores, though it becomes less restrictive towards the max used cores.


True, but disabling CPPC (with Windows deciding to use my slowest core which produces the same sort of result), I found no real world difference in workloads. In fact, encoding an x264 file in a standardised test showed an increase of 8%, or decrease of ~50 seconds. That's not an all-core load as quality decreases with too many threads on x264. It was a 22 thread load (cores x 1.8 is normal for x264 on high core count CPUs) with utilised ~60% of the CPU and saw sustained clocks of ~4.55-4.65 GHz on active cores.


----------



## PJVol

Piers said:


> It was a 22 thread load


Of course, that load is considered allcore, as soon as it utilize more than 16 threads and the scheduler spread it correctly, i.e. not loading 2 logical cores, if there are cores in c1 and below c-states.


----------



## Piers

PJVol said:


> Of course, that load is considered allcore, as soon as it utilize more than 16 threads and the scheduler spread it correctly, i.e. not loading 2 logical cores, if there are cores in c1 and below c-states.


That's not how the scheduler distributes the load, and not how x264 works, meaning it's not an all-core load. It's certainly a many-core load. x265 (which was developed on top of x264) is different in that it does utilise cores more evenly, but it's still not recommended to go above 24 threads for the sake of quality (not 24 threads as you think of them, as remember cores x ~1.8. A four core*/four* thread CPU would still use 8 (ideally 7 threads).


----------



## 1devomer

Piers said:


> That's not how the scheduler distributes the load, and not how x264 works, meaning it's not an all-core load. It's certainly a many-core load. x265 (which was developed on top of x264) is different in that it does utilise cores more evenly, but it's still not recommended to go above 24 threads for the sake of quality (not 24 threads as you think of them, as remember cores x ~1.8. A four core*/four* thread CPU would still use 8 (ideally 7 threads).


Care to share the explanation on how the scheduler works, instead of just saying, "its not how it works"!

By the way, you are referring to the encoding quality, being restrained by the number of thread.
But it doesn't mean, that you can't run multiples rendering instances, to fill all the available cores, when dealing with high core counts cpu.
Which still force the cpu into a all cores full load scenario.

As said before, CPPC and the boost algorithm are not free of performance overhead.
CPPC enforce the FIT values that are stored within the cpu itself.
I'm pretty sure you are knowledgeable enough to get the UEFI manual under hands, and check yourself what CPPC does page 567.









CPPC AMD implementation is a direct consequence of the boost algorithm, dictated by the cpu cores quality values, that are stored into the cpu while manufactured.


----------



## gupsterg

Due to time constraint I hadn't installed a fresh OS since going from R9 3900X/RX Vega 64 to R9 5900X/RX 6800 XT. I usually keep a very clean OS. I had used DDU to remove drivers and installed fresh AMD Chipset/Video drivers. As a prior owner of 1000/2000/3000 series I used to use core parking via a regedit. I had seen 5000 series no longer needs Ryzen Power Plan, little did I know core parking had been holding the single core performance back rather than aiding it. Some CPU-Z runs to confirm, then some CB23/20/15 runs. Since getting CPU I had not see it surpass say ~1590 (+/- 5) points in ST of CB23, just with disabling core parking in power plan it's shot to ~1630, data ZIP link.

Another aspect that has changed by disabling core parking is Corecycler with P95 is not making HWINFO sensors page freeze, yesterday I saw this, link to post.

Today I've moved CO from:-



Code:


Fused    03 01 00 04 02 05 07 06 11 08 10 09

CO v1    05 05 11 12 12 12 15 15 15 15 20 20

to



Code:


Fused      03 01 00 04 02 05 07 06 11 08 10 09

CO v1.1    05 05 11 12 12 12 16 16 16 16 20 20

PPT/TDC/EDC stock R9 5900X Scalar: 1x FMAX Offset: 0Mhz

This is benching slightly better and effective clocks have ever so mildly increased in Kahru RAM Test/Realbench stress test.



Spoiler


----------



## Piers

gupsterg said:


> I used to use core parking via a regedit


I'm intrigued. What was the reason/benefit of this with Zen, Zen+, and Zen 2 parts? 


gupsterg said:


> disabling core parking is Corecycler with P95 is not making HWINFO sensors page freeze


I've not experienced HWiNFO freezing at all, whether running CoreCycler or an AVX2 load utilising 100% of the CPU and all free RAM (~28GB).

Does Prime 95 that CoreCycler uses - and only this version of P95 - freeze your PC/make it laggy when trying to open the icon in the taskbar (a well known issue)?


----------



## gupsterg

Piers said:


> I'm intrigued. What was the reason/benefit of this with Zen, Zen+, and Zen 2 parts?


Parking the cores used to aid single thread/low count CPU boost, could be seen in some bench test results.



Piers said:


> I've not experienced HWiNFO freezing at all, whether running CoreCycler or an AVX2 load utilising 100% of the CPU and all free RAM (~28GB).
> 
> Does Prime 95 that CoreCycler uses - and only this version of P95 - freeze your PC/make it laggy when trying to open the icon in the taskbar (a well known issue)?


Only yesterday when I used Corecycler did HWINFO sensors page freeze and unfreeze periodically. All testing prior that with other loads I had zero issues.

At times whilst PC is loaded I do take screen shots/videos. So I may have to open something via taskbar/start menu/desktop icons and I hadn't encountered an issue. Even yesterday when I took screen shots with Corecycler loading PC, only thing freezing/unfreezing was HWINFO.

Today I am using Corecycler with 3x cores with 1 step lower voltage, HWINFO is functioning normal. I've also taken 2x screenshots, at different intervals. Opened explorer using icon on taskbar to rename files and move to a location. Coincidently I'm also running corecycler approximately same time as I did yesterday and rig had been in use both days from 7am.

Any how quite enjoying the experience with R9 5900X.


----------



## Imprezzion

Only load that makes my PC lag like mad and locks up HWInfo64 periodically is TestMem5. Prime and Corecycler and such is totally fine.

I'm still trying to get better than -20 all-core, +50 fmax, scalar 1x (scalar doesn't seem to do anything on my setup at all).

I might actually go for a bit of bclk clocking. My 10900KF ran great with a proper bclk oc (108.2x49 = 5.3 all-core)


----------



## gupsterg

@Piers

I've come to the conclusion core parking at 50% is optimal case for daily usage for me. It hinders multithread by tiny amount, keeps single core boost higher than when I was using 8% and same as 100% (CP Disabled). 3DM combined test is where the hit occurs if CP 50% is not used, anything higher (ie more than 1 CCD being unparked) results in FPS loss in test. Organise files by time in this ZIP.

When tweaking CO and checking effect in benches (except 3DM), gonna roll with CP Disabled (ie 100%).

*Edit*

Best run of CB23 so far since beginning tweaks.




Spoiler: CB23 1636 22666






Code:


Fused      03 01 00 04 02 05 07 06 11 08 10 09

CO v1.1    05 05 11 12 12 12 16 16 16 16 20 20

PPT/TDC/EDC stock R9 5900X Scalar: 1x FMAX Offset: 0Mhz













*Edit 2*


Spoiler: CB20 636 8821















*Edit 3*




Spoiler: Burst into 40k for total score in 3DM FS.


----------



## Luggage

gupsterg said:


> @Piers
> 
> I've come to the conclusion core parking at 50% is optimal case for daily usage for me. It hinders multithread by tiny amount, keeps single core boost higher than when I was using 8% and same as 100% (CP Disabled). 3DM combined test is where the hit occurs if CP 50% is not used, anything higher (ie more than 1 CCD being unparked) results in FPS loss in test. Organise files by time in this ZIP.
> 
> When tweaking CO and checking effect in benches (except 3DM), gonna roll with CP Disabled (ie 100%).
> 
> *Edit*
> 
> Best run of CB23 so far since beginning tweaks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: CB23 1636 22666
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Fused      03 01 00 04 02 05 07 06 11 08 10 09
> 
> CO v1.1    05 05 11 12 12 12 16 16 16 16 20 20
> 
> PPT/TDC/EDC stock R9 5900X Scalar: 1x FMAX Offset: 0Mhz
> 
> 
> View attachment 2536234
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Edit 2*
> 
> 
> Spoiler: CB20 636 8821
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2536235
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Edit 3*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Burst into 40k for total score in 3DM FS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2536244


Something strange with the low combined in FS?


----------



## gupsterg

When GPU differs you wanna compare graphics score/tests. For CPU Physics score/test. Dunno what it is about the combined test, but it doesn't work well as comparative between systems when CPU/GPU differ.

This comparative I'm linking, is a recent result, but OS differs. The result on right user is on OCN. GPU is defo OC'd vs mine and I think CPU has FMAX offset. This results compare OS is same, but other slight differences.

On mine GPU core ref clocks, VRAM OC'd plus timings change, core/VRAM undervolted. My GPU profile loses ~1% performance, for ~10% power reduction vs what my GPU did at stock.


----------



## Bohemian

Your combined score is amazing since my combined score is somehow lower than with 5800x


----------



## Luggage

Bohemian said:


> Your combined score is amazing since my combined score is somehow lower than with 5800x
> View attachment 2536965


That was my reaction - look at the graph for GPU core clock/usage at the combined part of the timeline… your 6900xt is not getting used nearly as much as my 2080ti.


----------



## Piers

gupsterg said:


> @Piers
> 
> I've come to the conclusion core parking at 50% is optimal case for daily usage for me. It hinders multithread by tiny amount, keeps single core boost higher than when I was using 8% and same as 100% (CP Disabled). 3DM combined test is where the hit occurs if CP 50% is not used, anything higher (ie more than 1 CCD being unparked) results in FPS loss in test. Organise files by time in this ZIP.
> 
> When tweaking CO and checking effect in benches (except 3DM), gonna roll with CP Disabled (ie 100%).
> 
> *Edit*
> 
> Best run of CB23 so far since beginning tweaks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: CB23 1636 22666
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Fused      03 01 00 04 02 05 07 06 11 08 10 09
> 
> CO v1.1    05 05 11 12 12 12 16 16 16 16 20 20
> 
> PPT/TDC/EDC stock R9 5900X Scalar: 1x FMAX Offset: 0Mhz
> 
> 
> View attachment 2536234
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Edit 2*
> 
> 
> Spoiler: CB20 636 8821
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2536235
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Edit 3*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Burst into 40k for total score in 3DM FS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2536244


Wasn't notified when you tagged me. Hmm. I find it odd that on Windows 10 with a Ryzen 5000 series product, you're using what looks like a custom power plan. The advice from AMD is to use the default Balanced plan. Perhaps that is the default plan on Windows 10 - on Windows 11 (I'm not using it by choice), the Balanced plan doesn't have any of the core parking etc. options.

Edit: Really good single core score.


----------



## gupsterg

@Piers

Balanced its default on W10. Only thing custom to that power plan is a regedit to reveal Core Parking option. Default for CP is 100%, which equals disabled, I'm just finding 50% gives me gain in 3DM combined test, still keeps CB results good.

Latest CO tweak is yielding gains, still at stock PPT/TDC/EDC/Scalar 1x.



Spoiler: CB23 1634 22792


----------



## Imprezzion

Is the PPT in HWInfo64 accurate? My 5900X on PBO2 curve (-20 all core) rest of the voltages and Digi+ stuff Auto is drawing like 40-55w idle constantly. Idle temps are super low, like ambient +3 ish most of the time, cores show 3600Mhz requested but do go to effective clocks in the single / double digits so I assume parking / core sleeping is working but 40-55w sounds high af. I mean, even my old 10900KF dropped under 20w idle (reported).


----------



## dk_mic

sounds normal, especially if you overclock IF
you can reduce power draw by lowering VSOC and the slider under Power & Sleep / Performance and Energy


----------



## Imprezzion

dk_mic said:


> sounds normal, especially if you overclock IF
> you can reduce power draw by lowering VSOC and the slider under Power & Sleep / Performance and Energy


Don't have this slider on my W11 insider build probably because this was installed under my 10900KF and I didn't bother to re-install Windows as I'm waiting for Christmas to get my Gen 4 M.2 drive that has to become my OS drive lol.

VSOC is already dropped as low as it goes for 1900 IF 3800C15 memory, 1.08125v is the lowest it can go without WHEA's.


----------



## dk_mic

isn't it here? (quickly googled this)
Go to the Windows 11 _Settings > System > Power & battery_ menu to access the Windows 11 Power Mode dropdown menu.


----------



## Imprezzion

dk_mic said:


> isn't it here? (quickly googled this)
> Go to the Windows 11 _Settings > System > Power & battery_ menu to access the Windows 11 Power Mode dropdown menu.


Nah but that's 100% because it ain't a fresh install. Boot is horrible slow as well even after deleting all the old not connected device in device manager and cleaning drivers.

I gotta fix my memory first.. I mean, it's stable and reasonably fast but it won't train tPRYRDL properly at all and VDDG / VDDP voltages are all over the place.


----------



## gupsterg

@The Stilt

Firstly I would like to apologize, for not replying sooner. But you sent me down an enticing "rabbit hole" . I have now come out of the "rabbit hole", thank you for your pearl of wisdom! 

4x cores now reach max 4950MHz , single core performance has trumped my initial profile after applying your wisdom! 

Multicore is solid as well. I believe in some higher load benches, I now need to tweak PPT/TDC/EDC from stock that I currently use, to see the gains better from increased frequency.



Spoiler: CPU-Z 692 10104 CO Tweak by The Stilt "Binder" Method















I believe I now need a sticker on case saying "Perfected by The Stilt's Wisdom".


----------



## Luggage

gupsterg said:


> @The Stilt
> 
> Firstly I would like to apologize, for not replying sooner. But you sent me down an enticing "rabbit hole" . I have now come out of the "rabbit hole", thank you for your pearl of wisdom!
> 
> 4x cores now reach max 4950MHz , single core performance has trumped my initial profile after applying your wisdom!
> 
> Multicore is solid as well. I believe in some higher load benches, I now need to tweak PPT/TDC/EDC from stock that I currently use, to see the gains better from increased frequency.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: CPU-Z 692 10104 CO Tweak by The Stilt "Binder" Method
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2537451
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I now need a sticker on case saying "Perfected by The Stilt's Wisdom".


What post is this referencing? Piqued my interest


----------



## gupsterg

I don't know if he has posted his "binder" method of CO tweaking. Perhaps when Zen3 came out, dunno as only recnetly became an owner and had not seen his posts from them.

Here is 2x more CPU-Z fresh off the press!



Spoiler























MHz gains compare Stock vs PBO CO.



Spoiler















** edit **


Spoiler: CB23 1634 22792


----------



## Piers

gupsterg said:


> I don't know if he has posted his "binder" method of CO tweaking. Perhaps when Zen3 came out, dunno as only recnetly became an owner and had not seen his posts from them.
> 
> Here is 2x more CPU-Z fresh off the press!
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2537472
> View attachment 2537473
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MHz gains compare Stock vs PBO CO.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2537475
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ** edit **
> 
> 
> Spoiler: CB23 1634 22792
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2537481
> 
> 
> View attachment 2537482
> View attachment 2537483


What is the 'binder' method? Also, do you have a link for those reg tweaks to expose more power plan options?


----------



## fullrespect

Really really nice results @gupsterg, congrats!

I'm hovering aroung 673 / 9950 points with my 5900X CO, but with custom PPT/TDC/EDC (not too aggressive though). It would be awesome if you can somehow backup and share your Balanced power plan with QuickCPU or a tool like that. Keep it up!


----------



## gupsterg

Piers said:


> What is the 'binder' method? Also, do you have a link for those reg tweaks to expose more power plan options?


To see core parking in windows 10 powerplan you need to apply:-



Code:


Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Power\PowerSettings\54533251-82be-4824-96c1-47b60b740d00\0cc5b647-c1df-4637-891a-dec35c318583]
"Attributes"=dword:00000000

Copy paste above into txt file, change extension to .reg and apply.

*Curve Optimization using "binder" method by The Stilt as interpretated by gupsterg*

First and foremost forget VID is per core. Ryzen has a single power plane, each core is tied to another's voltage request, thus there is a "binding" situation.

Quote from this post link.



> Ryzen CPUs do have integrated voltage regulators present physically (LDOs, mobile / server heritage) however, *they are not used on DT / HEDT platforms*.
> Because of that, there is also a way to see the per-core VIDs, despite the per-core voltages are not available on the platform. Instead, *the highest voltage request of any of the cores will be the dominant one*.


So to make it less confusing to myself I hid all the per core VIDs in HWINFO.

Now the method in a nutshell.



> In order to prevent a binding situation from happening, find out which of the cores have the highest voltage request under the same workload. Once you have found it, start tuning this core and lower it's curve as much as you can. When you see that the effective VID is no longer decreasing, start again and find the core which holds it up.


As an example, I loaded CPU with Statuscore by dannotech. Great little app as it has light load on CPU, so you will see max clocks. When you load a core or multiple cores, affinity doesn't need to be set. I had tried SuperPi for example and Statuscore was better for the context of use, as didn't need to tie affinity.

As I tested each core individually to find "binder" or "binders", I observed CPU Core VID (Effective) & CPU Core Voltage (SVI2 TFN) in HWINFO.

To better see the core VID of a core and not another core's VID request affecting the single values being observed. I used a method of "zero'ing" HWINFO sensors by hitting clock button. At times using the average values helped me, at times I was repeatedly "zero'ing" and watching values. You will see when you try it better than I can put in words.

Cores 8, 9, 11 were the initial set of cores which were the "binder", if I didn't lower these cores, a change of offset on 1 & 3 wouldn't increase boost. Effectively as you test, you will start to see which cores hold up which ones. This was my experience with the one 5000 series CPU I have used. Some cores which reached max boost on my CPU was some "trial and error" as I progressed profiling offsets.

It can be time consuming. It can be confusing, especially if you have high core count CPU. Be patient, methodical, if you want best results from this CO tweak method. If you enjoy tinkering it's a sweet experience, especially when you see boost maxing out. My benches shown above are with stock R9 5900X PPT/TDC/EDC values, scalar 1x and no FMAX offset.



fullrespect said:


> Really really nice results @gupsterg, congrats!
> 
> I'm hovering aroung 673 / 9950 points with my 5900X CO, but with custom PPT/TDC/EDC (not too aggressive though). It would be awesome if you can somehow backup and share your Balanced power plan with QuickCPU or a tool like that. Keep it up!


Thank you  . I was merely an instrument playing a tune another has guided me to .

My power plan only has core parking revealed and set to 50%. This aids results in 3DM combined test for me, can ever so slightly affect multicore benches, but doesn't hinder single core from what I've seen.


----------



## Imprezzion

Your single core is way way above mine in CPU-Z and CB23 but my multicore is better by a small margin in both CPU-Z and CB23. I get about 672 in CPU-Z and 1565 in CB23 for single core and 10288 in CPU-Z and 23340 in CB23 multicore. This is just PBO2 -20 allcore curve, scalar 1x, fmax off, +150 max boost, 300 PPT, 170 EDC, 140 TDC. I do have the Aida/Geekbench performance profile selected in the BIOS btw.

I have not tweaked the core parking at all but I don't know if that is available on Windows 11 with or without the reg tweak.


----------



## gupsterg

Imprezzion said:


> Your single core is way way above mine in CPU-Z and CB23 but my multicore is better by a small margin in both CPU-Z and CB23. I get about 672 in CPU-Z and 1565 in CB23 for single core and 10288 in CPU-Z and 23340 in CB23 multicore. This is just PBO2 -20 allcore curve, scalar 1x, fmax off, +150 max boost, 300 PPT, 170 EDC, 140 TDC. I do have the Aida/Geekbench performance profile selected in the BIOS btw.


In multicore perhaps you have a better "balanced" CPU at stock, as you tweaked you have improved more vs mine. Plus I am currently using stock PPT(142)/TDC(95)/EDC(140), which should be limiting multi.

As I have been using PC for ~2 days on profile and not had WHEA errors or issues I am now testing with CoreCycler (P95).

Initially profile failed on core 3 about ~36 minutes in, I let it still run for 1hr 29min and no other cores failed. I then tweaked back offset for core 3 by 1, checked clocks under load with Statuscore and all the same, it again failed on core 3 at ~36 minutes. I backed off another step on core 3, clocks still same, now it has passed 1 iteration of CoreCycler (P95) and letting it continue running.

** edit 1 **

Profile with core 3 at 19 has reached 2hrs in CoreCycler (P95), so 2 iterations done on core 3.



Imprezzion said:


> I have not tweaked the core parking at all but I don't know if that is available on Windows 11 with or without the reg tweak.


Only place I think that may get you an answer is W11 forum, if core parking is available on W11. I don't know as haven't moved to W11 yet. Using core parking ever so slightly hits multicore in
CPU-Z/CB for me, but helps 3DM combined. So you gain something and lose something.

*** edit 2 ***

CPU-Z Single is going for core 0, performance order via CPPC is 2 and fused is 3. As this maxed clock, single core is high I believe.


Spoiler


----------



## Piers

gupsterg said:


> Initially profile failed on core 3 about ~36 minutes in, I let it still run for 1hr 29min and no other cores failed.


The author states 144 hours for a 5900X, but accepts that 48 hours is more realistic. I've run CoreCycler and had no issues for 20 hours, then a failure on iteration 18 and 20.


----------



## Imprezzion

I really cannot be bothered with such a long test lol. I have no doubt -20 all core will fail at some point as -23 is already insta crash territory. 

If it plays my games without WHEA's or crashes, it's fine. If it borks my Windows? Good, a fresh install never hurt no one. I got onedrive and local backups on my server.


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> I really cannot be bothered with such a long test lol. I have no doubt -20 all core will fail at some point as -23 is already insta crash territory.
> 
> If it plays my games without WHEA's or crashes, it's fine. If it borks my Windows? Good, a fresh install never hurt no one. I got onedrive and local backups on my server.


The algorithm repeats, so all you need to do is run it overnight, exit when you want to use the PC, then start it again when you go to bed. 

Do that over a week and you'll have a rock solid answer (within reason), *unless you have an objection to keeping your PC on overnight* _(I never turn any of mine off. Server for obvious reasons, plus it takes six minute to boot, HTPC is a 15W system so don't care, and workstation idles at ~35W)?_


----------



## Imprezzion

Piers said:


> The algorithm repeats, so all you need to do is run it overnight, exit when you want to use the PC, then start it again when you go to bed.
> 
> Do that over a week and you'll have a rock solid answer (within reason), *unless you have an objection to keeping your PC on overnight* _(I never turn any of mine off. Server for obvious reasons, plus it takes six minute to boot, HTPC is a 15W system so don't care, and workstation idles at ~35W)?_


It's across from my bed and I'm too lazy to turn off the RGB rainbow barf basically. I can run it when I'm at work tho. I never turn my server / workstation off either but that's in the office not my bedroom / game room plus it only runs a H61 ITX board with a Xeon 1230 (i7 2600 Xeon version) with some low voltage unbuffered ECC RAM and a BIOS undervolted and locked to idle P-state GTX760 so draws next to no power idle anyway.


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> I can run it when I'm at work tho.


That's the best way of doing things. Just make sure you choose whether to let the script continue upon finding an error, and let it test failed cores again - if one core fails at iteration 15 and then passes 16, you'll know it only needs very slight adjustments.


----------



## gupsterg

@Imprezzion

CB23 is is going to Core 1 when doing Single thread bench. Core 1 performance order via CPPC is 1 and fused is 2. As this maxed clock, single core is high in my result.

Single thread bench core usage:-

CPU-Z Core 0 (perf.order via CPPC is 2 and fused is 3 on my CPU)
CB23 Core 1 (perf.order via CPPC is 1 and fused is 2 on my CPU)



Piers said:


> The author states 144 hours for a 5900X, but accepts that 48 hours is more realistic. I've run CoreCycler and had no issues for 20 hours, then a failure on iteration 18 and 20.


Yep read in the read me. Currently just tweaking profile some more and benching. So far max I've done is 3 iterations so ~3.5hrs. When really ready to test profile fully, I do plan to do overnighter. Usually I do shorter testing initially and then later full on.


----------



## Imprezzion

Well. It actually survived the full 9.5 hours I've been away today for work at -20 all-core. That's quite a surprise to me lol. Tomorrow more.

EDIT: Did some more testing and it failed hard in The Division 2 which I rarely play anymore but yeah striker buff so... It kernel power 41 random shut down twice now and once with a BSOD with WHEA uncorrectable. It almost seems like the clocks and voltage combination it runs in corecycler is kinda fine but in that specific game it uses a different part of the curve which isn't fine at all. Other games like Halo Infinite or Battlefield 2042 run fine.. 

I dropped it from -20 +150 max boost to -16 +50 max boost as it never goes as high as +150 anyway. We test again tomorrow.


----------



## StAndrew

For clarification on the curve optimizer. You want the biggest number possible (negative offset). But you want your best cores to have the smallest number?

Also, with Asus optimizer and OC settings enabled, I see boosts clocks up to 5225 and all core clocks at 4600-4675 but my R20 scores are 112xx and with the Asus settings off, single core boosts are no higher than 4900 and all core clock speeds are 4400 - 4450 but I see R20 cores about 100 points higher (113xx). Which settings should I use?

With Asus Enhancements enabled (idle and load). Load bounces around between 4600 (low) and 4775 (high).


----------



## Luggage

StAndrew said:


> For clarification on the curve optimizer. You want the biggest number possible (negative offset). But you want your best cores to have the smallest number?
> 
> Also, with Asus optimizer and OC settings enabled, I see boosts clocks up to 5225 and all core clocks at 4600-4675 but my R20 scores are 112xx and with the Asus settings off, single core boosts are no higher than 4900 and all core clock speeds are 4400 - 4450 but I see R20 cores about 100 points higher (113xx). Which settings should I use?
> 
> With Asus Enhancements enabled (idle and load). Load bounces around between 4600 (low) and 4775 (high).
> 
> View attachment 2537776
> View attachment 2537779


You want the biggest negative number - your best cores will end up with the smallest number after stress testing.

All the mb manufacturers “special easy OC modes” are crap and overvolt, with the possible exception of of ASUS dos(?) if you have use case that take the benefits of it. That would be if you have a use case of a single program that runs mc that you want to optimize for.


----------



## StAndrew

Luggage said:


> You want the biggest negative number - your best cores will end up with the smallest number after stress testing.
> 
> All the mb manufacturers “special easy OC modes” are crap and overvolt, with the possible exception of of ASUS dos(?) if you have use case that take the benefits of it. That would be if you have a use case of a single program that runs mc that you want to optimize for.


I found out what "clock stretching" was earlier so I had to scrub my last spread sheet and start over. I'll have to continue tomorrow but here's what I have currently:

Golden sample; CTR's best cores are as follows (best to worst):
7, 2, 5, 3, 1, 4, 6, 0, 13, 9, 15, 12, 11, 14, 8, 10

So with all the best cores being on CCX 0 and all the worst on CCX 1, I started out with -10 for cores 0-7 and -20 for cores 8-15. I then when to -15 and -25 followed by -20 and -30 which was a crash. 

I went back to -15 on CCX0 and started to tweak, starting with -10 for the best two cores (7,2), -15 for the second best two cores (5,3) and -20 for the rest. Did the same with CCX1 except the opposite. Started at -30 for the worst two cores followed by -28 for the second worst and -25 for the rest. 

Thats where I'm at and I'll start tweaking individual cores tomorrow.


----------



## Piers

StAndrew said:


> found out what "clock stretching" was earlier


That's why the 'effective clock speed' reading in HWINFO is there. Best to start a stability test benchmark, instantly reset HWINFO values, then watch effective clocks during the stress test. 


StAndrew said:


> Golden sample; CTR


Changing LLC values will give everyone a "Golden sample" in CTR. I could easily get CTR to report my 5900X as gold, silver, and bronze. It was at that point I stopped using it because it's crap, apart from fixed overclocking where it *might* make useful suggestions. 


StAndrew said:


> So with all the best cores being on CCX 0 and all the worst on CCX 1


That's how AMD bins on the two CCD consumer parts. My CCD0 can sustain 4.825 GHz on all cores at stock, my CCD1 can only sustain 4.350 GHz. With your 5950X you'll have better binning, but your second CCD is going to essentially be a failed 5800X (in terms of voltage, clocks, etc.) and there's nothing wrong with that. 


StAndrew said:


> I went back to -15 on CCX0 and started to tweak, starting with -10 for the best two cores (7,2), -15 for the second best two cores (5,3) and -20 for the rest. Did the same with CCX1 except the opposite. Started at -30 for the worst two cores followed by -28 for the second worst and -25 for the rest


I'd start with - 5 for the best cores if you want the best possible (undervolted) 1/2 core performance. I'd then go with - 10 for the rest of CCD0, then - 18 for CCD1 apart from the two cores Ryzen Master (and HWINFO) state are best on that CCD (use - 5). You should, in theory, end up with better all-core performance.

How are you testing stability?


----------



## StAndrew

Piers said:


> That's why the 'effective clock speed' reading in HWINFO is there. Best to start a stability test benchmark, instantly reset HWINFO values, then watch effective clocks during the stress test.


Yeah, I was excited but confused that my scores weren't increasing.


Piers said:


> Changing LLC values will give everyone a "Golden sample" in CTR. I could easily get CTR to report my 5900X as gold, silver, and bronze. It was at that point I stopped using it because it's crap, apart from fixed overclocking where it *might* make useful suggestions.


I've heard CTR is a little finnicky but I did do the analysis with all the settings stock. What I like is it shows the list of cores from best to worse unlike Ryzen master, which only shows the top two of each CCX.


Piers said:


> That's how AMD bins on the two CCD consumer parts. My CCD0 can sustain 4.825 GHz on all cores at stock, my CCD1 can only sustain 4.350 GHz. With your 5950X you'll have better binning, but your second CCD is going to essentially be a failed 5800X (in terms of voltage, clocks, etc.) and there's nothing wrong with that.


I figured as much. It would have been nice for AMD to release an XT processor or "black edition" with two golden sample CCDs...


Piers said:


> I'd start with - 5 for the best cores if you want the best possible (undervolted) 1/2 core performance. I'd then go with - 10 for the rest of CCD0, then - 18 for CCD1 apart from the two cores Ryzen Master (and HWINFO) state are best on that CCD (use - 5). You should, in theory, end up with better all-core performance.
> 
> How are you testing stability?


What if my "best cores" are stable at -15? 

So far, tested stable single core C20 and multi core test was stable over night test; still have to test idle. I was going to start walking up CCX0 to -15/-20 and CCX1 50 -25/-30.

Edit:

One thing I did notice, I don't know which setting was the culprit, with Asus PBO Enhancer enabled and Performance Enhancer set to "Level 3 (OC)", CCD0 would clock higher than CCD1. With both disabled, they both run at the same clock.


----------



## Piers

StAndrew said:


> Yeah, I was excited but confused that my scores weren't increasing.
> 
> I've heard CTR is a little finnicky but I did do the analysis with all the settings stock. What I like is it shows the list of cores from best to worse unlike Ryzen master, which only shows the top two of each CCX.
> 
> I figured as much. It would have been nice for AMD to release an XT processor or "black edition" with two golden sample CCDs...
> 
> What if my "best cores" are stable at -15?
> 
> So far, tested stable single core C20 and multi core test was stable over night test; still have to test idle. I was going to start walking up CCX0 to -15/-20 and CCX1 50 -25/-30.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> One thing I did notice, I don't know which setting was the culprit, with Asus PBO Enhancer enabled and Performance Enhancer set to "Level 3 (OC)", CCD0 would clock higher than CCD1. With both disabled, they both run at the same clock.


The best software for stability testing with undervolting is CoreCycler. It's a free script that runs Prime 95 (SSE by default, which will generally produce higher clocks therefore higher VID = higher voltage delivered = more likely to induce an error) and cycles between cores randomly in order to try and get the highest boost, which will expose an unstable undervolt. I can run all cores on -25 with Cinebench for 24 hours without it crashing, then run CoreCycler and it produces an error within an hour. If errors are found, CoreCycler tells you which core which is obviously very useful. If it crashes, it keeps a log file so you can see which core failed.

Keep in mind that if you want stability in all applications (some people don't care about subtle corruption or random crashes) with undervolting, you'll need to let CoreCycler run for a number of days. You can stop the script running when you want to use the PC, but should let it run overnight, every night for a week (ideally). If it passes that, you have a stable undervolt (there are some rare exceptions but they don't seem to apply here based on information you've provided).


----------



## gupsterg

@StAndrew

I find [email protected] is nice as well, besides the suggestion by Piers. I run it with 20 threads. It bounces cores, so tests spread of frequency/voltage. Rather than pegging core or cores to max, which I still do test.

@ Fellow peers.

Yesterday retweaked profile as had issues in CoreCycler. Core 1 kept popping up with an error, no WHEA errors or other issues. Ever so slight losses on single/multi benches with retweak. Rig is still running more tests, has had 1x re-post and also 1x full power down & up, some idling as well.

PBO CO Tweak v5.1 data ZIP link.



Spoiler: PBO CO Profile compare table


----------



## Piers

gupsterg said:


> Yesterday retweaked profile as had issues in CoreCycler. Core 1 kept popping up with an error, no WHEA errors or other issues. Ever so slight losses on single/multi benches with retweak. Rig is still running more tests, has had 1x re-post and also 1x full power down & up, some idling as well.
> 
> PBO CO Tweak v5.1 data ZIP link.


I found that I have one core (not even a very good core) that refuses to pass with CoreCycler as any more than -6 (depending on the LLC) on CCD0. It took 23 iterations in CoreCycler to find the error, but it was there.


----------



## gupsterg

Piers said:


> I found that I have one core (not even a very good core) that refuses to pass with CoreCycler as any more than -6 (depending on the LLC) on CCD0. It took 23 iterations in CoreCycler to find the error, but it was there.


+rep for experience share , duly noted .

Currently just running more tests on profile. Later plan to see if I can tweak cores 8, 9 & 11 to come up a bit on MHz.


----------



## Piers

gupsterg said:


> +rep for experience share , duly noted .
> 
> Currently just running more tests on profile. Later plan to see if I can tweak cores 8, 9 & 11 to come up a bit on MHz.


Keep in mind that with each change, you should run CoreCycler again for the full time. It's best to settle on something sensible like - 6 best cores, - 18 the rest. Test for 24H (most errors should be found, but it's not ideal) and lower values if it passes. If you only play with a few cores and you've already extensively tested the others, you can set CoreCycler to just test the cores you've changed (it's about five options down in the config file that's automatically generated when you open the script).


----------



## jura11

Imprezzion said:


> I really cannot be bothered with such a long test lol. I have no doubt -20 all core will fail at some point as -23 is already insta crash territory.
> 
> If it plays my games without WHEA's or crashes, it's fine. If it borks my Windows? Good, a fresh install never hurt no one. I got onedrive and local backups on my server.


That's what I done with my 5950X, done I think 12 hour run with CoreCycler with my settings and everything is stable

PC is used for rendering and gaming if time allows and to the date no BSOD unless I'm going crazy with OC on GPUs but usually I'm keeping GPUs at +135MHz on core on top one with 1295MHz on VRAM and other one is running +160MHz on core with 1000MHz on VRAM, both are RTX 3090s 

I test 5950X in real life scenarios like rendering or gaming and no issues to the date and mainly no BSOD 

Its up to you there but I would do at least 12 hour CoreCycler test 

Hope this helps and best of luck 

Thanks, Jura


----------



## Asmodian

48h of CoreCycler if you want to be sure... and even then, it is not perfect. 

48h of CoreCycler and then turn down (less negative) all cores by 1.


----------



## StAndrew

So I noticed with the Asus PBO Fmax Enhancer, it increases your clock on your good CCX and decreases your clocks on your bad CCX. So I enabled that and offset my bad CCX to a little more negative. My overall R20 score didnt improve but now CCX0 boosts up to 4550 and CCX1 to 4225 vis all at 4350. I like this better.


----------



## Piers

jura11 said:


> I think 12 hour run with CoreCycler with my settings and everything is stable


It's stable as far as you know. Subtle corruption is often.... subtle. People seem to associate RAM more with corruption, but with a CPU you are likely to find in the medium- and long-term rounding errors, resulting in file corruption when saving files due to writing to your storage incorrectly (including backups).

It could be a 1/1000 issue, or something much more common that you don't notice until you do and it's too late. You may find one day, for example, that a configuration file for a game or rendering application no longer works. Or that a render has subtle frame corruption, especially when dealing with predictive b-frames or macroblocks. 


jura11 said:


> PC is used for rendering


Yet you only do 12 hours of testing out of the recommended 256 for the 5950X (16 hours per core, which can realistically be decreased to 6-8). Do you have an aversion to leaving your PC on overnight testing stability every night for two weeks? You may find you can squeeze more performance out of it if it passes with the above recommendation


jura11 said:


> no BSOD unless I'm going crazy with OC on GPU


GDDR5/5X/6/6X cards from both AMD and Nvidia have memory and controller forms of CRC. It means a user can overclock VRAM to +1000 and it'll appear stable, but in reality the controller and/or memory is performing thousands of error corrections a second. It usually creates ~4 operations per cycle to do this, which can result in severe output defects and crashes if the overclock is unstable.


jura11 said:


> I test 5950X in real life scenarios like rendering or gaming and no issue


That's "no issue" that you're aware of so far. But it's your data.


Asmodian said:


> 48h of CoreCycler if you want to be sure... and even then, it is not perfect.


+1


Asmodian said:


> 48h of CoreCycler and then turn down (less negative) all cores by 1.


I'd say that for an 8 core part as the absolute minimum.


StAndrew said:


> PBO Fmax Enhancer


I thought that was primarily a Zen 2 feature which Asus doesn't hide upon detecting a Zen 3 CPU.

You should be using PBO options in Advanced > AMD Overclocking > Precision Boost Overdrive. I realise due to AMD's incompetence and motherboard manufacturers - especially Asus - not caring means there are often multiple ways of changing PBO. For example, my Asus motherboard has four different areas for PBO.


----------



## gupsterg

Piers said:


> Keep in mind that with each change, you should run CoreCycler again for the full time. It's best to settle on something sensible like - 6 best cores, - 18 the rest. Test for 24H (most errors should be found, but it's not ideal) and lower values if it passes. If you only play with a few cores and you've already extensively tested the others, you can set CoreCycler to just test the cores you've changed (it's about five options down in the config file that's automatically generated when you open the script).


I'll be honest, for each change I couldn't be running CoreCycler for times you suggest. I do believe I would have got no where with profile.

On change/changes I check clocks using Statuscore to load single cores. I only test the "real cores" and not SMT ones. I've found with my CPU if the settings for offsets are "in tune", frequency gain is subtlety better.

As an example I set 24 9 24 9 18 18 21 21 21 23 20 24, checked clocks. I then changed last four to 23 24 24 26. I saw gain of clocks on core 8, none on 9, gain on 10, none on 11 vs 21 23 20 24. Then I tried 24 24 25 26. I saw gain of clocks on core 8, none on 9, none on 10, none on 11 vs 21 23 20 24. When I set 24 24 24 25 finally all four cores jumped frequency vs 21 23 20 24. This is just one of the several times I saw exactly what The Stilt stated, that binding can occur of cores when CO tuning.

Then I move on to benches. Then based on performance result I decide if a retune of offsets is needed. If not, then I move to stability testing. I would aim to run various tests of short time, just to see if profile is more sensitive to fall down in a particular test. If a particular test was highlighting quicker than another an issue with profile, I would "tune" to make profile pass that. Then I would go for length.



Piers said:


> I realise due to AMD's incompetence and motherboard manufacturers - especially Asus - not caring means there are often multiple ways of changing PBO. For example, my Asus motherboard has four different areas for PBO.


The reason for some of the settings duplicated is down to how AMD firmware is.

The AMD CBS appeared on 1000 series, then AMD Overclocking on 2000/3000 series. These are sections that AMD wants end users to have. If you edit UEFI for any of the AMD sections it breaks, I can make simple edits to ASUS sections and it won't break UEFI.

As a launch day owner of 1000 series CPU and Crosshair VI Hero I saw how we had limited options. At first even memory timings changes would not apply from ASUS menus. Later things started falling in place. When you'd dump settings txt for UEFI, some of the AMD menus wouldn't be dumped, you'd have to note manually for yourself or to share. Same with profiles, AMD sections settings wouldn't load from saved profile. I believe this was one reason why ASUS duplicated some of the settings from AMD menu to their sections of UEFI.

Next reason, let's say I went over optimistic on RAM timings. I could make board go Q-Code: F9. AMD FW originally allowed board to repost 3 times (later could be changed), if it did not post/train successfully AMD FW would reset all settings and post board at default. Only the settings in ASUS sections would be not reset and thus you could just enter UEFI and do "save & exit". Obviously we moaned at ASUS reps, which were very active at launch of Ryzen 1000. Then they placed some of those settings in their sections of UEFI.

The FW has evolved vastly and is so much more better than "back in the day". Think of the UEFI settings as ASUS/AMD. Tweak whichever and you don't need to be applying in both places. Some settings I prefer tweaking in AMD section, others ASUS.


----------



## Imprezzion

I had some crashes at -20 all core in corecycler as I expected so I dropped to -16 and that has ran for 18 hours now and clocks, bench scores and temps barely changed if at all. So now I know all the cores should be capable of -16, I can tweak per core now with a starting point of -16. Or just leave it here and enjoy the performance. 

It seems to clock to 4700-4725Mhz quite reliably in gaming in several games (Halo Infinite, The Division 2, Battlefield 2042) which combined with 1900 FCLK 3800 14-15-14-28-42-252-2T on the RAM gives some very nice performance.

I am a tad worried my paste application or block mount is kinda bad tho. Temps are very equal across the cores so there isn't really a dead spot in the paste with 1 CCD being much hotter or whatever but when it runs a bench like CB23 or a CPU heavy game and it goes to like the full 170 EDC or above 210w it will get quite hot. Core temps high 60's with CCD temps high 70's to low 80's peak. Is that too much for a TechN block with a 420+240 Nemesis GTX + D5 loop? These temps are with the GPU in the loop as well running the full 345w it can achieve with stock BIOS. I have no water temp sensor but the GPU does not go over 51c so can't be that high lol.


----------



## gupsterg

@Imprezzion

2x Magicool G2 Slim 360mm in series, Arctic cooling F12 fans on rads, D5, Bykski CPU/GPU blocks. Distilled water with ~20% Mayhems XT-1 clear concentrate. Loop order pump>GPU>CPU>rad>rad. Dark base 900, with mesh mod to front, top panel behind mesh I enlarged openings for better exhausting of air.


Spoiler















CPU stock, RAM OC'd, GPU Core stock, VRAM OC'd, ~4hrs fah on CPU (20 threads)/GPU. Case air intake temperature and water temps in below screenie.


Spoiler















1 hour 3DM TS demo only on loop


Spoiler















** Edit **

Out of things I have used, only Y-Cruncher has bad temp spikes for very little time, link to data graph.


----------



## Imprezzion

gupsterg said:


> @Imprezzion
> 
> 2x Magicool G2 Slim 360mm in series, Arctic cooling F12 fans on rads, D5, Bykski CPU/GPU blocks. Distilled water with ~20% Mayhems XT-1 clear concentrate. Loop order pump>GPU>CPU>rad>rad. Dark base 900, with mesh mod to front, top panel behind mesh I enlarged openings for better exhausting of air.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2537998
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CPU stock, RAM OC'd, GPU Core stock, VRAM OC'd, ~4hrs fah on CPU (20 threads)/GPU. Case air intake temperature and water temps in below screenie.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2537996
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 hour 3DM TS demo only on loop
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2537997
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ** Edit **
> 
> Out of things I have used, only Y-Cruncher has bad temp spikes for very little time, link to data graph.


So with stock CPU you also get high 60's for the cores and mid 70's for the CCD0/CCD1 temps. Seems fine then.

Here's mine. Nemesis GTX 420 push pull front + Nemesis GTX 240 top push pull, EK XRES 140 RGB, Bykski 3080 Gaming OC block, TechN AM4 block (with terrible fittings, ran out so had to use my barb spares and i'm too lazy to re drain the loop to put my new EK fittings on lol). Order is res/pump - GPU - top rad - CPU - front rad - res/pump. Case is a Phanteks Enthoo Evolv X with the front and top cut open and mesh added to fully open up all the airflow it can possibly have + modded front panel mount to fit 3x140 outside of the case between the front panel and the case.

I just cut up this thing as I can't really find a new case I actually like. I got this thing used for like 50 bucks and while it's fine it's too small. I wanna replace my top rad for a 280 or a 360 or hell, another 420, but finding a case that holds 2x 420 54mm rads with push pull is.. yeah.. no. I wish there was a 140mm version of the O11D XL... Or a case similar to my old Corsair Air 540. I loved that design with 2 compartments in a cube case..

I might get a Meshify 2 XL Light TG as soon as it's actually available again.. But not sure it has any more room then this. 










Here's the temps in a Cinebench R23 run without the GPU active. Add about 5c when the GPU is at full load and heat.


----------



## Piers

gupsterg said:


> be honest, for each change I couldn't be running CoreCycler for times you suggest. I do believe I would have got no where with profile.


It's the author who explains why those times are best. I would try and run the total time on your final configuration. Remember, it doesn't need to be run all at once. 


gupsterg said:


> The reason for some of the settings duplicated is down to how AMD firmware is.


That's simply unacceptable. Intel wouldn't receive the same acceptance AMD has for atrocious software/firmware. 


gupsterg said:


> If you edit UEFI for any of the AMD sections it breaks, I can make simple edits to ASUS sections and it


Another example of AMD's contempt for board partners. 


gupsterg said:


> The FW has evolved vastly and is so much more better than "back in the day".


I stopped using all AMD products nearly 12 years ago due to the company's inability to produce even the most basic, competent software and it seems little has changed. Had I read more before purchasing, I would have opted for Intel. AMD's CPU hardware is certainly exceptional, and the company is innovative again, but in terms of software it's still the same company it was over a decade ago - but now with more money.


----------



## jura11

If you really


Piers said:


> It's stable as far as you know. Subtle corruption is often.... subtle. People seem to associate RAM more with corruption, but with a CPU you are likely to find in the medium- and long-term rounding errors, resulting in file corruption when saving files due to writing to your storage incorrectly (including backups).
> 
> It could be a 1/1000 issue, or something much more common that you don't notice until you do and it's too late. You may find one day, for example, that a configuration file for a game or rendering application no longer works. Or that a render has subtle frame corruption, especially when dealing with predictive b-frames or macroblocks.
> 
> Yet you only do 12 hours of testing out of the recommended 256 for the 5950X (16 hours per core, which can realistically be decreased to 6-8). Do you have an aversion to leaving your PC on overnight testing stability every night for two weeks? You may find you can squeeze more performance out of it if it passes with the above recommendation
> GDDR5/5X/6/6X cards from both AMD and Nvidia have memory and controller forms of CRC. It means a user can overclock VRAM to +1000 and it'll appear stable, but in reality the controller and/or memory is performing thousands of error corrections a second. It usually creates ~4 operations per cycle to do this, which can result in severe output defects and crashes if the overclock is unstable.
> 
> That's "no issue" that you're aware of so far. But it's your data.
> +1
> 
> I'd say that for an 8 core part as the absolute minimum.
> 
> I thought that was primarily a Zen 2 feature which Asus doesn't hide upon detecting a Zen 3 CPU.
> 
> You should be using PBO options in Advanced > AMD Overclocking > Precision Boost Overdrive. I realise due to AMD's incompetence and motherboard manufacturers - especially Asus - not caring means there are often multiple ways of changing PBO. For example, my Asus motherboard has four different areas for PBO.


Hi there 

I disagree with you regarding the rendering, I do renders taking up to 16 hours in best case and to the date didn't have one corruption of render and same applies for file corruption, no issue or problems to report

My PC is running 24/7 and most of the time I use for rendering and some gaming and as I said no BSOD or WHEA, no USB disconnection etc

In my case RAM is running at CL18 at gear 1 and tested RAM with HCI and Kahru, o issues and passing these tests

I'm not prepared to run 256 hours CoreCycler, there are people who would do that but not me mate hahaha, I rather test that in real life scenarios, if I want to tinker all the time then I will get 12900k with DDR5 hahaha 

And if I would do that as you said then what I would gain, probably not so much what I have already, I can run at fixed voltage like 1.28-1.30v and 4.7-4.8GHz and I would gain same by doing what you recommending, yes I will loose in single core applications, how much hard to say

Regarding the GPU OC, these error corrections are part of new GDDR6X and best test are games or benchmarks like PR where you see lower scores when you push beyond that, but its big BUT, you can be stable in PR or any benchmarks when you crash in loading screen of game in best case or you just get nice CTD or black screen, with GDDR6X usually you will get black screen of you push VRAM way to high, some rendering application like Octane or Redshift doesn't like high core OC but likes VRAM OC more where you can gain faster render times, Blender Cycles on other hand likes both and my OC are stable in these rendering applications and for gaming I'm using different profile and again that's depending on the game

Prior to using AMD I was using previously 5960x which was pain to tinker and running on that CPU 10 HDD's and 3*GPUs setup was just pain, at least now I don't need to wake up every morning and check if I didn't get BSOD during the 16 hours render

On current build I have run 3*GPUs setup as well and no issues and as well currently running 14 drives and too no issues or no disconnection or USB

Hope this helps 

Thanks, Jura


----------



## boydCrowder

Hello im new of this platform. Recently i bought the 5900x and Rog crosshair hero 8. 
For now im using the typical CO2 and PBO with -20 all core and -10 silver/gold core. But im not satisfied for temperature.. So hot. expecially the first core.. In gaming around 70 degrees and i have a full custom loop. I want to know how to set the voltage by ccx1 and ccx0 for better temperature. Thanks


----------



## Luggage

7


boydCrowder said:


> Hello im new of this platform. Recently i bought the 5900x and Rog crosshair hero 8.
> For now im using the typical CO2 and PBO with -20 all core and -10 silver/gold core. But im not satisfied for temperature.. So hot. expecially the first core.. In gaming around 70 degrees and i have a full custom loop. I want to know how to set the voltage by ccx1 and ccx0 for better temperature. Thanks


70 is ok if GPU is in the loop, don’t compare with Intel temps. Look around at all the old threads about high temp with Ryzen.


----------



## boydCrowder

Luggage said:


> 7
> 
> 70 is ok if GPU is in the loop, don’t compare with Intel temps. Look around at all the old threads about high temp with Ryzen.


I know, but when the cpu temperature are so high the delta Temperature become more high too..


----------



## KedarWolf

boydCrowder said:


> I know, but when the cpu temperature are so high the delta Temperature become more high too..


That's a bit high. I have one 360 rad and an Optimus Foundation block and with my pump at 60%, the highest core while running Cyberpunk is 58, and most 53 or lower.

My bad, my pump was at 100% because I was benchmarking. Still, at 60%, only 60C hottest core.

I'm downloading Battlefield 5 though, which is very CPU intensive, I'll try, see what that gets.

Battlefield 5 my hottest core is 63C. Most around 55C.


----------



## gupsterg

My profile update continuing from post 961. I let rig idle ~1.66hrs, then 6.5hrs doing some OS/app updates plus some games downing.

Next went on to CoreCycler for 18 hours (15 iterations completed). At this point I was like shall I continued as @Piers had stated he'd had issue at iteration 23. Whilst deciding what to do I came across @Luggage post here , seeing he had a fail in Y-Cruncher at 52min just after having run CoreCycler for 22hrs I decided I couldn't continue with CoreCycler.

I used Y-Cruncher and within 3hrs CPU had a WHEA error, which I believe couldn't be corrected and caused a reboot.

So next I thought try another test load, fah I ran on rig for 11hrs. Then knocked out CPU slot and started CoreCycler on CPU. I kept the GPU under load from fah to increase thermals, so CoreCycler would be using differing frequencies on CPU. It ran without issue for ~7.66hrs, I tried Y-Cruncher again and boom within 21min I had same WHEA error as before (but differing CPU core), I belive uncorrectable as rig rebooted.

Cache errors can some times be indicative for low SOC voltage. 3800MHz/1900MHz had been tested well with stock CPU, but not for the lengths of uptime now I was doing with CO tweaks. So I bumped SOC by 2 steps and CLDO_VDDG_CCD/IOD by 3mV.

This has led to 9hrs pass in Y-Cruncher, ~6hrs CoreCycler. Now carrying on with testing, latest data in set 2, settings in set 1, but with increased SOC & CLDO_VDDG_CCD/IOD as stated in this post.

PBO CO Tweak v5.1 data set 2 ZIP link (383MB)
PBO CO Tweak v5.1 data set 1 ZIP link (32.5MB)

Notes on data:-

i) To see better what order I was doing things, best to organise files by time rather than name.
ii) Case air intake temperature will be out when CPU/GPU are under sustained heavy load like fah. In that example you will see say 21C min and 24C current/max, at that point assume case air intake to be ~1C above min. I have to find a way for keeping case air intake temperature unaffected by internal ambient case temperature change.



Imprezzion said:


> So with stock CPU you also get high 60's for the cores and mid 70's for the CCD0/CCD1 temps. Seems fine then.


Yeah seems fine to me also. What's happening is heat intensity is great, so cooling solution is great in a wider sense, but for moments of extreme can't draw the heat away effectively. As shared on the graph before my worst case is Y-Cruncher. Not average temp, but peak. Average is 59/64C CCD1/2, peak was 90C, as only for very low time I'm just letting it go.


----------



## Piers

CoreCycler allows you to choose between three applications... It's in the readme.


----------



## Luggage

Piers said:


> CoreCycler allows you to choose between three applications... It's in the readme.


For quick optimization the normal cs huge sse is fine, if curve is 3-5 off… 
But, yea but we run the full y-cruncher stress test. It’s been faster so far… if it runs y-cruncher over night and blender benchmark then I’ll go back to cs and see if the other modes [sizes, sse/avx, Aida, yc] are stable but not actively. Just if idle over night anyway.


----------



## gupsterg

Piers said:


> CoreCycler allows you to choose between three applications... It's in the readme.


Indeed 🙂. I'm currently just opting to use CoreCycler with P95. I believe I am now somewhere decent stability with profile. Gonna continue just using normally, throwing various loads at it when get chance. Wish to also at some point test multiples of cores being loaded, like 2 at times, etc.

The Stilt is not wrong that AVFS is really good on Zen3 for getting the most out of silicon. So what's left for us to gain via CO is quite small 😐, but the meddler in me just can't let go tinkering with CPU! 😄


----------



## Imprezzion

CPU L2 Cache Error on a 5900X, which voltage / setting fixes that in general? I had to get a new chip as my old one died randomly and this is apparently a B2 revision chip which can maintain some quite impressive clocks in PBO2 mode.


----------



## umea

Does anyone have the link to the bench ISO that was posted a little while ago? Original link doesnt work.


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> CPU L2 Cache Error on a 5900X


What have you changed from default settings?


----------



## Imprezzion

Piers said:


> What have you changed from default settings?


DOCP enabled, 3600C16 1:1 1800IF, stock Auto LLC, stock auto all voltages, only enabled PBO2 and trying to find out the max negative offset for my best performance cores with corecycler. 
I usually start at something that is way too much and work my way down to something stable as that usually takes less time to find the max point. -25 kinda works as it doesn't crash the workers so far but it does give me 2 errors in HWInfo64 now. One is the L2 Cache Error the other one is CPU TLB Error but neither of those triggered corecycler to fail. 

Technically they can be related to SOC as well right? I mean, Auto on 1800 IF is only 1.08125v so.


----------



## Mach3.2

umea said:


> Does anyone have the link to the bench ISO that was posted a little while ago? Original link doesnt work.


KedarWolf have a thread called "Optimize-Offline Guide - Windows Debloating Tool, Windows 1803, 1903, 19H2, 1909, 20H1 and LTSC 2019" on MDL forum under Windows 10 subforum, you might find something there.


----------



## KedarWolf

umea said:


> Does anyone have the link to the bench ISO that was posted a little while ago? Original link doesnt work.








Win10BenchISO.zip







drive.google.com


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> DOCP enabled, 3600C16 1:1 1800IF, stock Auto LLC, stock auto all voltages, only enabled PBO2 and trying to find out the max negative offset for my best performance cores with corecycler.
> I usually start at something that is way too much and work my way down to something stable as that usually takes less time to find the max point. -25 kinda works as it doesn't crash the workers so far but it does give me 2 errors in HWInfo64 now. One is the L2 Cache Error the other one is CPU TLB Error but neither of those triggered corecycler to fail.
> 
> Technically they can be related to SOC as well right? I mean, Auto on 1800 IF is only 1.08125v so.


I would not start with going over the top - it seems you either had a defective CPU (which seems incredibly common based on posts on here...😐 ) or went far too far with overclocking. Of course you are free to completely ignore this post. I'm merely trying to be helpful.

Guide to Overclocking with Zen 3

Enter your BIOS _(technically UEFI) _in the Advanced View and save your existing configuration _(if you wish)_. Then Load Optimised Defaults and reboot.
Re-enter the BIOS and enable your RAM profile _(XMP/AMP/A-XMP/DOCP - there are so many names for AMD's version of XMP)_. Save, reboot, and load in to Windows.
Now it's time to test your 3600 MT/s _(or whatever speed)_ RAM _(and 1:1:1 configuration)_ with MemTest86 or similar software. For 32GB, this should be for 48 hours or until it shows no errors for the recommend amount of time or passes _(read the documentation for whichever piece of software you choose)_.
If MemTest86 _(or similar)_ passes without errors for 48 hours/n passes _(or lower, if that's what the software says is OK)_, you know you have a solid start for overclocking. Now it's time to move on to PBO2.
Enter your BIOS and enable PBO2 from the AMD Overclocking menu _(e.g. for Asus boards, this is Advanced -> AMD Overclocking -> Precision Boost Overdrive). _For Power Limit, select Motherboard power limits. Don't touch Scalar, Additional OC or MHz, or the Curve Optimiser yet. You can set a safe maximum temperature if you wish. 85 is at the higher end for two CCD parts _(e.g. 5900X)_ and 90 is at the higher end for one CCD parts _(e.g. 5600X)_. Save, reboot, and load in to Windows.
Once in Windows, it's time to measure your improvements. Run a series of benchmarks_*****_, making sure to record the scores/boost clocks (effective)/voltages/etc. - it's especially important to note down PPT, TDC, & EDC.
If you find acceptable performance, it's time to obtain your 'best' two cores for each CCD. This can be done using Ryzen Master or HWiNFO. Ryzen Master is generally preferred. Note which cores _(note: in Ryzen Master, it lists cores starting at 1. This is misleading as Core 01 is technically Core 00 in any BIOS. If Ryzen Master states your 'best' core on CCD0 is Core 05, this is Core 04 in your BIOS)._
Reboot and enter your BIOS. It's time to set your power limits in the PBO2 menu you used earlier. Change the Power Limits from 'Motherboard' to the figures you obtained earlier from benchmarking. I would reduce the figures by ~10% _(especially EDC). _Save, reboot, and load in to Windows.
Once back in Windows, carry out the same series of benchmarks you ran before. Make sure to note all scores/clocks/etc.
If performance is satisfactory (incl. cooling), it's time to reboot and enter your BIOS again.
Once in the BIOS, enable Curve Optimiser and select Per Core. Set all to cores to Negative and start with sensible values. If using a dual CCD part _(e.g. 5900X), y_ou can either choose to have CCD0 with lower values, or focus on per-core performance by optimising the two best cores _(as noted earlier in Ryzen Master)_ on each CCD. Regardless, I would use multiples of 3 to start with - this would be "-6" on your 'best' cores, and "-18" on the rest. Save, reboot, and load in to Windows.
Once back in Windows, carry out the same series of benchmarks and tests. Again, make sure to note your scores/clocks/etc. If no crashes, BSOD, reboots, or errors, reboot back in your BIOS.
Once back in the BIOS, drop the values by 3 _(e.g. Core 04 is your 'best' core, so you change the value from *-*6 to *-*9)_. Save, reboot, and load in to Windows.
Repeat step #12 _(carry out the same series of benchmarks and note all important data)_.
If all benchmarks and tests pass, you can lower the values even more and test, but be careful of single core performance loss. Generally, the consensus appears to be that a majority of chips will operate better with as little negative offset on the 'best' cores. This is not true for all chips so it's a matter of trial and error.
Once you have found what seems like a stable configuration, it's time to start stability testing. This can take anywhere from 10m to 48+ hours _(ideally 4 to 8 hours per *thread*)_.
For stability testing, CoreCycler is an effective and free script which utilises Prime 95 _(SSE and/or AVX2+)_, y-cruncher _(AVX2+)_, and Aida64 _(not included by default, less reliable)_. The script works by selecting cores at random and putting a full load on that core. It then moves on to another core and does the same. All data is logged in the script's directory and it shows which, if any, core failed. You can use the default Prime 95 SSE setup, or select y-cruncher instead. Both are good. Both should show any weakness in your Curve but in different ways _(SSE technically should allow for higher boost clocks which may expose too much undervolting more quickly. This is not always the case)_, so long as you let them run long enough. Running for 1 hour per core is not long enough. An *ideal *calculation = eight hours per thread. For a 5600X, this would be 96 hours. For a 5900X, this would be 144 hours. In my experience, errors in the default configuration are usually found within 48 hours or ~45 iterations.
Notes and Software
**** = *My choice of quick benchmarking and testing software (for about two hours worth of tests) includes:

HWiNFO for recording information
IntelBurnTest (it's old but still effective) or another Linpack GUI with 50%-90% RAM loaded - 10 cycles (check for score consistency. If not reasonably consistent, it's likely the overclock isn't acceptable)
Cinebench R23 - 15 mins multiple core and 15 mins single core
3D Mark Time Spy Extreme CPU test
Blender benchmark (all demos included - don't select GPU to render, obviously)
Aida64 stress test (incl. RAM) - 30 minutes
FHD Benchmark (old, but still effective). Substitute this for a different AVX2 encoding benchmark if you wish - 5 passes assuming length=5 minutes
Finally, some sort of document - notepad is fine, or create a spreadsheet to record benchmarking and testing results. You'll thank yourself later on.
Obviously you can skill all of those points - it's merely a suggestion. I just see zero point in enabling and changing a dozen different options, then trying to test for stability. It's a total waste of time if the workstation is to be used for anything you care about.

Edit notes: cleaned bullet points and corrected spelling.


----------



## Imprezzion

@Piers 
I agree with most points however everyone has their own way of doing things and I've been in the OC and extreme OC game since AMD Athlon 1 / Pentium 4 days and if there is one thing I taught myself it's to not start at the bottom and work up. That takes ages and what if I start with +3, then +3 again, +3 again while all that time +21 would've just been stable I wasted hours and hours.

I usually reverse things. I set a goal like, I take Intel for example as it's easier to explain, I have a 10900KF and the goal is to run 5.4 single core 5.2 all core. Then I just set that and test if it's possible. If it is, saved hours. If it isn't, adjust goal to 5.3 single core 5.1 all core. If that works. Great. 

Same with this chip. I want it to do at least as good as the other dead one so -16 all-core PBO2 +50 max boost for 5.0. So, I started at -20 which so far it can easily easily do. So went straight to -30. It can probably do it with some more agressive LLC but that's pushing it a bit too much. So I just simply adjusted to -25 and I will try to get that stable.

Just FYI for everyone, I never OCed the previous chip too far. PPT, EDC and TDC have always been set even lower then the board limits (had it set to 220 PPT 165 EDC 140 TDC), LLC and such have never been off Auto except for one or two per CCD tests with no more than 1.40v, vSOC has never been ANY higher then 1.15v and daily at 1.08125v, the chip has never in it's life seen ANY temperature over 81c, VDDG, VDDP and such have always been very very conservative. The only thing I had on the edge was maybe ProcODT set very low to 28.2/30 and low memory resistances plus 1.565v vDIMM which might have somehow killed the memory controller?

I run CPPC disabled btw so single core takes a slight hit but it also does not use preferred cores either so testing that doesn't really make sense.


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> everyone has their own way of doing things


Of course. I stated that the guide is merely my opinion/a suggestion.


Imprezzion said:


> I've been in the OC and extreme OC game since AMD Athlon 1 / Pentium 4 days


Likewise. I have fond memories at boarding school where we'd take flasks of LN2 from the science building and take them back to my room. It was incredibly irresponsible but fun. 


Imprezzion said:


> not start at the bottom and work up


In my experience, that's entirely counterproductive as there's no single definite point of failure if no each step is not fully tested (to a reasonable level).


Imprezzion said:


> That takes ages


It doesn't have to. When overclocking my system to start, it took a day to find the silicon's maximum clocks/voltages/power limits, and then stability testing at night and during the workday for a week. Stability is worth it. Not having data silently corrupt is also worth it. However, each to their own. If Prime 95 (of similar software) produces rounding errors, that's potential for errors in real-world applications (save files, important documents, etc.)


Imprezzion said:


> what if I start with +3, then +3 again, +3 again while all that time +21 would've just been stable I wasted hours and hours.


In this scenario and assuming negative values, what if you think -21 is stable but you didn't stability test it for long enough and it actually needed -12?


Imprezzion said:


> I take Intel for example as it's easier to explain


That's an entirely different way of overclocking (for the most part) and not applicable.


Imprezzion said:


> I want it to do at least as good as the other dead one


That's not how silicon binning works.


Imprezzion said:


> I started at -20 which so far it can easily easily do. So went straight to -30.


"easily do" based on what testing? I've yet to see anyone, anywhere with a two CCD part passing a full stability test with -30 on all cores.


Imprezzion said:


> PPT, EDC and TDC have always been set even lower then the board limits


My board's limits are 1000,1000,200...


Imprezzion said:


> 1.565v vDIMM which might have somehow killed the memory controller


Personally, I wouldn't be happy with more than 1.50V for DIMM, but I believe other people are happy with 1.6xV. There are other voltages at play.


Imprezzion said:


> I run CPPC disabled so single core takes a slight


It's definitely a slight hit, but I believe worth it. In my final testing, I found CPPC and CPPC PC disabled produced a real-world multi-core increase of 9% and real-world decrease of 2%. Both were based on x265 encoding (AVX2). There are also anecdotal reports of users running OBS who experience non-responsive performance, where disabling CPPC (+CPPC PC) resolves the issue. With in experience on Windows 11 (22000.376) so far, I believe the schedular does a reasonable job of selecting which cores it prefers. It often chooses the 'best' core on the first and second CCDs, which means performance (at stock power limits with PBO entirely disabled) is 4.925 GHz on the first CCD and 4.675 GHz on the second CCD in (obviously) very lightly-threaded single cord workloads.


----------



## 1devomer

Imprezzion said:


> @Piers
> I agree with most points however everyone has their own way of doing things and I've been in the OC and extreme OC game since AMD Athlon 1 / Pentium 4 days and if there is one thing I taught myself it's to not start at the bottom and work up. That takes ages and what if I start with +3, then +3 again, +3 again while all that time +21 would've just been stable I wasted hours and hours.
> 
> I usually reverse things. I set a goal like, I take Intel for example as it's easier to explain, I have a 10900KF and the goal is to run 5.4 single core 5.2 all core. Then I just set that and test if it's possible. If it is, saved hours. If it isn't, adjust goal to 5.3 single core 5.1 all core. If that works. Great.
> 
> Same with this chip. I want it to do at least as good as the other dead one so -16 all-core PBO2 +50 max boost for 5.0. So, I started at -20 which so far it can easily easily do. So went straight to -30. It can probably do it with some more agressive LLC but that's pushing it a bit too much. So I just simply adjusted to -25 and I will try to get that stable.
> 
> Just FYI for everyone, I never OCed the previous chip too far. PPT, EDC and TDC have always been set even lower then the board limits (had it set to 220 PPT 165 EDC 140 TDC), LLC and such have never been off Auto except for one or two per CCD tests with no more than 1.40v, vSOC has never been ANY higher then 1.15v and daily at 1.08125v, the chip has never in it's life seen ANY temperature over 81c, VDDG, VDDP and such have always been very very conservative. The only thing I had on the edge was maybe ProcODT set very low to 28.2/30 and low memory resistances plus 1.565v vDIMM which might have somehow killed the memory controller?
> 
> I run CPPC disabled btw so single core takes a slight hit but it also does not use preferred cores either so testing that doesn't really make sense.


To instantly kill the R5 3600 mem controller, i had to push more than 2v Vmem at boot, with a voltmoded motherboard.

Not saying that going above 1.5v is healthy, but the mem controller should be able to handle voltages up to 1.6v, before starting to die, under ambient cooling.


----------



## Imprezzion

Piers said:


> Of course. I stated that the guide is merely my opinion/a suggestion.
> Likewise. I have fond memories at boarding school where we'd take flasks of LN2 from the science building and take them back to my room. It was incredibly irresponsible but fun.
> In my experience, that's entirely counterproductive as there's no single definite point of failure if no each step is not fully tested (to a reasonable level).
> It doesn't have to. When overclocking my system to start, it took a day to find the silicon's maximum clocks/voltages/power limits, and then stability testing at night and during the workday for a week. Stability is worth it. Not having data silently corrupt is also worth it. However, each to their own. If Prime 95 (of similar software) produces rounding errors, that's potential for errors in real-world applications (save files, important documents, etc.)
> In this scenario and assuming negative values, what if you think -21 is stable but you didn't stability test it for long enough and it actually needed -12?
> That's an entirely different way of overclocking (for the most part) and not applicable.
> That's not how silicon binning works.
> "easily do" based on what testing? I've yet to see anyone, anywhere with a two CCD part passing a full stability test with -30 on all cores.
> My board's limits are 1000,1000,200...
> Personally, I wouldn't be happy with more than 1.50V for DIMM, but I believe other people are happy with 1.6xV. There are other voltages at play.
> It's definitely a slight hit, but I believe worth it. In my final testing, I found CPPC and CPPC PC disabled produced a real-world multi-core increase of 9% and real-world decrease of 2%. Both were based on x265 encoding (AVX2). There are also anecdotal reports of users running OBS who experience non-responsive performance, where disabling CPPC (+CPPC PC) resolves the issue. With in experience on Windows 11 (22000.376) so far, I believe the schedular does a reasonable job of selecting which cores it prefers. It often chooses the 'best' core on the first and second CCDs, which means performance (at stock power limits with PBO entirely disabled) is 4.925 GHz on the first CCD and 4.675 GHz on the second CCD in (obviously) very lightly-threaded single cord workloads.


You are probably right and I doubt my 10900KF was ever actually stable in the normal sense but then again, did it ever crash in gaming? Not really. Besides. Even delidded direct die that thing was uncoolable in Prime 95 even without AVX lol. 

I will of course test this chip better however I kinda fear for somehow degrading or breaking this one running that much corecycler on it lol. I do wanna do a per core offset min max some day but I first wanna find a nice baseline all-core negative all the cores can sustain without errors just as a daily baseline I can save as a profile in the BIOS with RAM and everything set up nice and conservative for when I just wanna use the rig. 

It's a shame this chip has such a bad IF and really does not wanna run 1900. I'll just set it up with 3600C15 with tight secondaries and low ish vDIMM of max 1.50v and just use that as a daily profile. 

Just as a quick test where the other chip fell flat on it's face was Division 2 with -20 all core. It would crash within 10 minutes. This chip ran 2 hours just fine at -25 with way higher core clocks so obviously it's much better core wise. 

I disabled CPPC just because some games had weird stuttering issues where it seemed like it off loaded too much stuff on the performance cores so I'm just testing it without CPPC now to see if that fixes it. And I will fresh install my windows 11 as the current install is a mess lol.


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> I kinda fear for somehow degrading or breaking this one running that much corecycler on it


If these chips were that weak, I imagine we'd be seeing enormous return volumes. Gamers Nexus did a piece where they had RMA figures for Zen 3 and it ~3%, which they claimed is within the normal range for a CPU. Make of that what you will. Additionally, any processor at stock settings should be able to run Prime 95 or similar workloads with 24T or 1T 24/7 without issue. If it can't, I would consider that a defective product not fit for market and so would most consumer protection organisations. None of them are marketed as processors only capable of certain tasks for n hours (again, at stock).


Imprezzion said:


> I first wanna find a nice baseline all-core negative all the cores can sustain without errors just as a daily baseline I can save as a profile in the BIOS with RAM and everything set up nice and conservative for when I just wanna use the rig.


Makes total sense. That's why I decided to run at stock, but with RAM at 3600 (so technically not stock, but the RAM was tested for 48H even though it's running at its rated speed). Real-world performance is what matters and I found that encoding and rendering - two primary uses for this workstation - did not benefit from the tiny amount of increased clocks PBO2 allowed. Plus, I'm running three x265 (AVX2) encodes at the moment which is using the entire CPU and 18GB of RAM, yet the CPU is at 69°C at 4.25 GHz. I'm more than happy with that performance. 


Imprezzion said:


> I'll just set it up with 3600C15 with tight secondaries and low ish vDIMM of max 1.50v and just use that as a daily profile.


Just my opinion, but I would always get the RAM finalised before doing anything else. If you must tweak secondary and even tertiary timings, make sure you MemTest86 it until 100% stable, then move on to PBO. Otherwise it's just going to take longer overall. All it takes is one timing to be slightly wrong under certain conditions and you end up starting again.


Imprezzion said:


> This chip ran 2 hours just fine at -25 with way higher core clocks so obviously it's much better core wise.


Awesome! Just remember that you're more likely to see reduced clocks/performance in multi-threaded applications when undervolting. The true test is with single- or few-threaded applications. Try IntelBurnTest with 4GB of RAM on 1T for 50 runs. It would be interesting to see how that holds up. Make sure you right-click on the 'start' button and select "Xtreme Stress Mode".


Imprezzion said:


> I disabled CPPC just because some games had weird stuttering issues where it seemed like it off loaded too much stuff on the performance cores


Totally agree. The Windows schedular does a reasonable job and disabling CPPC stops such aggressive boosting which can absolutely result in stuttering. The biggest complaint I saw when browsing various websites was with OBS. Personally, I've found the _maybe lack of 200 MHz_ not making any noticeable difference.


----------



## Imprezzion

I will do IBT like that. Without CPPC it still single core boosts to 4950-5000 in Cinebench ST / CPU-X just not on the prime cores specifically but on random ones windows decided. I will do my fresh Windows install first as I wanna have a clean start and not the old dev channel Windows that I took with me from my Intel build. It runs kinda fine but the boot times are horrible so something is not right. It takes like 15 seconds to pass the Windows logo while my mates W11 on a worse system doesn't even show the logo that fast it boots.


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> I will do IBT like that. Without CPPC it still single core boosts to 4950-5000 in Cinebench ST / CPU-X just not on the prime cores specifically but on random ones windows decided. I will do my fresh Windows install first as I wanna have a clean start and not the old dev channel Windows that I took with me from my Intel build. It runs kinda fine but the boot times are horrible so something is not right. It takes like 15 seconds to pass the Windows logo while my mates W11 on a worse system doesn't even show the logo that fast it boots.


Fast Boot *disabled*:
➡ My 6700K @ 4.4/4.5 GHz on Windows 10 takes less than 10 seconds to boot with a SATA SSD (500 GB Samsung 850 EVO). 
➡ My 5900X @ stock frequencies on Windows 11 takes 17 seconds to boot with a M.2 NVMe PCIe 3.0 SSD (1TB WD Blue SN550). 

Since you're on a development build, it's possible that you don't have the Ryzen patches installed and/or the Windows 11 NTFS patch installed (it caused up to 50% reduction in speed on mostly the OS drive). 



That being said, I rarely turn any of my PCs/servers off so it doesn't matter. Plus, 10s vs 17s? It's hardly the end of the world.


----------



## gupsterg

Imprezzion said:


> CPU L2 Cache Error on a 5900X, which voltage / setting fixes that in general? I had to get a new chip as my old one died randomly and this is apparently a B2 revision chip which can maintain some quite impressive clocks in PBO2 mode.


SOC AFAIK. I have B2 as well.


----------



## Imprezzion

gupsterg said:


> SOC AFAIK. I have B2 as well.


Yeah going from auto 1.10 to offset 1.125 fixed it for 1800 but 1900 is still out of reach so far on this B2. Does yours do 1900 IF?


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> Yeah going from auto 1.10 to offset 1.125 fixed it for 1800 but 1900 is still out of reach so far on this B2. Does yours do 1900 IF?


My B0 (I think that's it) can do 1900 without an issue. It seems (only based on this sample size of two) the B2 revision has better frequency:voltage, but stability issues with the IF (above 1800). Really weird - I expected the B2 revision to be an ever so slightly refined version with more stable clocks all round.


----------



## jmoorez2001




----------



## jmoorez2001

jmoorez2001 said:


> View attachment 2538577
> View attachment 2538576


cpu over clocked to 4.7 on all cores hit 95C in the last few min of CB then done a single core at 4.2 over clocked


----------



## Gmill

Trying to figure out how to squeeze out a little more of my 5900x at this point. I've got my curve set to the point where if i go even 1 more into the negative i won't be passing corecycler and such. CR23 scores are hitting 22571 multi at72c and 1588 single at about 58c. On multi core I am hitting about 4,550 and single its 4,880. PPT is 170, TDC 125 and EDC 160. I can increase PPT and EDC and get a higher score of around 150 to 200 points on average but temps also go up 5-6c. Other then PBO and curve, I set 200mhz boost and that is all I have done so far. The 200MHz boost gives me around another 200 points also with no temp increases.


----------



## aemondis

Imprezzion said:


> I agree with most points however everyone has their own way of doing things and I've been in the OC and extreme OC game since AMD Athlon 1 / Pentium 4 days and if there is one thing I taught myself it's to not start at the bottom and work up. That takes ages and what if I start with +3, then +3 again, +3 again while all that time +21 would've just been stable I wasted hours and hours.


After spending weeks trying to hone in my CO values, I realised that true stability, on my 5950x at least, required values all over the place. I started mid-way at -15, and ended up with my best cores at -5, and other cores ranging anywhere from -30 to -8. It's entirely dependent on your silicon really, but I found the key is really being certain you are testing one core at a time with changes - as WHEA errors on a dual CCD design are not always accurate for identifying the problem core. THAT finding is what took me hours, as my earlier tunes ended up with some cores at +10, yet I was still seeing WHEA on CCD0 cores... only later did I realise that the WHEA errors were actually being caused by one of the cores on CCD1...



Piers said:


> In this scenario and assuming negative values, what if you think -21 is stable but you didn't stability test it for long enough and it actually needed -12?


Stability testing isn't just under load either. The TRUE stability test I found... can it browse the internet or sit at a desktop idle for the night?



Piers said:


> "easily do" based on what testing? I've yet to see anyone, anywhere with a two CCD part passing a full stability test with -30 on all cores.


I was able to get a functional system under load with virtually any CO value, indeed even at -30 all core on CCD0... let it idle however, something as simple as clicking the start menu could trigger a reboot.



Piers said:


> My board's limits are 1000,1000,200...


With my 5950X on an ASUS Dark Hero, the mainboard defaults are 395W PPT, 255A TDC, 200A EDC. However, my best scores are had at 225W PPT, 180A TDC, 180A EDC. The 5950x just runs too hot with anything higher than that (even with a 360 AIO at 20C room temperature), so it rapidly starts down-clocking with all-core loads. I predominantly use single or lightly threaded core loads, but depend on multi core for software development and running VMs so I try to aim for the best of both worlds.



Piers said:


> Just my opinion, but I would always get the RAM finalised before doing anything else. If you must tweak secondary and even tertiary timings, make sure you MemTest86 it until 100% stable, then move on to PBO. Otherwise it's just going to take longer overall. All it takes is one timing to be slightly wrong under certain conditions and you end up starting again.


I find memory needs to be visited before the CPU tuning, and again after tuning. You can do the primary timings in the first round to work out the key values and limits of the memory and IMC, then tweak it again later once the CPU is at its best. The secondary and tertiary timings are so finicky and time consuming that revisiting them later is almost a necessity, especially when the instability is occurring at the CPU. I usually start at the DOCP values in the first cut, and push it a little bit more at stock with 1:1 until I start getting issues. My challenge is that with 4 DIMMs (64GB) of 16-16-16-36, 1T without GDM is a tough ask for the IMC... I've been able to get it 1T without GDM on earlier AGESA, but the latest releases without GDM result in random hard-crash with MEM LED lit, even at DOCP.



Piers said:


> Awesome! Just remember that you're more likely to see reduced clocks/performance in multi-threaded applications when undervolting. The true test is with single- or few-threaded applications. Try IntelBurnTest with 4GB of RAM on 1T for 50 runs. It would be interesting to see how that holds up. Make sure you right-click on the 'start' button and select "Xtreme Stress Mode".


This is very true in most cases. The CPU needs voltage to hit peak performance, but undervolting really benefits sustained performance. I run W11, and I've actually found the default scheduler is now working reasonably well even with heavy undervolting. Upping the CO values actually decreased peak frequency on single core loads for me. The most important thing with W11 though... make sure the chipset drivers are the most recent. Otherwise you will get random problems of PBO becoming limited to like ~512MHz due to crashing of the EC. I was getting that every 2 or so days previously, until I realised there was a newer chipset driver. I like OCCT for coarse-grain load testing to identify IMC & voltage instability, and CoreCycler is essential IMO for identifying issues with CO.



Gmill said:


> Trying to figure out how to squeeze out a little more of my 5900x at this point. I've got my curve set to the point where if i go even 1 more into the negative i won't be passing corecycler and such. CR23 scores are hitting 22571 multi at72c and 1588 single at about 58c. On multi core I am hitting about 4,550 and single its 4,880. PPT is 170, TDC 125 and EDC 160. I can increase PPT and EDC and get a higher score of around 150 to 200 points on average but temps also go up 5-6c. Other then PBO and curve, I set 200mhz boost and that is all I have done so far. The 200MHz boost gives me around another 200 points also with no temp increases.


Try reducing the boost curve as it will actually increase stability of the curve usually, and actually playing with the PPT/EDC values (even decreasing them sometimes has an impact). You can also play with the PBO Scalar, which in my case squeezed a few extra MHz in there. I run 125MHz boost, since at 200MHz boost I struggle going beyond -5 CO.

The below is the best score I ever got on my 5950x. That was after a 30 minute torture soak with CoreCycler, OCCT and 30 minutes of R23 (the screenshot in run occurred just after that, as I forgot to screenshot the previous run). I had some instability at idle though, which only ever occurred sitting at the desktop and would randomly WHEA on APIC 0. Turned out, the issue was actually APIC 23 instability (after weeks of frustrating random reboots). The below was at 225W PPT, 180A TDC, 180A EDC with a Lianli Galahad 360 AIO and Dynamic OC enabled at 4.7/4.65 at 75A (Asus Dark Hero feature). PBO Boost is at 125MHz. The CPU was hitting 80C at this point, so it most definitely is not something I'd be running as a daily driver setup (I limit temp to 75C usually).









BTW, this is my first AMD system and first experience OCing. I think I got bitten by the bug... I could never justify going OC with the "Intel Premium" pricing for an overclockable CPU previously. I upgraded to this system when my old Gigabyte and i5 system started randomly crashing and getting stuck in reboot loops. Turns out the mainboard went faulty, and at the time - Intel 10/11 gen was the only alternative, which was not worth the cost IMO compared to a Zen3 CPU. 5950x just made sense, with the Dark Hero being my choice not because of OC ability - but because of no chipset fan (and I have 2x PCIE4 SSDs, so X570 was a must)! That was literally my only criteria at the time, as there was no x570S variant at that point yet.


----------



## KedarWolf

aemondis said:


> After spending weeks trying to hone in my CO values, I realised that true stability, on my 5950x at least, required values all over the place. I started mid-way at -15, and ended up with my best cores at -5, and other cores ranging anywhere from -30 to -8. It's entirely dependent on your silicon really, but I found the key is really being certain you are testing one core at a time with changes - as WHEA errors on a dual CCD design are not always accurate for identifying the problem core. THAT finding is what took me hours, as my earlier tunes ended up with some cores at +10, yet I was still seeing WHEA on CCD0 cores... only later did I realise that the WHEA errors were actually being caused by one of the cores on CCD1...
> 
> 
> Stability testing isn't just under load either. The TRUE stability test I found... can it browse the internet or sit at a desktop idle for the night?
> 
> 
> I was able to get a functional system under load with virtually any CO value, indeed even at -30 all core on CCD0... let it idle however, something as simple as clicking the start menu could trigger a reboot.
> 
> 
> With my 5950X on an ASUS Dark Hero, the mainboard defaults are 395W PPT, 255A TDC, 200A EDC. However, my best scores are had at 225W PPT, 180A TDC, 180A EDC. The 5950x just runs too hot with anything higher than that (even with a 360 AIO at 20C room temperature), so it rapidly starts down-clocking with all-core loads. I predominantly use single or lightly threaded core loads, but depend on multi core for software development and running VMs so I try to aim for the best of both worlds.
> 
> 
> I find memory needs to be visited before the CPU tuning, and again after tuning. You can do the primary timings in the first round to work out the key values and limits of the memory and IMC, then tweak it again later once the CPU is at its best. The secondary and tertiary timings are so finicky and time consuming that revisiting them later is almost a necessity, especially when the instability is occurring at the CPU. I usually start at the DOCP values in the first cut, and push it a little bit more at stock with 1:1 until I start getting issues. My challenge is that with 4 DIMMs (64GB) of 16-16-16-36, 1T without GDM is a tough ask for the IMC... I've been able to get it 1T without GDM on earlier AGESA, but the latest releases without GDM result in random hard-crash with MEM LED lit, even at DOCP.
> 
> 
> This is very true in most cases. The CPU needs voltage to hit peak performance, but undervolting really benefits sustained performance. I run W11, and I've actually found the default scheduler is now working reasonably well even with heavy undervolting. Upping the CO values actually decreased peak frequency on single core loads for me. The most important thing with W11 though... make sure the chipset drivers are the most recent. Otherwise you will get random problems of PBO becoming limited to like ~512MHz due to crashing of the EC. I was getting that every 2 or so days previously, until I realised there was a newer chipset driver. I like OCCT for coarse-grain load testing to identify IMC & voltage instability, and CoreCycler is essential IMO for identifying issues with CO.
> 
> 
> Try reducing the boost curve as it will actually increase stability of the curve usually, and actually playing with the PPT/EDC values (even decreasing them sometimes has an impact). You can also play with the PBO Scalar, which in my case squeezed a few extra MHz in there. I run 125MHz boost, since at 200MHz boost I struggle going beyond -5 CO.
> 
> The below is the best score I ever got on my 5950x. That was after a 30 minute torture soak with CoreCycler, OCCT and 30 minutes of R23 (the screenshot in run occurred just after that, as I forgot to screenshot the previous run). I had some instability at idle though, which only ever occurred sitting at the desktop and would randomly WHEA on APIC 0. Turned out, the issue was actually APIC 23 instability (after weeks of frustrating random reboots). The below was at 225W PPT, 180A TDC, 180A EDC with a Lianli Galahad 360 AIO and Dynamic OC enabled at 4.7/4.65 at 75A (Asus Dark Hero feature). PBO Boost is at 125MHz. The CPU was hitting 80C at this point, so it most definitely is not something I'd be running as a daily driver setup (I limit temp to 75C usually).
> View attachment 2538578
> 
> 
> BTW, this is my first AMD system and first experience OCing. I think I got bitten by the bug... I could never justify going OC with the "Intel Premium" pricing for an overclockable CPU previously. I upgraded to this system when my old Gigabyte and i5 system started randomly crashing and getting stuck in reboot loops. Turns out the mainboard went faulty, and at the time - Intel 10/11 gen was the only alternative, which was not worth the cost IMO compared to a Zen3 CPU. 5950x just made sense, with the Dark Hero being my choice not because of OC ability - but because of no chipset fan (and I have 2x PCIE4 SSDs, so X570 was a must)! That was literally my only criteria at the time, as there was no x570S variant at that point yet.


Boards like the B550 Unify-X have two M.2s on CPU options, but t forces your GPU to run 8x, 8-4-4 for all three.

Really though, you lose what, 1-2% framerates at 8x, which is not that much, and for benching you can set your second M.2 to chipset and run GPU 16x.

Also, check out the X570S Unify-X Max, 2 x DIMMs, or Unify Max, 4 x DIMMs. I'm pretty sure they run 16-4-4 on CPU, and are in stock pretty much globally on Newegg.

They are the best AM4 VRMs in the business other than $1000 boards like the Godlike, and the Unify-X is great for overclocking memory. 

Bit pricey though, $369 USD without shipping I think. 

I think you can get the nearly as good B550 Unify-X super cheap now too.

Edit: I read that wrong, I thought you were GOING to get an X570. Not already got one. ADHD is a helluva drug.


----------



## Piers

jmoorez2001 said:


> View attachment 2538577
> View attachment 2538576


Ouch. What happened to reduce single core performance so much? Even fixed at 4.7 produces results of ¬1510. Default boost behaviour produce results of ~1600. Disabling CPPC but with PBO enabled produces results of ~1510. 

Amazing multi-core result on the first screenshot.


----------



## Piers

aemondis said:


> I realised that true stability, on my 5950x at least, required values all over the place. I started mid-way at -15, and ended up with my best cores at -5, and other cores ranging anywhere from -30 to -8.


Absolutely. I started off by finding a reasonable place to start (-18 on lower performance cores didn't impact real-world tests). In the end I found Core 5 (technically worst core on CCD0 was the main factor holding the undervolt back. It'll boost up to ~4.9 at stock, but refuses to be stable with anything more than -5 to -7. 



aemondis said:


> Stability testing isn't just under load either. The TRUE stability test I found... can it browse the internet or sit at a desktop idle for the night?


A good point that I totally overlooked when replying earlier. I always leave PCs on, so don't tend to think about testing for idle stability as my PCs sit at idle for extended periods of time. 


aemondis said:


> I was able to get a functional system under load with virtually any CO value, indeed even at -30 all core on CCD0... let it idle however, something as simple as clicking the start menu could trigger a reboot.


Absolutely. 


aemondis said:


> I find memory needs to be visited before the CPU tuning, and again after tuning.


That depends upon how much tuning a person wants to do. From my perspective, the relatively small increase in performance that manual timings (incl. tertiary) brings is not worth it for the time required to test for true stability, which is why I leave memory alone for normal use. That being said, I have noticed one of the values on my kit being over 900, which I imagine impedes performance. 


aemondis said:


> The secondary and tertiary timings are so finicky and time consuming that revisiting them later is almost a necessity


I was under the impression that with Zen 3, primary timings and clocks are more important than tweaking secondary and tertiary timings. Is this not the case? What would you consider a good benchmark to compare RAM at stock vs RAM with tweaked timings? Aida64 - which I'd normally use - isn't that reliable on Windows 11. 


aemondis said:


> undervolting really benefits sustained performance.


Absolutely as it allows Precision Boost 2 more overhead to boost higher (assuming other requirements are met). 


aemondis said:


> Upping the CO values actually decreased peak frequency on single core loads for me.


Likewise, although there wasn't a clear cut off. Clock stretching seemed to be the issue. That's why I like testing the same x265 encode with each change - it produces useful figures and I can ignore clocks. 


aemondis said:


> problems of PBO becoming limited to like ~512MHz due to crashing of the EC.


I've not heard of this. Do you have a link with more information? Sounds like it would be an interesting read. 


aemondis said:


> I like OCCT for coarse-grain load testing to identify IMC & voltage instability,


OCCT is great, but I object to the never-ending licence fees. It also, and I realise this may be unpopular, seems overpriced when comparing to FOSS option, and even other paid options. 


aemondis said:


> play with the PBO Scalar, which in my case squeezed a few extra MHz in there. I run 125MHz boost, since at 200MHz boost I struggle going beyond -5 CO.


I thought the consensus was to leave Scalar on 1x (up to 3x) as it can cause incredibly high voltages. It's possible I misread that. I've also found that adding 0 MHz provides the best results with tools I'd use regularly and can easily measure (Blender, x265, etc.). Adding even 50 MHz only showed increased clocks but with no change in performance. Adding 100 MHz showed regression. 


KedarWolf said:


> Boards like the B550 Unify-X have two M.2s on CPU options, but t forces your GPU to run 8x, 8-4-4 for all three.


I know Gamers Nexus has an article (and video) about PCIe 4.0 at 8x and gaming where they found there's no difference on 95% of titles, and only the very latest games showed some loss but it was close to margin of error.


----------



## jmoorez2001

Piers said:


> Ouch. What happened to reduce single core performance so much? Even fixed at 4.7 produces results of ¬1510. Default boost behaviour produce results of ~1600. Disabling CPPC but with PBO enabled produces results of ~1510.
> 
> Amazing multi-core result on the first screenshot.


oh i downclocked it to 4.2 was all thats why the lower numbers for the single cpu score but i never checked it when it was at 4.7 over clocked


----------



## Piers

jmoorez2001 said:


> oh i downclocked it to 4.2 was all thats why the lower numbers for the single cpu score but i never checked it when it was at 4.7 over clocked


Makes total sense. Have you kept your down-clocked configuration? What spurred you on to set up your CPU at 4.2 GHz?


----------



## aemondis

Piers said:


> I've not heard of this. Do you have a link with more information? Sounds like it would be an interesting read.


I have yet to get an official reply from either AMD or ASUS that confirms the nature of the issue, all I have is anecdotal evidence based on the fact the issue appeared between 2 hours to 2 days after boot prior to chipset driver update, and never since. See below for the symptoms - essentially the PPT/EDC/TDC go to wildly impossible values despite the mainboard Nuvoton reporting real values that clearly disagree with the EC reporting. How could a CPU drawing >200A from the VRMs possibly be only running at 30C...:









Embedded Controller output:

















Asus Nuvoton reporting (separate hardware sensor)











Piers said:


> OCCT is great, but I object to the never-ending licence fees. It also, and I realise this may be unpopular, seems overpriced when comparing to FOSS option, and even other paid options.


I only use the free version for 1 hour tests predominantly. I usually find OCCT will reveal most fundamental issues within about 15 minutes (due to the AIO delayed heat-soak). Beyond that, I go to more specific tools. It's a great piece of software, but like you - I despise subscription models for tools I use only on occasion. _glares at Adobe Lightroom_



Piers said:


> I thought the consensus was to leave Scalar on 1x (up to 3x) as it can cause incredibly high voltages. It's possible I misread that. I've also found that adding 0 MHz provides the best results with tools I'd use regularly and can easily measure (Blender, x265, etc.). Adding even 50 MHz only showed increased clocks but with no change in performance. Adding 100 MHz showed regression.


I don't find the voltages in my case going to anything wild on my board. Keep in mind that Ryzen Master will automatically set the scalar itself to 10X when you set it to PBO via software. I actually do an extract of all BIOS config as a file into a spreadsheet to track config changes so I can trace back and identify changes and impacts. The problem I found is that the scalar at 1 or 2 often sees instability with very deep CO results at -30 on some cores, often causing WHEA reboots at idle when cores wake from deep sleep. Probably related to the droop, but now you mention points about regression and PBO boost levels... it gives me another few ideas for testing. I haven't yet re-implemented my CO curves (currently on Auto), as I have just done a BIOS update, which usually impacts the curves slightly.



Piers said:


> I know Gamers Nexus has an article (and video) about PCIe 4.0 at 8x and gaming where they found there's no difference on 95% of titles, and only the very latest games showed some loss but it was close to margin of error.


I still run a GTX960, I refuse to spend $3000 AUD on a mid-tier graphics card. If I was to upgrade it though, I would be using the CUDA cores for heavy ML & Ai calculations, which does need quite a bit of bandwidth. B550 could have been an option, but I tend to keep my systems going for at least 5+ years.


----------



## Piers

aemondis said:


> I have yet to get an official reply from either AMD or ASUS that confirms the nature of the issue, all I have is anecdotal evidence based on the fact the issue appeared between 2 hours to 2 days after boot prior to chipset driver update, and never since. See below for the symptoms - essentially the PPT/EDC/TDC go to wildly impossible values despite the mainboard Nuvoton reporting real values that clearly disagree with the EC reporting. How could a CPU drawing >200A from the VRMs possibly be only running at 30C...:
> View attachment 2538636
> 
> 
> Embedded Controller output:
> View attachment 2538637
> 
> View attachment 2538648
> 
> 
> Asus Nuvoton reporting (separate hardware sensor)
> View attachment 2538656
> 
> 
> 
> I only use the free version for 1 hour tests predominantly. I usually find OCCT will reveal most fundamental issues within about 15 minutes (due to the AIO delayed heat-soak). Beyond that, I go to more specific tools. It's a great piece of software, but like you - I despise subscription models for tools I use only on occasion. _glares at Adobe Lightroom_
> 
> 
> I don't find the voltages in my case going to anything wild on my board. Keep in mind that Ryzen Master will automatically set the scalar itself to 10X when you set it to PBO via software. I actually do an extract of all BIOS config as a file into a spreadsheet to track config changes so I can trace back and identify changes and impacts. The problem I found is that the scalar at 1 or 2 often sees instability with very deep CO results at -30 on some cores, often causing WHEA reboots at idle when cores wake from deep sleep. Probably related to the droop, but now you mention points about regression and PBO boost levels... it gives me another few ideas for testing. I haven't yet re-implemented my CO curves (currently on Auto), as I have just done a BIOS update, which usually impacts the curves slightly.
> 
> 
> I still run a GTX960, I refuse to spend $3000 AUD on a mid-tier graphics card. If I was to upgrade it though, I would be using the CUDA cores for heavy ML & Ai calculations, which does need quite a bit of bandwidth. B550 could have been an option, but I tend to keep my systems going for at least 5+ years.


I've finally had a reply from Asus technical support where they asked me to compete an attached document, and the proceeded to not attach a document 😐. 



aemondis said:


> B550 could have been an option, but I tend to keep my systems going for at least 5+ years.


What specifically do you mean by this? I use my 3080 (which I paid retail for, otherwise I'd still be on a 1080 (which I must remind myself to sell. It's like gold at the moment) for heavy ML and MT workloads. I've not noticed any drawbacks with the B550 chipset (PCIe 4.0 for one M.2 NVMe device, PCIe 4.0 x16 for GPU #1, or PCIe 4.0 x8 for SLI). The only downside the the hilarious amount of USB ports - 5xUSB 2.0 (one type-C for audio - it's actually an awesome feature), 3xUSB 3.2 (one type-C). I've bought a USB card with 20 gbps shared bandwidth, but with 4xUSB 3.0 ports and 2xUSB type-C. Even my Z170 had more connectivity, and what annoys me the most is this £220 motherboard doesn't support fast charging (even 15W) whereas my Z170 does. Even the cheap TUF model has fast charging support.


----------



## aemondis

Piers said:


> What specifically do you mean by this? I use my 3080 (which I paid retail for, otherwise I'd still be on a 1080 (which I must remind myself to sell. It's like gold at the moment) for heavy ML and MT workloads. I've not noticed any drawbacks with the B550 chipset (PCIe 4.0 for one M.2 NVMe device, PCIe 4.0 x16 for GPU #1, or PCIe 4.0 x8 for SLI). The only downside the the hilarious amount of USB ports - 5xUSB 2.0 (one type-C for audio - it's actually an awesome feature), 3xUSB 3.2 (one type-C). I've bought a USB card with 20 gbps shared bandwidth, but with 4xUSB 3.0 ports and 2xUSB type-C. Even my Z170 had more connectivity, and what annoys me the most is this £220 motherboard doesn't support fast charging (even 15W) whereas my Z170 does. Even the cheap TUF model has fast charging support.


It's really just giving myself the greatest flexibility in future with the system really. The one issue I always had with all my previous systems was that by 2-3 years, I was already running into serious limitations by going mid-range boards or CPUs. In the case of my old board, a Gigabyte X87-UD4H... the USB3 controller failed (it never had enough USB in the first place either, so I had to replace it with a PCIe USB3 addon card), then one of the MOSFETs failed randomly whilst idling at the desktop with a bit of smoke, but strangely didn't reboot, then both BIOS chips corrupted themselves and had to be reflashed from USB, and finally I suspect another MOSFET or the controller failed and it would dead-short the PSU randomly on the 12V EPS line at light load, but function fine at other times. The board was fine until about 3 years in, then started failing all over the place. Not to mention the horrendous "PWM" fan controller that was not actually doing PWM (it was changing the voltage on the 4 pin connectors, and not sending any PWM out...), meaning my fans spent most the time not working unless the Gigabyte "Smart Fan" software was running. It was an old i5 E6750, if I recall so all these failures happened with a largely stock and impossible-to-overclock setup. I initially thought it was the PSU after the MOSFET failure, so replaced the 550w Cooler Master with a Seasonic P660 which today is still going strong in another system. The failures continued though even with new PSU, and while it would still boot - only with 1 core enabled and no HT and still randomly rebooted. Needless to say, I was quite disappointed a supposed "ultra durable" board was so incredibly prone to failures, thus why I switched to ASUS. My previous Gigabyte boards also developed random faults usually after 2-3 years, but none to the extent of the Z87-UD4H one. Let's hope the Dark Hero survives! It's been amazing so far, and has been generally trouble-free.


----------



## Piers

aemondis said:


> It's really just giving myself the greatest flexibility in future with the system really. The one issue I always had with all my previous systems was that by 2-3 years, I was already running into serious limitations by going mid-range boards or CPUs. In the case of my old board, a Gigabyte X87-UD4H... the USB3 controller failed (it never had enough USB in the first place either, so I had to replace it with a PCIe USB3 addon card), then one of the MOSFETs failed randomly whilst idling at the desktop with a bit of smoke, but strangely didn't reboot, then both BIOS chips corrupted themselves and had to be reflashed from USB, and finally I suspect another MOSFET or the controller failed and it would dead-short the PSU randomly on the 12V EPS line at light load, but function fine at other times. The board was fine until about 3 years in, then started failing all over the place. Not to mention the horrendous "PWM" fan controller that was not actually doing PWM (it was changing the voltage on the 4 pin connectors, and not sending any PWM out...), meaning my fans spent most the time not working unless the Gigabyte "Smart Fan" software was running. It was an old i5 E6750, if I recall so all these failures happened with a largely stock and impossible-to-overclock setup. I initially thought it was the PSU after the MOSFET failure, so replaced the 550w Cooler Master with a Seasonic P660 which today is still going strong in another system. The failures continued though even with new PSU, and while it would still boot - only with 1 core enabled and no HT and still randomly rebooted. Needless to say, I was quite disappointed a supposed "ultra durable" board was so incredibly prone to failures, thus why I switched to ASUS. My previous Gigabyte boards also developed random faults usually after 2-3 years, but none to the extent of the Z87-UD4H one. Let's hope the Dark Hero survives! It's been amazing so far, and has been generally trouble-free.


The reason I went with a B550 (specifically the Asus B550-E) over an X570 is due to:

VRM quality on this board is better than most X570 boards.
The chipset doesn't require active cooling, which is a major source of potential failure _[edit: major annoying source of potential failure. The fan dying isn't the end of the world, but I'm a firm believer that a motherboard should have no moving parts]_. The chipset stays at ~47°C under full system load.
The B550 came out over a year later than the X570. I saw a lot of reported problems with the X570 and Zen 3 compatibility (long after launch).
I have a 4U server with ~400TB of storage - I don't need all the PCIe 4.0 lanes X570 offers.
One PCIe 4.0 M.2 slot and two PCIe 4.0 (x8/x8 or x16) slots are more than enough.
WIFI 6 as standard, which many X570 boards don't support due to age.
The main issues with this Asus board are AMD's horrific approach to software, Intel's inability to make a working 2.5 gbps ethernet adapter, and Asus' inability to carry out basic QC on software, although the latter applies to other chipsets on multiple platforms.


----------



## 1devomer

aemondis said:


> After spending weeks trying to hone in my CO values, I realised that true stability, on my 5950x at least, required values all over the place. I started mid-way at -15, and ended up with my best cores at -5, and other cores ranging anywhere from -30 to -8. It's entirely dependent on your silicon really, but I found the key is really being certain you are testing one core at a time with changes - as WHEA errors on a dual CCD design are not always accurate for identifying the problem core. THAT finding is what took me hours, as my earlier tunes ended up with some cores at +10, yet I was still seeing WHEA on CCD0 cores... only later did I realise that the WHEA errors were actually being caused by one of the cores on CCD1...
> 
> 
> Stability testing isn't just under load either. The TRUE stability test I found... can it browse the internet or sit at a desktop idle for the night?
> 
> 
> I was able to get a functional system under load with virtually any CO value, indeed even at -30 all core on CCD0... let it idle however, something as simple as clicking the start menu could trigger a reboot.
> 
> 
> With my 5950X on an ASUS Dark Hero, the mainboard defaults are 395W PPT, 255A TDC, 200A EDC. However, my best scores are had at 225W PPT, 180A TDC, 180A EDC. The 5950x just runs too hot with anything higher than that (even with a 360 AIO at 20C room temperature), so it rapidly starts down-clocking with all-core loads. I predominantly use single or lightly threaded core loads, but depend on multi core for software development and running VMs so I try to aim for the best of both worlds.
> 
> 
> I find memory needs to be visited before the CPU tuning, and again after tuning. You can do the primary timings in the first round to work out the key values and limits of the memory and IMC, then tweak it again later once the CPU is at its best. The secondary and tertiary timings are so finicky and time consuming that revisiting them later is almost a necessity, especially when the instability is occurring at the CPU. I usually start at the DOCP values in the first cut, and push it a little bit more at stock with 1:1 until I start getting issues. My challenge is that with 4 DIMMs (64GB) of 16-16-16-36, 1T without GDM is a tough ask for the IMC... I've been able to get it 1T without GDM on earlier AGESA, but the latest releases without GDM result in random hard-crash with MEM LED lit, even at DOCP.
> 
> 
> This is very true in most cases. The CPU needs voltage to hit peak performance, but undervolting really benefits sustained performance. I run W11, and I've actually found the default scheduler is now working reasonably well even with heavy undervolting. Upping the CO values actually decreased peak frequency on single core loads for me. The most important thing with W11 though... make sure the chipset drivers are the most recent. Otherwise you will get random problems of PBO becoming limited to like ~512MHz due to crashing of the EC. I was getting that every 2 or so days previously, until I realised there was a newer chipset driver. I like OCCT for coarse-grain load testing to identify IMC & voltage instability, and CoreCycler is essential IMO for identifying issues with CO.
> 
> 
> Try reducing the boost curve as it will actually increase stability of the curve usually, and actually playing with the PPT/EDC values (even decreasing them sometimes has an impact). You can also play with the PBO Scalar, which in my case squeezed a few extra MHz in there. I run 125MHz boost, since at 200MHz boost I struggle going beyond -5 CO.
> 
> The below is the best score I ever got on my 5950x. That was after a 30 minute torture soak with CoreCycler, OCCT and 30 minutes of R23 (the screenshot in run occurred just after that, as I forgot to screenshot the previous run). I had some instability at idle though, which only ever occurred sitting at the desktop and would randomly WHEA on APIC 0. Turned out, the issue was actually APIC 23 instability (after weeks of frustrating random reboots). The below was at 225W PPT, 180A TDC, 180A EDC with a Lianli Galahad 360 AIO and Dynamic OC enabled at 4.7/4.65 at 75A (Asus Dark Hero feature). PBO Boost is at 125MHz. The CPU was hitting 80C at this point, so it most definitely is not something I'd be running as a daily driver setup (I limit temp to 75C usually).
> View attachment 2538578
> 
> 
> BTW, this is my first AMD system and first experience OCing. I think I got bitten by the bug... I could never justify going OC with the "Intel Premium" pricing for an overclockable CPU previously. I upgraded to this system when my old Gigabyte and i5 system started randomly crashing and getting stuck in reboot loops. Turns out the mainboard went faulty, and at the time - Intel 10/11 gen was the only alternative, which was not worth the cost IMO compared to a Zen3 CPU. 5950x just made sense, with the Dark Hero being my choice not because of OC ability - but because of no chipset fan (and I have 2x PCIE4 SSDs, so X570 was a must)! That was literally my only criteria at the time, as there was no x570S variant at that point yet.



If you are experiencing reboots at idle, i can only warmly invite you to RMA your cpu, this is not how the cpu should behave.

Your description fits the badly binned and faulty cpu, that AMD released at the Ryzen 5000 series launch.
There is a 300 pages thread about on this same forum, it is also very well documented on the AMD forum.

I can only advise you to check the manufacturing date, engraved on the cpu IHS.
If it is an early launch sample, and you are still experiencing idle reboots, pci-e and/or usb issues, i would RMA the cpu to AMD.

It has already been assessed, that the silicon quality of the individual 5900x/5950x chiplets, is often not equal.
Some explains it, as there are no needs to have both the chiplets highly binned, but i disagree with the later narrative.
One want both the chiplets of a high-end cpu, to be the best they could possibly be, and typically it is not the case.
This often translate into noticeable T°, clocks and power consumption differences, among the chiplets of a same cpu!

Furthermore, the substrate is also an important piece of the cpu, it is where the chiplets are soldered, and where all the information between the chiplets flows.
As for the chiplets quality, not all the substrates are manufactured equally, some are better than others, which also impact on the overall cpu behavior.

So, if you are still experiencing issues, i would RMA the cpu and get a new one from AMD.
You will likely have a better overall hardware experience, with a good cpu!


----------



## aemondis

1devomer said:


> Your description fits the badly binned and faulty cpu, that AMD released at the Ryzen 5000 series launch.
> There is a 300 pages thread about on this same forum, it is also very well documented on the AMD forum.
> 
> I can only advise you to check the manufacturing date, engraved on the cpu IHS.
> If it is an early launch sample, and you are still experiencing idle reboots, pci-e and/or usb issues, i would RMA the cpu to AMD.


I'll have to check it out at some point, I had read that thread some time back but figured the amount of effort and time involved, plus the likelihood of extended waits for a replacement due to supply chain issues would outweight the benefits. I didn't order the CPU at launch, I waited a few months so figured the risk of "early batch" may be lesser, given limited availability. Could be old stock I suppose.

I never had issues with PCIE or USB, but the idle reboots were almost always accompanied with a WHEA uncorrectable error too, usually corresponding with custom CO. I would usually reduce the undervolt, and it would disappear. I also discovered through various tests that upping the VRM frequency stabilised things significantly too, so it may have just been the voltage droop upsetting it when the deep sleeping core suddenly got woken to do a bit of work.

In any case, will check it out again - thanks!


----------



## StAndrew

Well, I'm ditching CO (for now at least) and going with CTR 2.1. After a week of tweaking and finally settling in around an 11300 R20 score @ 80*C, I gave CTR a quick try and in 7 minutes got a similar score at 10*C less... Maybe I'm doing it wrong. Even better, with the CTR Hybrid CPU option enabled and the PX profile, it boosts to higher clocks in games than with the CO. 

For now, I'm sold on CTR.


----------



## KedarWolf

Piers said:


> The reason I went with a B550 (specifically the Asus B550-E) over an X570 is due to:
> 
> VRM quality on this board is better than most X570 boards.
> The chipset doesn't require active cooling, which is a major source of potential failure _[edit: major annoying source of potential failure. The fan dying isn't the end of the world, but I'm a firm believer that a motherboard should have no moving parts]_. The chipset stays at ~47°C under full system load.
> The B550 came out over a year later than the X570. I saw a lot of reported problems with the X570 and Zen 3 compatibility (long after launch).
> I have a 4U server with ~400TB of storage - I don't need all the PCIe 4.0 lanes X570 offers.
> One PCIe 4.0 M.2 slot and two PCIe 4.0 (x8/x8 or x16) slots are more than enough.
> WIFI 6 as standard, which many X570 boards don't support due to age.
> The main issues with this Asus board are AMD's horrific approach to software, Intel's inability to make a working 2.5 gbps ethernet adapter, and Asus' inability to carry out basic QC on software, although the latter applies to other chipsets on multiple platforms.


MSI MEG X570S UNIFY-X MAX - 6 x Gen4 M.2, Direct 16+2 Phase 90A SPS, EXTREME OC, 2.5G LAN Ordered this from Newegg Canada, coming by Dec. 29th.

The VRMs on this board are incredible and MSI outdid itself with their X570 and B550 boards this time around! Hope this board is even better.


----------



## Gmill

> Well, I'm ditching CO (for now at least) and going with CTR 2.1. After a week of tweaking and finally settling in around an 11300 R20 score @ 80*C, I gave CTR a quick try and in 7 minutes got a similar score at 10*C less... Maybe I'm doing it wrong. Even better, with the CTR Hybrid CPU option enabled and the PX profile, it boosts to higher clocks in games than with the CO.
> 
> For now, I'm sold on CTR.


I would check out 1usmus new project, Project Hydra. He will be discontinuing CTR and this new project is supposed to be better than what CTR was. There is a free version and a "paid" version. The link talks about it in depth. Something interesting to look into.


----------



## Piers

KedarWolf said:


> MSI MEG X570S UNIFY-X MAX - 6 x Gen4 M.2, Direct 16+2 Phase 90A SPS, EXTREME OC, 2.5G LAN Ordered this from Newegg Canada, coming by Dec. 29th.
> 
> The VRMs on this board are incredible and MSI outdid itself with their X570 and B550 boards this time around! Hope this board is even better.
> 
> View attachment 2538744


MSI is a brand that I refuse to use due to product support. Had a faulty (two outputs didn't work) GTX 970 and they wanted me to pay almost half the cost of the card to have it fixed....despite it being within the guarantee/warranty period and only six months old. Since then I've spent my money on other brands. 

I might revisit MSI at some point, as it appears over several years Asus has gone from high quality hardware and software standards, to not caring anymore.

Despite the *AMD chipsets being co-designed by an Asus company*, Asus still has issues implementing chipset features 😐


----------



## Piers

StAndrew said:


> Well, I'm ditching CO (for now at least) and going with CTR 2.1. After a week of tweaking and finally settling in around an 11300 R20 score @ 80*C, I gave CTR a quick try and in 7 minutes got a similar score at 10*C less... Maybe I'm doing it wrong. Even better, with the CTR Hybrid CPU option enabled and the PX profile, it boosts to higher clocks in games than with the CO.
> 
> For now, I'm sold on CTR.


Would you mind sharing the details (voltage/clocks) of the profiles CTR suggested?


----------



## StAndrew

Piers said:


> Would you mind sharing the details (voltage/clocks) of the profiles CTR suggested?


I upped the voltage a bit and clocks and so far Im here with temps maxing in the low 70's. Maybe I was doing something wrong with the PBO/CO but this is a lot easier for me I guess... I saved my PBO profile in the bios and might go back to tweaking it again. 

P1 4400/4350 (CCX1/2) @ 1.250
P2 4700/4575 @ 1300
Px 4925 High (1.385V) 4775 Mid (1.375V) and 4675 Low (1.35V)

R20 scores around 11300 which is about where I was with PBO, but I was getting temps into the mid to upper 80's and a few thermal throttles...


----------



## aemondis

StAndrew said:


> Well, I'm ditching CO (for now at least) and going with CTR 2.1. After a week of tweaking and finally settling in around an 11300 R20 score @ 80*C, I gave CTR a quick try and in 7 minutes got a similar score at 10*C less... Maybe I'm doing it wrong. Even better, with the CTR Hybrid CPU option enabled and the PX profile, it boosts to higher clocks in games than with the CO.
> 
> For now, I'm sold on CTR.


I've been curious about this project, mainly in seeing how well it identifies the "strong" vs "weak" cores and voltages, which IMO could significantly decrease effort involved in other overclocking efforts... especially setting CO curves. Have yet to try it though...

Might actually give it a run before I embark on retuning CO, since I just did a BIOS update. I tried setting the curves back to existing values from previous BIOS version and was greeted with an unbootable system on first boot, and WHEA reboots before Windows even finished booting thereafter. Time for a retune, yet again.


----------



## StAndrew

aemondis said:


> I've been curious about this project, mainly in seeing how well it identifies the "strong" vs "weak" cores and voltages, which IMO could significantly decrease effort involved in other overclocking efforts... especially setting CO curves. Have yet to try it though...
> 
> Might actually give it a run before I embark on retuning CO, since I just did a BIOS update. I tried setting the curves back to existing values from previous BIOS version and was greeted with an unbootable system on first boot, and WHEA reboots before Windows even finished booting thereafter. Time for a retune, yet again.


It gives a list of the best to worst cores. While it can't tell how accurate it is, it can say it aligns with Ryzen Master's best cores.


----------



## aemondis

For anyone interested in stability testing in general use scenarios... I've noticed that Inkscape is incredibly sensitive to any form of system instability, even in the absence of any crashes/reboots/errors. I've noticed this in the past on prior configs, which later revealed a couple of "optimistic" CO settings for one of the cores following intermittent reboots at idle after 1+ week of use, and yet again I'm finding it valuable as I retune the CO curves. All the usual tests pass with no issues, but Inkscape was just randomly crashing for no apparent reason doing mundane things (e.g. changing the size of text). Jumped up the curves by a couple of points, and it's rock solid again after hours of use.

Might be useful insight for anyone else, unless something just unique to my setup that somehow upsets Inkscape...


----------



## Piers

StAndrew said:


> I upped the voltage a bit and clocks and so far Im here with temps maxing in the low 70's. Maybe I was doing something wrong with the PBO/CO but this is a lot easier for me I guess... I saved my PBO profile in the bios and might go back to tweaking it again.
> 
> P1 4400/4350 (CCX1/2) @ 1.250
> P2 4700/4575 @ 1300
> Px 4925 High (1.385V) 4775 Mid (1.375V) and 4675 Low (1.35V)
> 
> R20 scores around 11300 which is about where I was with PBO, but I was getting temps into the mid to upper 80's and a few thermal throttles...


Doesn't using CTR/fixed values disable C6 support?


----------



## StAndrew

Piers said:


> Doesn't using CTR/fixed values disable C6 support?


I don't know. I don't think it messes with any bios settings. But make sure all PBO/performance enhancement options, etc... are disabled.


----------



## Piers

StAndrew said:


> I don't know. I don't think it messes with any bios settings. But make sure all PBO/performance enhancement options, etc... are disabled.


I tried it once before and found it pretty bollocks. Project Hydra seems more promising and still has the same BIOS-level requirements (LLC L3, etc.). The only value CTR provided was frequency tables.


----------



## StAndrew

Piers said:


> I tried it once before and found it pretty bollocks. Project Hydra seems more promising and still has the same BIOS-level requirements (LLC L3, etc.). The only value CTR provided was frequency tables.


Yeah, I'm waiting for that to come out. But I don't want to derail this thread too much. Its just been a PITA to tune the CO and it was a great breath of fresh air to use the CTR program for a good and quick performance boost (and a huge drop in temps)


----------



## Luggage

StAndrew said:


> Yeah, I'm waiting for that to come out. But I don't want to derail this thread too much. Its just been a PITA to tune the CO and it was a great breath of fresh air to use the CTR program for a good and quick performance boost (and a huge drop in temps)


Hydra was released yesterday on igorslab.de.
Just did diagnostics to check my CO curve, just small differences, testing now to see if it improves and is stable.


----------



## Gmill

> Hydra was released yesterday on igorslab.de.
> Just did diagnostics to check my CO curve, just small differences, testing now to see if it improves and is stable.


Did you do the free version or the patreon Pro version? I Downloaded the freeware version yesterday but have yet to try it out.


----------



## Luggage

Gmill said:


> Did you do the free version or the patreon Pro version? I Downloaded the freeware version yesterday but have yet to try it out.


Free version, mostly interested in the co testing for my curve. Might dive deeper eventually.


----------



## Xipe

in project hydra results was:
Results CCD testing
CORE#1 CO: -49 CORE#7 CO: -57
CORE#2 CO: -37 CORE#8 CO: -46
CORE#3 CO: -27 CORE#9 CO: -38
CORE#4 CO: -5 CORE#10 CO: 9
CORE#5 CO: -20 CORE#11 CO: -39
CORE#6 CO: -17 CORE#12 CO: -11
Energy Efficiency CCD#1 4.04 | GOLDEN sample
Energy Efficiency CCD#2 3.87 | BRONZE sample
Its normal this samples? one golden and other bronze?


----------



## Piers

Xipe said:


> in project hydra results was:
> Results CCD testing
> CORE#1 CO: -49 CORE#7 CO: -57
> CORE#2 CO: -37 CORE#8 CO: -46
> CORE#3 CO: -27 CORE#9 CO: -38
> CORE#4 CO: -5 CORE#10 CO: 9
> CORE#5 CO: -20 CORE#11 CO: -39
> CORE#6 CO: -17 CORE#12 CO: -11
> Energy Efficiency CCD#1 4.04 | GOLDEN sample
> Energy Efficiency CCD#2 3.87 | BRONZE sample
> Its normal this samples? one golden and other bronze?


CCD0 is usually well binned. CCD1 is usually pretty terrible (by comparison).


----------



## KedarWolf

Bit off-topic, but I'm pretty sure my BSOD issues with Windows 11 I never got with Window 10 were from a slightly unstable overclock

Once I got my 5950x and memory Core Cycler, TM5, stressapptest, Linpack Xtreme AND Y-Cruncher stable, no BSODs in 11. stressapptest and Y-Cruncher were the most important ones.

I need to game some to be sure, but it's been a day so far and I couldn't even go more than 5-6 hours without a BSOD.


----------



## Imprezzion

I am very happy with my new B2 5900X. So far it has survived several days of benching, 30+ hours of corecycler, RAM testing with TM5 and gaming at -25 all-core +50 max clock (CPPC disabled) and I see 5GHz on almost all cores regularly in light loads and games stay well above 4800Mhz with no issues so far. Auto LLC and core voltage.

The only downside to Corecycler is the fact it's single threaded so it doesn't actually test the stability of all-core frequency and clocks. Is there a test I can use to test all-core boost? Just P95 AVX off I'm guessing?

CPU does act wierd with FCLK tho. Hole at 1900, that can't POST at all, higher works but doesn't scale very well with voltages and still WHEA's regardless of voltage 1-2 per day.. I just run 3600 1800 1:1 at very low voltage now.


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> Is there a test I can use to test all-core boost?


All-core testing is the easy part with a number of options;

1) *x265* (x264 utilises fewer threads on high core-count CPUs). Encode two long (90+ mins) video files _simultaneously_ with x265 (-slower preset to get ~99.7% core utilisation w/ ~4GB per job, so in this example ~8GB).

Don't use Handbrake (it's terrible), instead opt for ffmpeg CLI or if you want a clean GUI use Staxrip (it's FOSS).

2) *IntelBurnTest* (don't worry about the name. It's old but still uses AVX2/Linpack). If you use this, right click on the Start button and select 'Xtreme mode', set runs to 50, and set RAM to as much as you can.

You can test first with 10 runs w/ the default amount of RAM _(if you do this first, ignore the message that pops up at the end_).

3) Finally, *Cinebench R23* also uses AVX2. Go to the advanced options, set custom time in minutes based on: (_threads * 2.8) * cores_ [then round where needed]

e.g. 5900X has 12C/24T, so


> ➡ (24 threads * 2.8) * 12 cores
> ↆ
> *➡ (67.2) * 12 = 806.4 *
> ↆ
> Rounding that figure brings the total time to 806 minutes, which is 13.43 hours.


e.g. 5950X has 12C/32T, so


> ➡ (32 threads * 2.8) * 16 cores
> ↆ
> ➡ *(89.6) * 16 = 1,433.6*
> ↆ
> Rounding that figure brings the total time to 1433 minutes, which is 23.88 hours.


Note #1: Regardless of which test method, make sure you have HWiNFO running with logging enabled (in options tick 'log straight to disk').

Note #2: At stock values, the average all-core boost I see in all of the above is 4325 MHz, with it bouncing between 4150-4550 MHz (average multiplier 43.2). The average voltage (VDDCR CPU/SVI2 TFN) I see is < 1.20000V (average voltage 1.17000V).

I hope that is of some use. I'm interested in knowing with method you select.


----------



## Luggage

I wouldn’t waste time stress testing with cinebench. It’s too light for a heavy test and too heavy for high boost testing. Linx, occt and y-cruncher all error or crash with settings I could run for weeks in cinebench.
Also blender benchmark.

edit: oh and don’t just wast days on one test.https://imgur.com/a/ZMnaGHQ


----------



## KedarWolf

Piers said:


> All-core testing is the easy part with a number of options;
> 
> 1) *x265* (x264 utilises fewer threads on high core-count CPUs). Encode two long (90+ mins) video files _simultaneously_ with x265 (-slower preset to get ~99.7% core utilisation w/ ~4GB per job, so in this example ~8GB).
> 
> Don't use Handbrake (it's terrible), instead opt for ffmpeg CLI or if you want a clean GUI use Staxrip (it's FOSS).
> 
> 2) *IntelBurnTest* (don't worry about the name. It's old but still uses AVX2/Linpack). If you use this, right click on the Start button and select 'Xtreme mode', set runs to 50, and set RAM to as much as you can.
> 
> You can test first with 10 runs w/ the default amount of RAM _(if you do this first, ignore the message that pops up at the end_).
> 
> 3) Finally, *Cinebench R23* also uses AVX2. Go to the advanced options, set custom time in minutes based on: (_threads * 2.8) * cores_ [then round where needed]
> 
> e.g. 5900X has 12C/24T, so
> 
> 
> e.g. 5950X has 12C/32T, so
> 
> 
> Note #1: Regardless of which test method, make sure you have HWiNFO running with logging enabled (in options tick 'log straight to disk').
> 
> Note #2: At stock values, the average all-core boost I see in all of the above is 4325 MHz, with it bouncing between 4150-4550 MHz (average multiplier 43.2). The average voltage (VDDCR CPU/SVI2 TFN) I see is < 1.20000V (average voltage 1.17000V).
> 
> I hope that is of some use. I'm interested in knowing with method you select.


With my curve, I get a bit over 4.45 effective core clocks in Cinebench R23. Avg. 1.276v. 10-minute run.

Edit: I ran it again, never did the direct to disk the first time. Averaging over 4.5GHz effective clocks and 1.225v.






CSV Viewer and Editor


Online CSV Viewer and Editor



www.convertcsv.com





Rename and remove the .txt on the attachment.


----------



## Imprezzion

Cinebench with my curve is 4675-4700 all-core @ 1.331v ish. Effective clocks agree as well lol. But still, it barely hits 23k in multi thread mode. I expected higher... 

I will probably be using IBT or LinX just for nostalgia reasons hehe.


----------



## KedarWolf

Imprezzion said:


> Cinebench with my curve is 4675-4700 all-core @ 1.331v ish. Effective clocks agree as well lol. But still, it barely hits 23k in multi thread mode. I expected higher...
> 
> I will probably be using IBT or LinX just for nostalgia reasons hehe.


My ambient temps are very warm right now. If it was colder, and I had better cooling than an AIO with a Foundation block on it, I'd likely match yours.

My curve at all 30s except four cores at 7-17-26-29, Boost 200, Scaler 10.

I'm running an EKWB Predator 360 AIO on it with just the 360 rad and pump at 60%, threw an Optimus Foundation block on it.


----------



## Piers

KedarWolf said:


> Edit: I ran it again, never did the direct to disk the first time. Averaging over 4.5GHz effective clocks and 1.225v.


Makes a good difference when writing straight to the disk (in terms of performance gained, albeit small, but still producing good logging data without much of a CPU footprint at all). I see no reason not to with most people having PCIe 3.0/4.0 storage, or at least a SATA SSD. The largest log file I have is just over 1GB and logging so many values (with the 'write to disk' option) didn't noticeably impact benchmarking and stress testing.



Luggage said:


> I wouldn’t waste time stress testing with cinebench. It’s too light for a heavy test and too heavy for high boost testing. Linx, occt and y-cruncher all error or crash with settings I could run for weeks in cinebench.
> Also blender benchmark.
> 
> edit: oh and don’t just wast days on one test.https://imgur.com/a/ZMnaGHQ


R23 uses AVX2 and is a perfectly reasonable test for all-core overclock stability testing, when run on a loop (~800m for a 5900X) as mentioned above. I'll agree that Linpack-based tools are a better choice for some users, but it's also generally unrealistic. Both rely upon AVX2 and, from real-world use such as encoding and rending, Cinebench R23 gives the same performance that two simultaneous x265 (or three simultaneous x264 ) encodes gives in terms of voltages, clocks, and power.


----------



## Imprezzion

I use a 2 week old TechN AM4 block with 10/16 tubing, EK Quantum Torque fittings, a Nemesis GTX 420 p/p + Nemesis GTX 240 p/p, a EK XRES 150 Revo D5 with a PWM Xylem D5 @ 4800RPM and included in the loop is a Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC with a Bykski fullcover block. 

I usually use CB R23 to adjust my EDC, TDC and PPT limits on as it's a pretty fair worst-case scenario that can actually happen not like Prime95 AVX FMA3 smallest whatever loads that never happen. 

I got 165 EDC 145 TDC 240 PPT now and that performs quite well all while keeping under 75c for CCD temps and under 70c for individual core temps.

There might be some situations where 165 EDC holds me back slightly but higher, like the default motherboard limit of 190, gives me quite worse scores in CB R23, CPU-Z and also effective clock is lower somehow. Temps don't increase that drastically so I don't think it's temp throttling per se...


----------



## Luggage

Piers said:


> Makes a good difference when writing straight to the disk (in terms of performance gained, albeit small, but still producing good logging data without much of a CPU footprint at all). I see no reason not to with most people having PCIe 3.0/4.0 storage, or at least a SATA SSD. The largest log file I have is just over 1GB and logging so many values (with the 'write to disk' option) didn't noticeably impact benchmarking and stress testing.
> 
> 
> R23 uses AVX2 and is a perfectly reasonable test for all-core overclock stability testing, when run on a loop (~800m for a 5900X) as mentioned above. I'll agree that Linpack-based tools are a better choice for some users, but it's also generally unrealistic. Both rely upon AVX2 and, from real-world use such as encoding and rending, Cinebench R23 gives the same performance that two simultaneous x265 (or three simultaneous x264 ) encodes gives in terms of voltages, clocks, and power.


Sure its realistic but if I crash with another program im not stable.
With AMD dynamic boost it's not like staying under an unrealistic thermal limit with Intel all core OC.


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> There might be some situations where 165 EDC holds me back slightly...


If you're happy with the heat to performance ratio, then that's the important thing. Staying under 75 is great.

On stock with a 360mm radiator, a heavy load (3 AVX2 loads) produces temperature of ~66-69°C at the highest point. Raising EDC is the heat generator for me - raising PPT doesn't make much difference to heat, although I suspect I didn't test for radiator saturation long enough. That being said, I think the stock performance is good. Having all 24 threads over 4 GHz impresses me.

_Edit: Removed an emoji that XenForo inserted in the middle of a sentence. _


----------



## Luggage

Imprezzion said:


> I use a 2 week old TechN AM4 block with 10/16 tubing, EK Quantum Torque fittings, a Nemesis GTX 420 p/p + Nemesis GTX 240 p/p, a EK XRES 150 Revo D5 with a PWM Xylem D5 @ 4800RPM and included in the loop is a Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC with a Bykski fullcover block.
> 
> I usually use CB R23 to adjust my EDC, TDC and PPT limits on as it's a pretty fair worst-case scenario that can actually happen not like Prime95 AVX FMA3 smallest whatever loads that never happen.
> 
> I got 165 EDC 145 TDC 240 PPT now and that performs quite well all while keeping under 75c for CCD temps and under 70c for individual core temps.
> 
> There might be some situations where 165 EDC holds me back slightly but higher, like the default motherboard limit of 190, gives me quite worse scores in CB R23, CPU-Z and also effective clock is lower somehow. Temps don't increase that drastically so I don't think it's temp throttling per se...


CPU-Z fore example is so light it likes _really_ low PBO limits - my best CPU-Z is something like 140-88-130...


----------



## Imprezzion

New personal best in CB R23 multi-core. CPPC is still disabled. Core and effective clocks sat at 4700 the whole run.
EDC 170 TDC 155 PPT 240.


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> New personal best in CB R23 multi-core. CPPC is still disabled. Core and effective clocks sat at 4700 the whole run.
> EDC 170 TDC 155 PPT 240.
> 
> View attachment 2539546


Very nice and interesting TDC. Whats your experience been with increasing it? I've found it can help, or at least seems to, in single core performance but there's a very fine line where increasing it over that line - even by a few percent - sees performance impacted quite hard. 

Would you mind doing a single run of 'FHD Benchmark' (guru3d)? It's old but really useful for x264 comparisons and takes less than one minute to run. If not then completely understand. I've considered creating a score thread for it, but think I found a very old one that was dead. It still scales nicely. 

On a side note, it can also find instabilities in few-core (e.g. 8T) workloads that sometimes aren't found elsewhere (partly because it's such an old benchmark).


----------



## Imprezzion

Piers said:


> Very nice and interesting TDC. Whats your experience been with increasing it? I've found it can help, or at least seems to, in single core performance but there's a very fine line where increasing it over that line - even by a few percent - sees performance impacted quite hard.
> 
> Would you mind doing a single run of 'FHD Benchmark' (guru3d)? It's old but really useful for x264 comparisons and takes less than one minute to run. If not then completely understand. I've considered creating a score thread for it, but think I found a very old one that was dead. It still scales nicely.
> 
> On a side note, it can also find instabilities in few-core (e.g. 8T) workloads that sometimes aren't found elsewhere (partly because it's such an old benchmark).


Here ya go. She sat around 4700-4725 the whole test. Did NOT actually hit EDC, TDC or PPT. CPPC and CPPC Preferred still off so it relies on Windows 11 21H2 Scheduler. 












Code:


E:\Stresstests & Benchmarks\x264>x264.exe --demuxer-threads 24 -o NUL SVT_1080p50.mkv
ffms [info]: 1920x1080p 1:1 @ 50/1 fps (vfr)
x264 [info]: using SAR=1/1
x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 FastShuffle SSE4.2 AVX SSEMisalign LZCNT
x264 [info]: profile High, level 4.2
x264 [info]: cabac=1 ref=3 deblock=1:0:0 analyse=0x3:0x113 me=hex subme=7 psy=1 fade_compensate=0.00 psy_rd=1.00:0.00 mixed_ref=1 me_range=16 chroma_me=1 trellis=1 8x8dct=1 cqm=0 deadzone=21,11 fast_pskip=1 chroma_qp_offset=-2 threads=36 sliced_threads=0 nr=0 decimate=1 interlaced=0 bluray_compat=0 constrained_intra=0 bframes=3 b_pyramid=2 b_adapt=1 b_bias=0 direct=1 weightb=1 open_gop=0 weightp=2 keyint=250 keyint_min=25 scenecut=40 intra_refresh=0 rc_lookahead=40 rc=crf mbtree=1 crf=23.0000 qcomp=0.60 qpmin=0 qpmax=69 qpstep=4 ip_ratio=1.40 aq=1:1.00
x264 [info]: started at Sun Dec 26 16:12:09 2021
x264 [info]: frame I:10    Avg QP:25.24  size:293382
x264 [info]: frame P:1242  Avg QP:28.44  size: 90349
x264 [info]: frame B:1248  Avg QP:31.32  size: 19906
x264 [info]: consecutive B-frames:  8.7% 66.6% 23.2%  1.6%
x264 [info]: mb I  I16..4:  3.6% 76.6% 19.8%
x264 [info]: mb P  I16..4:  0.1%  4.7%  0.8%  P16..4: 38.2% 25.5% 16.0%  0.0%  0.0%    skip:14.7%
x264 [info]: mb B  I16..4:  0.0%  0.4%  0.0%  B16..8: 48.1%  6.2%  1.9%  direct: 4.2%  skip:39.1%  L0:36.0% L1:49.9% BI:14.1%
x264 [info]: 8x8 transform intra:83.1% inter:58.4%
x264 [info]: coded y,uvDC,uvAC intra: 90.8% 82.8% 56.8% inter: 30.4% 19.6% 4.0%
x264 [info]: i16 v,h,dc,p: 17% 37% 10% 36%
x264 [info]: i8 v,h,dc,ddl,ddr,vr,hd,vl,hu: 11% 25% 16%  5%  7%  6% 12%  6% 13%
x264 [info]: i4 v,h,dc,ddl,ddr,vr,hd,vl,hu: 15% 21% 13%  7%  8%  7% 11%  7% 11%
x264 [info]: i8c dc,h,v,p: 52% 26% 15%  7%
x264 [info]: Weighted P-Frames: Y:1.0% UV:0.1%
x264 [info]: ref P L0: 70.4% 21.8%  5.9%  2.0%  0.0%
x264 [info]: ref B L0: 90.8%  7.8%  1.4%
x264 [info]: ref B L1: 95.6%  4.4%
x264 [info]: kb/s:22398.38

encoded 2500 frames, 90.39 fps, 22398.38 kb/s
x264 [info]: ended at Sun Dec 26 16:12:37 2021
x264 [info]: encoding duration 0:00:28

E:\Stresstests & Benchmarks\x264>


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> Did NOT actually hit EDC, TDC or PPT


Too many threads can harm x264's quality. It might state 36 (log = threads=36 [x264 threads = T*1.5]) but will rarely use that many (even on recent x264 builds). It generally takes 2 more complex, or 3 less complex x264 encodes, or two x265 encodes to fully saturates my CPU.



Imprezzion said:


> encoded 2500 frames, 90.39 fps, 22398.38 kb/s


Really great performance. It's a fun little benchmark.

For reference:
➡ Intel i7 6700K (overclocked @ 4.60 GHz - was too hot for daily use) | 32GB DDR4 2667 CL12


> encoded 2500 frames, 33.07 fps, 22399.00 kb/s


➡ AMD R9 5900X (stock power limits) w/ PBO disabled, CPPC/PC enabled | 32GB DDR4 3600 CL18


> encoded 2500 frames, 77.64 fps, 22398.38 kb/s


➡Intel Xeon E3-1220v5 (3.3 GHz) | 64GB DDR4 ECC 2133 CL16 (my NAS)


> encoded 2500 frames, 19.35 fps, 22399.64 kb/s


➡ AMD R9 5900X (stock power limits) w/ PBO disabled, CPPC/PC *disabled* | 32GB DDR4 3600 CL18
Don't have the log for some reason, but IIRC the figure was ~84 fps


----------



## CubanB

I have a launch 5900X still in the box but will be installing/building the system soon.

I'm looking at getting a 5950X, because locally I can get one pretty cheap currently (compared to launch prices).

Would there be much advantage to the 5950X in you guy's opinion? Better chance of getting a well binned chip, higher clocks, lower voltages required etc?

I did something similar in terms of building it later with newer AGESA with a 3700X, I bought it at launch and built the system 12 months ago and it was actually a really good sample. Maybe it was luck, but perhaps the early BIOS versions make for high review scores? And then over time the AGESAS dial back the performance or fine tune stability? Because it was a good chip, but I wonder if it was due to no degradation or because it was actually a good chip. It's hard to generalize though because it's such a small sample size.

Are the current 5950X's pretty good or are there still some duds floating around? I would have thought due to the price point, that they would always have the best binning for IMC and the first CCD? But are the newest ones better?


----------



## _AntLionBR_

Hello everyone! I'm new to the AMD platform, still a little lost in the BIOS, but I've learned a little too. What do you think of the result? What can I improve the most?

Setup: X570 Dark Hero / R9 5950X / Team Group T-Force 4x8Gb DDR4-4500MHz C18-20-20-44 1.45V

BIOS:

PBO Advanced / PBO Limits: Manual (PPT 300 / TDC 200 / EDC 150)
PBO Scalar 4X
Máx CPU Boost Clock Override 0MHz
CO: -7 for the best cores and -16 for the rest.
Memory Frequency 3800MHz C14-15-15-36 1.50V 1T/ FLCK 1900MHz
LLC AUTO


----------



## Audioboxer

Anyone else ran Hydra on their 5950x just to see what the curve output was?










Compared to my current curve (named how the BIOS names it, starting from 0 instead of 1)

-30 (0)
-30 (1)
-17 (2)
-30 (3)
-30 (4)
-5 (5)
-30 (6)
-28 (7)
-30 (8)
-30 (9)
-30 (10)
-22 (11)
-30 (12)
-30 (13)
-22 (14)
-30 (15)

Corecycler crashes quickly on MED/FAST values for Core 11 (Core 12 in image above). Cross-referencing with my values you can see I had it at -22, so I'm not surprised -28 and -30 fail in Corecycler.

Interesting standouts for me are core 5 wanting a positive value in Hydra, -5 for me. This is one of my best cores, so I already knew it couldn't sustain a heavy - value.

But another interesting one is core 2, another one of my better cores. I had it at -17, it's -6 on the safe value from Hydra.

Not sure what to make of all of this. When it came to the curve my original thinking was simply "treat every core in isolation and get it as low as possible". How does Hydra do its testing? Just seeking as low as possible or checking boosting? The MED and FAST columns definitely seem speculative more than tested in any way.


----------



## Piers

Audioboxer said:


> Anyone else ran Hydra on their 5950x just to see what the curve output was?
> 
> View attachment 2541919
> 
> 
> Compared to my current curve (named how the BIOS names it, starting from 0 instead of 1)
> 
> -30 (0)
> -30 (1)
> -17 (2)
> -30 (3)
> -30 (4)
> -5 (5)
> -30 (6)
> -28 (7)
> -30 (8)
> -30 (9)
> -30 (10)
> -22 (11)
> -30 (12)
> -30 (13)
> -22 (14)
> -30 (15)
> 
> Corecycler crashes quickly on MED/FAST values for Core 11 (Core 12 in image above). Cross-referencing with my values you can see I had it at -22, so I'm not surprised -28 and -30 fail in Corecycler.
> 
> Interesting standouts for me are core 5 wanting a positive value in Hydra, -5 for me. This is one of my best cores, so I already knew it couldn't sustain a heavy - value.
> 
> But another interesting one is core 2, another one of my better cores. I had it at -17, it's -6 on the safe value from Hydra.
> 
> Not sure what to make of all of this. When it came to the curve my original thinking was simply "treat every core in isolation and get it as low as possible". How does Hydra do its testing? Just seeking as low as possible or checking boosting? The MED and FAST columns definitely seem speculative more than tested in any way.


I've yet to see a chip that can sustain most cores on - 30 and pass stability tests. If Hydra is accurate (not enough data yet to say either way) then I would try its 'safe' CO values and see how they do in benchmarks and stability tests.


----------



## Audioboxer

Piers said:


> I've yet to see a chip that can sustain most cores on - 30 and pass stability tests. If Hydra is accurate (not enough data yet to say either way) then I would try its 'safe' CO values and see how they do in benchmarks and stability tests.


Yeah it's safe performed a bit worse than my old curve. Tbf on the safe profile, outside of a few cores, it was fairly close to what I had set. So as a "do it for me" for lazier people it's not bad at all. From my own experience I couldn't recommend using anything other than safe, both other profiles set one of my cores to a value that failed first cycle on Corecycler.


----------



## KedarWolf

This is Core Cycler and Y-Cruncher stable. Passes TM5 as well, 8 Cycles at 1000% Usmus 7+ hour run.


----------



## Audioboxer

KedarWolf said:


> This is Core Cycler and Y-Cruncher stable. Passes TM5 as well, 8 Cycles at 1000% Usmus 7+ hour run.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2542046
> 
> View attachment 2542052
> 
> View attachment 2542047
> 
> 
> View attachment 2542048
> 
> View attachment 2542050
> 
> View attachment 2542051
> 
> View attachment 2542049


Damn good chip to uphold those core values, more so the 4 best cores handling what they are.

Have you found going to 155A/50mA produces better results than 150/45?


----------



## tonynca

Piers said:


> I've yet to see a chip that can sustain most cores on - 30 and pass stability tests. If Hydra is accurate (not enough data yet to say either way) then I would try its 'safe' CO values and see how they do in benchmarks and stability tests.


My chip does -30 on most cores. It's been rock solid for a week. I even tested the idle stability by doing a light webpage refresh every 60s. 

Also purposely induced Windows startup repair (got the idea from someone from Reddit) to test low load-idle work load to try to get it to either bluescreen or freeze up. 

Everything is good so far...

I'm running

-10, -10, -10, -20, -30, -30, etc.


----------



## Shenhua

Question? why does lowering EDC decreases the voltage in light loads? and the CPU boosts for less time instead of just reaching lower? shouldnt it be a hard limit for power consumption like the ppt?

And why it works better for lowering temps under gaming load for the 5600x and 5800x than the other 2 highed end parts?


----------



## Piers

tonynca said:


> My chip does -30 on most cores. It's been rock solid for a week


I wouldn't class refreshing a website every 60s and using the Windows Repair tool as stability testing. Use CoreCycler with its default configuration for 24h.


----------



## KedarWolf

Piers said:


> I wouldn't class refreshing a website every 60s and using the Windows Repair tool as stability testing. Use CoreCycler with its default configuration for 24h.


For Ryzen 5000 series Core Cycler Large would be better.


----------



## Piers

KedarWolf said:


> For Ryzen 5000 series Core Cycler Large would be better.


The default is P95 huge, which is more than sufficient. CoreCycler with Y-cruncher is also a good option.


----------



## KedarWolf

Piers said:


> The default is P95 huge, which is more than sufficient. CoreCycler with Y-cruncher is also a good option.


I meant Heavy which even in the Core Cycler config.ini is recommended for 5000 series. Huge is not. :/

Edit:



Code:


 The FFT size preset to test for Prime95
# These are basically the presets as present in Prime95, plus an additional few
# Note: If "mode" is set to "CUSTOM", this setting will be ignored
# Smallest:     4K to   21K - Prime95 preset: "tests L1/L2 caches, high power/heat/CPU stress"
# Small:       36K to  248K - Prime95 preset: "tests L1/L2/L3 caches, maximum power/heat/CPU stress"
# Large:      426K to 8192K - Prime95 preset: "stresses memory controller and RAM" (although dedicated memory stress testing is disabled here by default!)
# Huge:      8960K to   MAX - anything beginning at 8960K up to the highest FFT size (32768K for SSE/AVX, 51200K for AVX2)
# All:          4K to   MAX - 4K to up to the highest FFT size (32768K for SSE/AVX, 51200K for AVX2)
# Moderate:  1344K to 4096K - special preset, recommended in the "Curve Optimizer Guide Ryzen 5000"
# Heavy:        4K to 1344K - special preset, recommended in the "Curve Optimizer Guide Ryzen 5000"
# HeavyShort:   4K to  160K - special preset, recommended in the "Curve Optimizer Guide Ryzen 5000"
#
# You can also define you own range by entering two FFT sizes joined by a hyphen, e.g 36-1344
#
# Default: Huge


----------



## tonynca

Piers said:


> I wouldn't class refreshing a website every 60s and using the Windows Repair tool as stability testing. Use CoreCycler with its default configuration for 24h.


That’s a given Piers… I did stressed test using CoreCycler and OCCT.

But for Ryzen, if you undervolt heavily with PBO2 CO, many users would experience random crashes at IDLE. I think it’s due to voltage spikes or too low of a voltage which will trigger crashes on very light workloads. I personally had a rock solid CO tune that cannot be crashed through Prime95 or CoreCycler, but it would randomly crash+reboot every now and then after 1-2 days. I would see a fatal WHEA error on core 2. I then tried to go up the voltage on Core 2 but it didn't fix the issue, which means I can't even trust Event Viewer to identify the correct core.

It's been a long time trying to work PBO2 to get the best performance out of my 5950X. I think I finally nailed it with the latest CO tune. My CB23 score is about 800-900 pts away from my static overclock which is pretty darn good since static overclock is wasteful for Ryzen 5000.


----------



## KedarWolf

Audioboxer said:


> Damn good chip to uphold those core values, more so the 4 best cores handling what they are.
> 
> Have you found going to 155A/50mA produces better results than 150/45?


Yes, better in CB23 AND CPU-Z.


----------



## Sleepycat

tonynca said:


> That’s a given Piers… I did stressed test using CoreCycler and OCCT.
> 
> But for Ryzen, if you undervolt heavily with PBO2 CO, many users would experience random crashes at IDLE. I think it’s due to voltage spikes or too low of a voltage which will trigger crashes on very light workloads. I personally had a rock solid CO tune that cannot be crashed through Prime95 or CoreCycler, but it would randomly crash+reboot every now and then after 1-2 days. I would see a fatal WHEA error on core 2. I then tried to go up the voltage on Core 2 but it didn't fix the issue, which means I can't even trust Event Viewer to identify the correct core.
> 
> It's been a long time trying to work PBO2 to get the best performance out of my 5950X. I think I finally nailed it with the latest CO tune. My CB23 score is about 800-900 pts away from my static overclock which is pretty darn good since static overclock is wasteful for Ryzen 5000.


WHEA's and idle reboots are not necessarily linked. One is a corrected error, the other is temporary processor shutdown because of too low a core voltage. Corecycler doesn't directly test for idle reboots, but by coincidence, any instability found results in the user increasing CO offsets, which then could help with idle reboots if that was the case. What I found for dual CCX processors is that CCX2 is more tolerant of negative offsets, where as CCX1 needs smaller negative offsets, or in my case one of my CCX1 cores needed a +10 offset!

The solution is to increase the low power state voltage for the CPU. There is no direct way that I know of to do this, but I have tried using the Advanced Settings in Windows Power options to set the minimum processor state from its default value of 5% to a higher value of 10%. At 10%, I have not experienced idle reboots, whereas I did have idle reboots when setting too aggressive a negative CO offset on my CCX1 cores. I am not sure if the change from 5 to 10% adjusts the CPU voltage or current. I am hoping it is a combination of both (usually voltage is tied to clock speed and current is tied to load), but the slight change is enough to bring the minimum idle voltage just slightly upwards to prevent idle reboots.


----------



## tonynca

Sleepycat said:


> WHEA's and idle reboots are not necessarily linked. One is a corrected error, the other is temporary processor shutdown because of too low a core voltage. Corecycler doesn't directly test for idle reboots, but by coincidence, any instability found results in the user increasing CO offsets, which then could help with idle reboots if that was the case. What I found for dual CCX processors is that CCX2 is more tolerant of negative offsets, where as CCX1 needs smaller negative offsets, or in my case one of my CCX1 cores needed a +10 offset!
> 
> The solution is to increase the low power state voltage for the CPU. There is no direct way that I know of to do this, but I have tried using the Advanced Settings in Windows Power options to set the minimum processor state from its default value of 5% to a higher value of 10%. At 10%, I have not experienced idle reboots, whereas I did have idle reboots when setting too aggressive a negative CO offset on my CCX1 cores. I am not sure if the change from 5 to 10% adjusts the CPU voltage or current. I am hoping it is a combination of both (usually voltage is tied to clock speed and current is tied to load), but the slight change is enough to bring the minimum idle voltage just slightly upwards to prevent idle reboots.


Good tip with regards to the min power state in Win. When you say adjust voltage you meant increase CO to positive offset right?

Also - I do remember increasing Core 2's offset to positive and ran like +10 but I would still get random reboots. Which lead me to believe that was not the core that was causing the issues. I think it was a set of them causing issues together. Ever since I left Core 1-4 on moderate -10 offset and the rest more aggressive, I haven't had any issues. The point is that you cannot trust Event Viewer to track down the problematic core for you.


----------



## Piers

KedarWolf said:


> I meant Heavy which even in the Core Cycler config.ini is recommended for 5000 series. Huge is not. :/


Recommended but not required. The author said the defaults are fine in the CoreCycler thread. 


tonynca said:


> That’s a given Piers… I did stressed test using CoreCycler and OCCT.
> 
> But for Ryzen, if you undervolt heavily with PBO2 CO, many users would experience random crashes at IDLE.


I used CoreCycler and changed the restart application option. I also added +2 to each core once I found what was stable.


----------



## Audioboxer

KedarWolf said:


> Yes, better in CB23 AND CPU-Z.


Can concur, it's actually performing a bit better for me as well!


----------



## Shenhua

is this normal? Screenshot


----------



## PJVol

Shenhua said:


> is this normal? Screenshot


Yes


----------



## Shenhua

PJVol said:


> Yes


and why does it happen?


----------



## PJVol

Shenhua said:


> and why does it happen?


What exactly? Don't see anything noteworthy there.


----------



## Shenhua

PJVol said:


> What exactly? Don't see anything noteworthy there.


The power report deviation. The one marked with red.

Sent from my Redmi Note 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Asmodian

Shenhua said:


> The power report deviation. The one marked with red.


Motherboard's shenanigans with power reporting to change boosting behavior, it is perfectly normal.


----------



## Luggage

Can’t se the image but power report deviation is only valid while running an all core workload, any idle or low thread workload will f*** it up.


----------



## fullrespect

Messing with CPU VDD Telemetry bricks idle CPU Package Power readings (full load readout is correct). Is this behaviour normal?


----------



## Shenhua

tcclaviger said:


> Use OCCT core cycling feature to quickly test each core out. Go to "Test" section. CPU, small, extreme,variable. Those options are what you want. Then click on number of cores, go to advanced, and check only 1 core, uncheck the rest. In the options below the core selection turn on physical and virtual, as well as cycle core. Set it to 20 seconds.
> 
> That will rough in the CO settings as quickly as possible, I start all at -15, watch the screen while it's testing so you can see which core is working when it crashes. Go back to CO menu, reduce offset by 2 or 3, try again. Once no cores are crashing, start raising the cores that never crashed by 2 or 3. Rinse and repeate till all cores are not crashing.
> 
> Then get core cycler, open config.ini. 9 minutes duration, prime95, Heavyshort preset, run while not using the PC. It keeps logs, so if it reboots while afk you can look in the log to see which core failed.
> 
> If it fails within the first 3 minutes reduce offset by 2, if it fails after 8 minutes reduce CO for that core by 1. When all are passing change from SSE to AvX2 and repeat.


I took some time off, and now im at it again. I´ve been following your mini guide, but the issue is, it doesnt spit any errors.......... And im well over -20 on all cores.
So i started using the corecycler by sp00n, and it does spits errors, but it takes 6 min per core, and i cant find the line in the script to change it to less time.


----------



## Piers

Shenhua said:


> I took some time off, and now im at it again. I´ve been following your mini guide, but the issue is, it doesnt spit any errors.......... And im well over -20 on all cores.
> So i started using the corecycler by sp00n, and it does spits errors, but it takes 6 min per core, and i cant find the line in the script to change it to less time.


You don't want to change it to less time. Best is to leave it overnight.


----------



## Shenhua

Piers said:


> You don't want to change it to less time. Best is to leave it overnight.


Im not testing stability, im just roughing it up, and since it`s 5900x, i cant be waiting 2h for the last core to fail, cus it starts always in the same order.


----------



## Luggage

Shenhua said:


> Im not testing stability, im just roughing it up, and since it`s 5900x, i cant be waiting 2h for the last core to fail, cus it starts always in the same order.


Try y-cruncher 


http://imgur.com/a/ZMnaGHQ


----------



## KedarWolf

Shenhua said:


> I took some time off, and now im at it again. I´ve been following your mini guide, but the issue is, it doesnt spit any errors.......... And im well over -20 on all cores.
> So i started using the corecycler by sp00n, and it does spits errors, but it takes 6 min per core, and i cant find the line in the script to change it to less time.


The below is what I run for 24 hours, it takes longer but tests all the FFTs. If I'm sure a core gets no errors, I'll add it to the Ignore Cores option so it cycles quicker.



Code:


# General settings
[General]

# The program to perform the actual stress test
# The following programs are available:
# - PRIME95
# - AIDA64
# - YCRUNCHER
# You can change the test mode for each program in the relavant [sections] below.
# Note: For AIDA64, you need to manually download and extract the portable ENGINEER version and put it
#       in the /test_programs/aida64/ folder
# Note: AIDA64 is somewhat sketchy as well
# Default: PRIME95
stressTestProgram = PRIME95


# Set the runtime per core
# You can use a value in seconds or use 'h' for hours, 'm' for minutes and 's' for seconds
# Examples: 360 = 360 seconds
#           1h4m = 1 hour, 4 minutes
#           1.5m = 1.5 minutes = 90 seconds
#
# You can also set it to "auto", in which case it will perform one full run of all the FFT sizes in the selected
# Prime95 preset for each core, and when that is finished, it continues to the next core and starts again
# For Aida64 and y-Cruncher, the "auto" setting will default to 10 Minutes per core
#
# Below are some examples of the runtime for one iteration for the various tests on my 5900X with one thread
# The first iteration is also usually the fastest one
# Selecting two threads usually takes *much* longer than one thread for one iteration in Prime95
# - Prime95 "Smallest":     4K to   21K - [SSE] ~3-4 Minutes   <|> [AVX] ~8-9 Minutes    <|> [AVX2] ~8-10 Minutes
# - Prime95 "Small":       36K to  248K - [SSE] ~4-6 Minutes   <|> [AVX] ~14-19 Minutes  <|> [AVX2] ~14-19 Minutes
# - Prime95 "Large":      426K to 8192K - [SSE] ~18-22 Minutes <|> [AVX] ~37-44 Minutes  <|> [AVX2] ~38-51 Minutes
# - Prime95 "Huge":      8960K to   MAX - [SSE] ~13-19 Minutes <|> [AVX] ~27-40 Minutes  <|> [AVX2] ~33-51 Minutes
# - Prime95 "All":          4K to   MAX - [SSE] ~40-65 Minutes <|> [AVX] ~92-131 Minutes <|> [AVX2] ~102-159 Minutes
# - Prime95 "Moderate":  1344K to 4096K - [SSE] ~7-15 Minutes  <|> [AVX] ~17-30 Minutes  <|> [AVX2] ~17-33 Minutes
# - Prime95 "Heavy":        4K to 1344K - [SSE] ~15-28 Minutes <|> [AVX] ~43-68 Minutes  <|> [AVX2] ~47-73 Minutes
# - Prime95 "HeavyShort":   4K to  160K - [SSE] ~6-8 Minutes   <|> [AVX] ~22-24 Minutes  <|> [AVX2] ~23-25 Minutes
# - y-Cruncher: ~10 Minutes
# Default: 6m
runtimePerCore = Auto


# Periodically suspend the stress test program
# This can simulate load changes / switches to idle and back
# Setting this to 1 will periodically suspend the stress test program, wait for a bit, and then resume it
# You should see the CPU load and clock speed drop significantly while the program is suspended and rise back up again
# Note: This will increase the runtime of the various stress tests as seen in the "runtimePerCore" setting by roughly 10%
# Default: 1
suspendPeriodically = 0


# The test order of the cores
# Available modes:
# Default:    On CPUs with more than 8 physical cores: 'Alternate'. Otherwise 'Random'
# Alternate:  Alternate between the 1st core on CCD1, then 1st on CCD2, then 2nd on CCD1, then 2nd on CCD2, etc.
#             This should distribute the heat more evenly and possibly allow for higher clocks on CPUs with 2 CCDs
# Random:     A random order
# Sequential: Cycle through the cores in numerical order
#
# You can also define your own testing order by entering a list of comma separated values.
# The list will be processed as provided, which means you can test the same core multiple times per iteration.
# Do note however that the "coresToIgnore" setting still takes precedence over any core listed here.
# The enumeration of cores starts with 0
# Example: 5, 4, 0, 5, 5, 7, 2
#
# Default: Default
coreTestOrder = Sequential


# Skip a core that has thrown an error on the following iterations
# If set to 0, this will test a core on the next iterations even if has thrown an error before
# Default: 1
skipCoreOnError = 1


# Stop the whole testing process if an error occurred
# If set to 0 (default), the stress test programm will be restarted when an error
# occurs and the core that caused the error will be skipped on the next iteration
# Default: 0
stopOnError = 0


# The number of threads to use for testing
# You can only choose between 1 and 2
# If Hyperthreading / SMT is disabled, this will automatically be set to 1
# Currently there's no automatic way to determine which core has thrown an error
# Setting this to 1 causes higher boost clock speed (due to less heat)
# Default: 1
# Maximum: 2
numberOfThreads = 2


# The max number of iterations
# High values are basically unlimited
# Default: 10000
maxIterations = 10000


# Ignore certain cores
# Comma separated list of cores that will not be tested
# The enumeration of cores starts with 0
# Example: coresToIgnore = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
# Default: (empty)
coresToIgnore =


# Restart the stress test process when a new core is selected
# This means each core will perform the same sequence of tests during the stress test
# Note: The monitor doesn't seem to turn off when this setting is enabled
#
# Important note:
# One disadvantage of this setting is that it has the potential to limit the amount of tests that the stress test program
# can run.
# In Prime95 for example, each FFT size will run for roughly 1 minute (except for very small ones), so if you want to make
# sure that Prime95 runs all of the available FFT sizes for a setting, you'll have to extend the "runtimePerCore" setting
# from the default value to something higher.
# For example the "Huge"/SSE preset has 19 FFT entries, and tests on my 5900X showed that it roughly takes 13-19 Minutes
# until all FFT sizes have been tested. The "Large"/SSE seems to take between 18 and 22 Minutes.
# I've included the measured times in the comment for the "runtimePerCore" setting above.
#
# If this setting is disabled, there's a relatively high chance that each core will eventually pass through all of the
# FFT sizes since Prime95 doesn't stop between the cores and so it evens out after time.
#
# Default: 0
restartTestProgramForEachCore = 0


# Set a delay between the cores
# If the "restartTestProgramForEachCore" flag is set, this setting will define the amount of seconds between the end of the
# run of one core and the start of another
# If "restartTestProgramForEachCore" is 0, this setting has no effect
# Default: 15
delayBetweenCores = 0




# Prime95 specific settings
[Prime95]

# The test modes for Prime95
# SSE:    lightest load on the processor, lowest temperatures, highest boost clock
# AVX:    medium load on the processor, medium temperatures, medium boost clock
# AVX2:   heavy load on the processor, highest temperatures, lowest boost clock
# CUSTOM: you can define your own settings for Prime. See the "customs" section further below
# Default: SSE
mode = SSE


# The FFT size preset to test for Prime95
# These are basically the presets as present in Prime95, plus an additional few
# Note: If "mode" is set to "CUSTOM", this setting will be ignored
# Smallest:     4K to   21K - Prime95 preset: "tests L1/L2 caches, high power/heat/CPU stress"
# Small:       36K to  248K - Prime95 preset: "tests L1/L2/L3 caches, maximum power/heat/CPU stress"
# Large:      426K to 8192K - Prime95 preset: "stresses memory controller and RAM" (although dedicated memory stress testing is disabled here by default!)
# Huge:      8960K to   MAX - anything beginning at 8960K up to the highest FFT size (32768K for SSE/AVX, 51200K for AVX2)
# All:          4K to   MAX - 4K to up to the highest FFT size (32768K for SSE/AVX, 51200K for AVX2)
# Moderate:  1344K to 4096K - special preset, recommended in the "Curve Optimizer Guide Ryzen 5000"
# Heavy:        4K to 1344K - special preset, recommended in the "Curve Optimizer Guide Ryzen 5000"
# HeavyShort:   4K to  160K - special preset, recommended in the "Curve Optimizer Guide Ryzen 5000"
#
# You can also define you own range by entering two FFT sizes joined by a hyphen, e.g 36-1344
#
# Default: Huge
FFTSize = Heavy




# Aida64 specific settings
[Aida64]

# The test modes for Aida64
# Note: "RAM" consumes basically all of the available memory and makes the computer pretty slow
#       You can change the amount of RAM being used / tested with the "maxMempory" setting below
# CACHE: Starts Aida64 with the "Cache" stress test
# CPU:   Starts Aida64 with the "CPU" stress test
# FPU:   Starts Aida64 with the "FPU" stress test
# RAM:   Starts Aida64 with the "Memory" stress test
# You can also combine multiple stress tests like so: CACHE,CPU,FPU
# Default: CACHE
mode = CACHE


# Use AVX for Aida64
# This enables or disables the usage of AVX instructions during Aida64's stress tests
# Default: 0
useAVX = 0


# The maximum memory allocation for Aida64
# Sets the maximum memory usage during the "RAM" stress test in percent
# Note: Setting this too high can cause your Windows to slow down to a crawl!
# Default: 90
maxMemory = 90




# y-Cruncher specific settings
[yCruncher]

# The test modes for y-Cruncher
# See the \test_programs\y-cruncher\Binaries\Tuning.txt file for a detailed explanation
# "00-x86"          - 86/IA-32 since Pentium (BSWAP, CMPXCHG, CPUID, RDTSC, possibly others...)
# "04-P4P"          - SSE, SSE2, SSE3
# "05-A64 ~ Kasumi" - x64, SSE, SSE2, SSE3
# "08-NHM ~ Ushio"  - x64, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1
# "11-SNB ~ Hina"   - x64, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX
# "13-HSW ~ Airi"   - x64, ABM, BMI1, BMI2, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, FMA3, AVX2
# "14-BDW ~ Kurumi" - x64, ABM, BMI1, BMI2, ADX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, FMA3, AVX2
# "17-ZN1 ~ Yukina" - x64, ABM, BMI1, BMI2, ADX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, FMA3, AVX2
# "19-ZN2 ~ Kagari" - x64, ABM, BMI1, BMI2, ADX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, FMA3, AVX2
#
# The following settings would be available as well, but they don't run on Ryzen CPUs!
# "11-BD1 ~ Miyu"   - x64, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, ABM, FMA4, XOP
# "17-SKX ~ Kotori" - x64, ABM, BMI1, BMI2, ADX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, FMA3, AVX2 AVX512-(F/CD/VL/BW/DQ)
# "18-CNL ~ Shinoa" - x64, ABM, BMI1, BMI2, ADX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, FMA3, AVX2 AVX512-(F/CD/VL/BW/DQ/IFMA/VBMI)
#
# "00-x86" should produce the highest boost clock on most tests
# "19-ZN2 ~ Kagari" is optimized for Zen2/3, but produces more heat and a lower boost clock on most tests
# Default: 00-x86
mode = 00-x86




# Log specific settings
[Logging]

# The name of the log file
# The "mode" parameter, the selected stress test program and test mode, as well as the start date & time will be
# added to the name, with a .log file ending
# Default: CoreCycler
name = CoreCycler


# Set the log level
# 0: Do not log or display additional information
# 1: Write additional information to the log file (verbose)
# 2: Write even more information to the log file (debug)
# 3: Also display the verbose messages in the terminal
# 4: Also display he debug messages in the terminal
# Default: 2
logLevel = 2




# Custom settings for Prime95
[Custom]


# This needs to be set to 1 for AVX mode
# (and also if you want to set AVX2 below)
CpuSupportsAVX = 0

# This needs to be set to 1 for AVX2 mode
CpuSupportsAVX2 = 0

# This also needs to be set to 1 for AVX2 mode on Ryzen
CpuSupportsFMA3 = 0

# The minimum FFT size to test
# Value for "Smallest FFT":   4
# Value for "Small FFT":     36
# Value for "Large FFT":    426
MinTortureFFT = 4

# The maximum FFT size to test
# Value for "Smallest FFT":   21
# Value for "Small FFT":     248
# Value for "Large FFT":    8192
MaxTortureFFT = 8192

# The amount of memory to use in MB
# 0 = In-Place
TortureMem = 0

# The max amount of minutes for each FFT size during the stress test
# Note: It may be much less than one minute, basically it seems to be "one run or one minute, whichever is less"
TortureTime = 1


----------



## Piers

Shenhua said:


> Im not testing stability, im just roughing it up, and since it`s 5900x, i cant be waiting 2h for the last core to fail, cus it starts always in the same order.


Then change the settings in the ini to use a different core order and change the time, but you're not going to get accurate results. Using y-cruncher may make it fail faster, but it's unlikely if you won't give it the time needed. If 6 mins is too long, the ~11m per core y-cruncher needs isn't helpful.


----------



## Shenhua

Thabk you all. I wasn't finding the lines where to change the values for time and cores, but i did and already found a base start for each core.

.....and prime95 with 1min, works really well to rough in the values.

There's something i don't understand tho.

Core 2 and core 5, are the best cores (they're boosting the most..... info took from hwinfo64), but one is at -28 and one kept failing untill it's now at -7. Much worst cores are at -20 or lower.....

Aren't the best 2 cores supposed to fail similarly?

Sent from my Redmi Note 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Luggage

Shenhua said:


> Thabk you all. I wasn't finding the lines where to change the values for time and cores, but i did and already found a base start for each core.
> 
> .....and prime95 with 1min, works really well to rough in the values.
> 
> There's something i don't understand tho.
> 
> Core 2 and core 5, are the best cores (they're boosting the most..... info took from hwinfo64), but one is at -28 and one kept failing untill it's now at -7. Much worst cores are at -20 or lower.....
> 
> Aren't the best 2 cores supposed to fail similarly?
> 
> Sent from my Redmi Note 5 using Tapatalk


0 and 5 (1 and 6 for hydra) are my “best”, so no they differ quite a lot.



http://imgur.com/a/uXUCAEy


----------



## Piers

Shenhua said:


> Core 2 and core 5, are the best cores (they're boosting the most..... info took from hwinfo64), but one is at -28 and one kept failing untill it's now at -7. Much worst cores are at -20 or lower.....


Generally speaking, your best few cores need more voltage w/ PBO & CO.


----------



## Shenhua

Piers said:


> Generally speaking, your best few cores need more voltage w/ PBO & CO.


i didnt touch anything but the PBO limits, which are 120 edc, tdc 82, ppt 115, (ik they are low, but as far as i can see, i have the same performance as stock..........measured by cinebench). Altough eyeballing it, it seems to swap more between base and boost clock, so im guessing in games, i might experience a very tiny decrease in performance.......anyway, i didnt touch the boost override.......

............and now im setting up the CO


----------



## Piers

Shenhua said:


> Core 2 and core 5, are the best cores (they're boosting the most..... info took from hwinfo64), but one is at -28 and one kept failing untill it's now at -7. Much worst cores are at -20


Using the Curve Optimiser changes voltage. Each step is 3-5mV.



Shenhua said:


> i didnt touch anything but the PBO limits


You earlier mentioned offsets (assuming with CO) - that directly impacts voltage.


----------



## Imprezzion

All this talk about AGESA 1.2.0.6. Meanwhile, the Asus B550-XE doesn't even have 1.2.0.4 yet let alone .5 or .6. They released a BIOS update a few days back but it's just a minor bugfix no new major release. Shame.

At least my B2 5900X is behaving properly so far even on 1.2.0.3c. 

Btw, when talking about temperatures for AMD CPU's, is it the individual core temps or the CCD temps that are more important? I notice in HWInfo64 my "maximum" core temps never really go over 63-64c but CCD 1 and 2 sensors can go as high as 73-75c maximum which is quite a big delta.


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> All this talk about AGESA 1.2.0.6. Meanwhile, the Asus B550-XE doesn't even have 1.2.0.4 yet let alone .5 or .6. They released a BIOS update a few days back but it's just a minor bugfix no new major release. Shame.
> 
> At least my B2 5900X is behaving properly so far even on 1.2.0.3c.
> 
> Btw, when talking about temperatures for AMD CPU's, is it the individual core temps or the CCD temps that are more important? I notice in HWInfo64 my "maximum" core temps never really go over 63-64c but CCD 1 and 2 sensors can go as high as 73-75c maximum which is quite a big delta.


Yep, Asus seems to have forgotten about its ROG B550 range.


----------



## dk_mic

Does anyone have a clue why AMD pulled their latest X570 chipset driver from their website?
Apparently, back in Novermber, AMD Processor Power Management Support was version 7.0.4.4,
but now the latest version on the website is back on 7.0.3.5:










(their win10/win11 versions seem to be the same, and the 7.0.4.4 version on my system was not installed from MSI)

you can check your version like this:
Settings -> "Account" -> "Access work or school"
"Add or move aprovisioning package" left area of the screen
"AMD.Power.Processor.Setting" -> "Detail" 

There are probably only minor changes, but I find it a bit odd?


----------



## Piers

dk_mic said:


> Does anyone have a clue why AMD pulled their latest X570 chipset driver from their website?
> Apparently, back in Novermber, AMD Processor Power Management Support was version 7.0.4.4,
> but now the latest version on the website is back on 7.0.3.5:
> 
> View attachment 2542910
> 
> 
> (their win10/win11 versions seem to be the same, and the 7.0.4.4 version on my system was not installed from MSI)
> 
> you can check your version like this:
> Settings -> "Account" -> "Access work or school"
> "Add or move aprovisioning package" left area of the screen
> "AMD.Power.Processor.Setting" -> "Detail"
> 
> There are probably only minor changes, but I find it a bit odd?


As far as I'm aware (reading a post by someone from AMD but I could be wrong just remembered - it was during a telephone call with AMD's level 2 support), the Power Management Support is more for Zen 2 and below. On Zen 3, it shouldn't be needed as the standard Windows Balanced power plan should suffice. I don't have it installed and benchmark scores remain the same, real-world use remains the same, boosting remains the same, and power usage remains the same. Actually, without it installed (and still on Windows Balanced power plan), idle power usage drops to ~29W on a 5900X.

Anyway, here's a screenshot of the options I have with 3.10.22.706. That's a vendor-specific release, rather than an AMD release.

As for the version on AMD's website, I've only seen 3.10.08.506 for the last three'ish months.


----------



## dk_mic

If you download and start the installer from AMD, do you get the same options (7 vs 4)? Think I have never seen more than four on my machine.

So you're saying the power management package is only relevant for Zen2 and does nothing for Zen3? I always install it and am aware that balanced is the default and recommend for Zen3.


----------



## Piers

dk_mic said:


> If you download and start the installer from AMD, do you get the same options (7 vs 4)? Think I have never seen more than four on my machine.


Whether from Asus or AMD, I've always seen 7 options appear within the installer.


dk_mic said:


> So you're saying the power management package is only relevant for Zen2 and does nothing for Zen3? I always install it and am aware that balanced is the default and recommend for Zen3.


That's what I was told by AMD phone support, so I've not installed that part. In fact, see this post (part #1) to check your drivers. I've found it's far more effective to manually install drivers. It would appear the AMD installer is terrible (no surprise when it comes to AMD and software).


----------



## dk_mic

Alright, must be a chipset/motherboard thing then.
Can't check my device drivers history, since i purged all logs. But I have just re-installed chipset drivers from their website and all looks good. 
My sample does not exceed 1.5 V on stock settings.


----------



## Luggage

I wonder what you have enabled, i allways see the same four drivers as dk_mik(3800x, 5800x, x570 gpc and x570 unify). Then again I turn off anything I don’t think I need in bios.
Do you know what the other three do?
I2C, PSP and GPIO for promontory?


----------



## Piers

dk_mic said:


> My sample does not exceed 1.5 V on stock settings.


I meant the part of the post where it shows the Events tab in Device Manager. Every time I've installed drivers with AMD's installer, they don't install correctly.


----------



## Piers

Luggage said:


> Do you know what the other three do?
> I2C, PSP and GPIO for promontory?


Feel free to correct me if I'm incorrect.
*I2C *= IIC = helps motherboard devices communicate. In Windows, this can be helpful for pulling information onboard chips.
*PSP *= *P*latform *S*ecurity *P*rocessor = a separate on-die ARM CPU that handles security, such as during boot (UEFI -> OS)
*GPIO Promontory *= *G*eneral *P*urpose *I*nput *O*utput Promontory = a driver that helps the chipset communicate with devices and the CPU

Hope that's of some use.


----------



## dk_mic

Piers said:


> I meant the part of the post where it shows the Events tab in Device Manager. Every time I've installed drivers with AMD's installer, they don't install correctly.


Yes, I don't have the past events there, because I have purched all logs. But i just re-installed and it looks all good



Piers said:


> Feel free to correct me if I'm incorrect.
> *I2C *= IIC = helps motherboard devices communicate. In Windows, this can be helpful for pulling information onboard chips.
> *PSP *= *P*latform *S*ecurity *P*rocessor = a separate on-die ARM CPU that handles security, such as during boot (UEFI -> OS)
> *GPIO Promontory *= *G*eneral *P*urpose *I*nput *O*utput Promontory = a driver that helps the chipset communicate with devices and the CPU
> 
> Hope that's of some use.


I think this is specific for B550 or your motherboard


----------



## Piers

dk_mic said:


> Yes, I don't have the past events there, because I have purched all logs. But i just re-installed and it looks all good
> 
> 
> I think this is specific for B550 or your motherboard


Very, very surprised you don't have the PSP and I2C drivers. They are platform agnostic. In Device Manager under System Devices, do you see "AMD I2C Controller"?


----------



## dk_mic

no, it's not there.. neither unknown devices or devices with an exclamation mark


----------



## Piers

dk_mic said:


> no, it's not there.. neither unknown devices or devices with an exclamation mark


Bizarre. OS? X570 (I assume)? Board model?


----------



## dk_mic

Win10 Pro, MSI Unify X570


----------



## Luggage

dk_mic said:


> Win10 Pro, MSI Unify X570


Same.


http://imgur.com/a/DuAu2vL


Only I have lan, wifi and audio turned off in bios. But that should be different drivers anyway.


----------



## Piers

dk_mic said:


> Win10 Pro, MSI Unify X570


PSP: It would appear MSI has either disabled the PSP, or that MSI has done something to stop Windows from seeing it. It should be there. Here's a reddit thread with people asking the same question. Edit: Just realised you wrote Windows 10 - that's probably the reason you don't have the PSP enabled. If you upgrade to Windows 11, that should appear once you've enabled fTPM in your BIOS. I'm using Windows 11. 
I2C: It does exist on the board, along with the SMBus, as that's how HWiNFO reads data (bypassing the OS altogether). There's certainly talk of it
GPIO Promontory: Possibly chipset-related. Unsure. AMD mentions it in this page.

Here's a screenshot of my Device Manager showing the relevant parts.


----------



## dk_mic

Piers said:


> PSP: It would appear MSI has either disabled the PSP, or that MSI has done something to stop Windows from seeing it. It should be there. Here's a reddit thread with people asking the same question. Edit: Just realised you wrote Windows 10 - that's probably the reason you don't have the PSP enabled. If you upgrade to Windows 11, that should appear once you've enabled fTPM in your BIOS. I'm using Windows 11.
> I2C: It does exist on the board, along with the SMBus, as that's how HWiNFO reads data (bypassing the OS altogether). There's certainly talk of it
> GPIO Promontory: Possibly chipset-related. Unsure. AMD mentions it in this page.


I had Win11 installed, but reverted after about 15 minutes 😂
So, fTPM is enabled in BIOS, it shows up under security devices
Here is what it looks like for the rest of AMD system devices.









So, I guess a MSI thing.

Lets get back to topic, dual ccd Zen 3 overclocking!


----------



## Piers

dk_mic said:


> I had Win11 installed, but reverted after about 15 minutes 😂
> So, fTPM is enabled in BIOS, it shows up under security devices
> Here is what it looks like for the rest of AMD system devices.
> View attachment 2542962
> 
> 
> So, I guess a MSI thing.
> 
> Lets get back to topic, dual ccd Zen 3 overclocking!


I didn't have a choice over OS, unfortunately. Windows 11 isn't terrible - have got used to the layout, but it feels like an unfinished, untested OS.

Regarding I2C, I'll assume the SMBus assumes its functionality. As for the PSP - that's part of the CPU - either Windows 10 doesn't use it, or MSI's done something very odd to hide it.


----------



## 1devomer

dk_mic said:


> I had Win11 installed, but reverted after about 15 minutes 😂
> So, fTPM is enabled in BIOS, it shows up under security devices
> Here is what it looks like for the rest of AMD system devices.
> View attachment 2542962
> 
> 
> So, I guess a MSI thing.
> 
> Lets get back to topic, dual ccd Zen 3 overclocking!


It doesn't matter if one can see or not the PSP in windows, it is enabled by default.
The AGESA allow an option in the bios, if it is implemented, to disable the PSP, but in the sense of hiding it to higher level OS.

The PSP is always active, it is a small ARM cpu that run its own firmware and have access to ring -1, which mean the whole machine.
It is devoted to enforce the AMD DRM platform, which include security and locking features mechanism.
Another PSP like processor will be added in the next future, called Pluton and designed by Micros$aft.

Aside you are planning to use Hydra, RyzenMaster or for testing purposes, i would stick the stock Windows driver, for both Zen2 and Zen3.
Remember to reset the CMOS setting when uninstalling Hydra / RyzenMaster.


One can always crosscheck the manufacturer drivers with the one already included in the Microsoft Update Catalog.
It is a handy tool, one can find all sort of thing like drivers, one can find the device by name or by hardware ID.


----------



## dk_mic

1devomer said:


> Things aside, if you want to play with Hydra, RyzenMaster, i would use the stock Windows driver, for both Zen2 and Zen 3.
> Remember to reset the CMOS setting when uninstalling Hydra / RyzenMaster.


you mean we should not install the chipset driver at all when using Hydra or Ryzen Master or do you mean the windows power plan?

Also- why is a cmos clear needed after uninstalling Hydra?


----------



## 1devomer

dk_mic said:


> you mean we should not install the chipset driver at all when using Hydra or Ryzen Master or do you mean the windows power plan?
> 
> Also- why is a cmos clear needed after uninstalling Hydra?


The baseline would be the Windows drivers.
Testing and following the chipset driver versions can be time-consuming, in my opinion.
If the cpu perform well with the Windows drivers, and it does over a long period of time.
Better let Windows update the system drivers by itself when it needs to.

On the other hand, for testing purpose, one want to compare how different drivers behave with different bios and tools.

Clearing the CMOS is a good standard practice, to get back to a clean setup, when fiddling too much with the cpu.


----------



## Piers

> It doesn't matter if one can see or not the PSP in windows, it is enabled by default.
> The AGESA allow an option in the bios, if it is implemented, to disable the PSP, but in the sense of hiding it to higher level OS.


It doesn't strictly matter, apart from seeing the driver status (as I found useful to see the drivers for it were not running correctly). It's still odd that MSI would hide it from the user. It's possible that it's a BIOS option.



dk_mic said:


> you mean we should not install the chipset driver at all when using Hydra or Ryzen Master or do you mean the windows power plan?
> 
> Also- why is a cmos clear needed after uninstalling Hydra?


You should absolutely install the chipset drivers when using Ryzen Master. As for Hydra, I believe the requirements are essentially the same as for CTR (LLC level 3 for Asus, auto Vcore, etc.). Hydra is not meant to use the system driver any more (as CTR did) so you shouldn't need to reset CMOS, but it doesn't hurt to do so. After using CTR a few times (to see if 'Gold', 'Silver', 'Bronze' sample etc. - this depended on LLC which showed it was not a reliable application) I reset the CMOS. If your motherboard has a reset CMOS button, then it's even easier. In my case, Asus was too tight to spend the £0.10p for a button to go over the CMOS pins on a motherboard costing £230 (US$315 / 2,750 kr)...

Honestly, it seems you are confident with BIOS overclocking, so I see little point in your using Hydra (unless it's out of curiosity).

_EDIT: I meant to add that an exploit was found with the PSP, which was patched via BIOS updates, but motherboard vendors had the option to let users enable or disable it (disabling it and not updating the BIOS = vulnerability removed). It seems MSI decided to completely remove control for users in the 400 and 500 series (it was there on the 300 series), unlike with Asus, Gigabyte, and others. If you do have an option to change it, it'll be under CPU Settings in your BIOS. I'm not sure if the MSI BIOS has a search feature, but it would be interesting to see if MSI has allowed users control over the PSP._


----------



## dk_mic

1devomer said:


> The baseline would be the Windows drivers.
> Testing and following the chipset driver versions can be time-consuming, in my opinion.
> If the cpu perform well with the Windows drivers, and it does over a long period of time.


I just remember, when I got the chip in December 2020, I had a serious performance increase after installing the chipsets driver. I guess, nowadays, Windows will just install a version of AMDs chipset drivers on its own.



Piers said:


> It doesn't strictly matter, apart from seeing the driver status (as I found useful to see the drivers for it were not running correctly). It's still odd that MSI would hide it from the user. It's possible that it's a BIOS option.
> 
> 
> You should absolutely install the chipset drivers when using Ryzen Master. As for Hydra, I believe the requirements are essentially the same as for CTR (LLC level 3 for Asus, auto Vcore, etc.). Hydra is not meant to use the system driver any more (as CTR did) so you shouldn't need to reset CMOS, but it doesn't hurt to do so. After using CTR a few times (to see if 'Gold', 'Silver', 'Bronze' sample etc. - this depended on LLC which showed it was not a reliable application) I reset the CMOS. If your motherboard has a reset CMOS button, then it's even easier. In my case, Asus was too tight to spend the £0.10p for a button to go over the CMOS pins on a motherboard costing £230 (US$315 / 2,750 kr)...
> 
> Honestly, it seems you are confident with BIOS overclocking, so I see little point in your using Hydra (unless it's out of curiosity).
> 
> _EDIT: I meant to add that an exploit was found with the PSP, which was patched via BIOS updates, but motherboard vendors had the option to let users enable or disable it (disabling it and not updating the BIOS = vulnerability removed). It seems MSI decided to completely remove control for users in the 400 and 500 series (it was there on the 300 series), unlike with Asus, Gigabyte, and others. If you do have an option to change it, it'll be under CPU Settings in your BIOS. I'm not sure if the MSI BIOS has a search feature, but it would be interesting to see if MSI has allowed users control over the PSP._


Yes, I was just curious, how it rates the CPU and it's suggestion for CO values. Removed it afterwards. I have possibly cleared CMOS afterwards, since I always habe to do when playing with RAM or new AGESA versions


----------



## tonynca

Piers said:


> It doesn't strictly matter, apart from seeing the driver status (as I found useful to see the drivers for it were not running correctly). It's still odd that MSI would hide it from the user. It's possible that it's a BIOS option.
> 
> 
> You should absolutely install the chipset drivers when using Ryzen Master. As for Hydra, I believe the requirements are essentially the same as for CTR (LLC level 3 for Asus, auto Vcore, etc.). Hydra is not meant to use the system driver any more (as CTR did) so you shouldn't need to reset CMOS, but it doesn't hurt to do so. After using CTR a few times (to see if 'Gold', 'Silver', 'Bronze' sample etc. - this depended on LLC which showed it was not a reliable application) I reset the CMOS. If your motherboard has a reset CMOS button, then it's even easier. In my case, Asus was too tight to spend the £0.10p for a button to go over the CMOS pins on a motherboard costing £230 (US$315 / 2,750 kr)...
> 
> Honestly, it seems you are confident with BIOS overclocking, so I see little point in your using Hydra (unless it's out of curiosity).
> 
> _EDIT: I meant to add that an exploit was found with the PSP, which was patched via BIOS updates, but motherboard vendors had the option to let users enable or disable it (disabling it and not updating the BIOS = vulnerability removed). It seems MSI decided to completely remove control for users in the 400 and 500 series (it was there on the 300 series), unlike with Asus, Gigabyte, and others. If you do have an option to change it, it'll be under CPU Settings in your BIOS. I'm not sure if the MSI BIOS has a search feature, but it would be interesting to see if MSI has allowed users control over the PSP._












No. CTR uses LLC3. For Hydra, leave it on Auto per creator's recommendation.

Source: 




You don't need to clear BIOS after uninstalling Hydra if you just change back what you messed with. For CTR and Hydra you really didn't have to mess with much.


----------



## Piers

tonynca said:


> View attachment 2543579
> 
> 
> No. CTR uses LLC3. For Hydra, leave it on Auto per creator's recommendation.


I must have misread or misunderstood the igorsLab review. Thank you for the correction. 



tonynca said:


> You don't need to clear BIOS after uninstalling Hydra if you just change back what you messed with. For CTR and Hydra you really didn't have to mess with much.


With CTR, there were numerous reports that a CMOS reset was needed due to how it interfaced with Ryzen Master (driver-level). Some reports, albeit anecdotal, showed CTR changed default behaviour even if settings weren't saved.

I am yet to try Hydra but, after finding CTR only useful for VID tables and borderline unhelpful with the way it seemingly altered performance whether the user wanted it to or not, I'm apprehensive about how it behaves. There also don't seem to be many reviews of Hydra on this forum, where general opinion is much more likely to be informed than, for example, reddit.


----------



## Shenhua

Noob question. Is this better/easier than doing it manually via bios with corecycler or not really.


----------



## Piers

Shenhua said:


> Noob question. Is this better/easier than doing it manually via bios with corecycler or not really.


That's not a noob question - you shouldn't put yourself down. If you mean is Hydra better than BIOS overclocking, then I'd say no. However, it may help with BIOS overclocking. Although I've only used it once, if I remember correctly, like CTR it provides suggested clock tables which can be very helpful. It also provided Curve Optimiser suggestions. Hopefully someone more familiar with it can confirm what I've said or correct me.


----------



## _AntLionBR_

After a long time of testing and understanding the AMD platform better (since I never used it before). I came up with the following results with my R9 5950X:

-CCD1 

#C00: -23* best core
#C01: -30
#C02: -30
#C03: -30
#C04: -23* best core
#C05: -30
#C06: -30
#C07: -30

- CCD2

#C08: -25* best core
#C09: -25* best core
#C10: -30
#C11: -20
#C12: -30
#C13: -20
#C14: -30
#C15: -20

I ran 1H stability on each individual core in OCCT in AVX2 mode and all cores 100% stable.
My PBO2, the best results were PPT 220W/TDC 160A/EDC 150A.

Results of each core running 1H OCCT AVX2 in individual mode. Ryzen Master (as standard for reading clocks).

CCD1

#C00: Clock 4.799Mhz (peak) - Temp 79c
#CCD01: Clock 4.717Mhz (peak) - Temp 78c
#C02: Clock 4.648Mhz (peak) - Temp 82,2c
#C03: Clock 4.673Mhz (peak) - Temp 77c
#C04: Clock 4.762Mhz (peak) - Temp 83,1c
#C05: Clock 4.734Mhz (peak)- Temp 82,4c 
#C06: Clock 4.718Mhz (peak)- Temp 86,6c 
#C07: Clock 4.621Mhz (peak)- Temp 83c 

CCD2

#C08: Clock 4.636Mhz (peak) - Temp 77,1c 
#C09: Clock 4.665Mhz (peak) - Temp 78,7c 
#C10: Clock 4.661Mhz (peak) - Temp 76,7c 
#C11: Clock 4.534Mhz (peak) - Temp 78,9c 
#C12: Clock 4.575Mhz (peak) - Temp 78,9c 
#C13: Clock 4.556Mhz (peak) - Temp 78,5c 
#C14: Clock 4.589Mhz (peak) - Temp 81,4c 
#C15: Clock 4.505Mhz (peak) - Temp 80,6c

Image 1: Bench C20 e R23;
Image 2: Bench CPU-Z (here the effective clock was a bit higher);

What do you think of the result? Is it good?


----------



## Shenhua

Run core cycler on the lightest load. You need to test stability with light loads like sse not avx2.

Even if you have a gold sample, i have a hard time believing that the highest CO required is -20.


----------



## dk_mic

_AntLionBR_ said:


> My PBO2, the best results were PPT 220W/TDC 160A/EDC 150A.
> 
> What do you think of the result? Is it good?


How do you cool the CPU? Should get higher CB scores with higher EDC and a bit higher TDC if you have the temp headroom. I would also start with SSE instructions only for CO, not AVX2 instructions.

CoreCycler readme:
_Q: Why are you using SSE? AVX stresses the CPU much more!
A: Yes, AVX/AVX2 does stress the CPU more than the SSE mode. However it is exactly this additional load on the core which prevents the boost clock from reaching its maximum (because it is temperature and load dependant), and so you can't really detect these edge cases which eventuall can cause an error sooner or later. So while being somewhat counterintuitive, the SSE mode with its lighter load is actually the one that finds the most stability problems. However, you can change the mode to AVX or AVX2 in the config.ini if you're happy with only AVX/AVX2 stability._


----------



## _AntLionBR_

Shenhua said:


> Run core cycler on the lightest load. You need to test stability with light loads like sse not avx2.
> 
> Even if you have a gold sample, i have a hard time believing that the highest CO required is -20.


I tested 10 min just in SSE mode on each core to adjust the CO. After tuning, I tested 1H per core in AVX2 mode.

Core Cycler I can't configure correctly how to run the tests. My real language is Portuguese, English gets in the way of my interpretation.

I still don't understand how to do this and how to edit/change modes. If you can explain to me I would appreciate it.

Thanks for the answer!


----------



## Luggage

_AntLionBR_ said:


> I tested 10 min just in SSE mode on each core to adjust the CO. After tuning, I tested 1H per core in AVX2 mode.
> 
> Core Cycler I can't configure correctly how to run the tests. My real language is Portuguese, English gets in the way of my interpretation.
> 
> I still don't understand how to do this and how to edit/change modes. If you can explain to me I would appreciate it.
> 
> Thanks for the answer!


Not enough time spent running cs.
Run cs with sse huge over night as a start, for max boost.
For avx and mixed, run y-cruncher stress test all tests.



http://imgur.com/a/ZMnaGHQ


----------



## Piers

_AntLionBR_ said:


> I ran 1H stability on each individual core in OCCT in AVX2 mode and all cores 100% stable.
> My PBO2, the best results were PPT 220W/TDC 160A/EDC 150A.



One hour in OCCT with AVX isn't going to be great at finding weaknesses with your Curve due to it using AVX (lower boosts) 
One hour per core without randomised switching is generally not long enough and unlikely to be effective (after all, you're looking for crashing or errors at lower voltages). The randomisation and pause is important. 
Have you tried CoreCycler yet with its default (SSE) configuration? I've had a core produce an error after 18 hours. 
You PC will likely be stable for general use, but over time you'll most likely find stuttering, crashing, and silent corruption. 

OCCT and CoreCycler are, in my experience, the best ways to find and unstable Curve. And if your Curve values pass 20 iterations in CoreCycler, you have one of the best binned chips ever.


----------



## KedarWolf

Piers said:


> One hour in OCCT with AVX isn't going to be great at finding weaknesses with your Curve due to it using AVX (lower boosts)
> One hour per core without randomised switching is generally not long enough and unlikely to be effective (after all, you're looking for crashing or errors at lower voltages). The randomisation and pause is important.
> Have you tried CoreCycler yet with its default (SSE) configuration? I've had a core produce an error after 18 hours.
> You PC will likely be stable for general use, but over time you'll most likely find stuttering, crashing, and silent corruption.
> 
> OCCT and CoreCycler are, in my experience, the best ways to find and unstable Curve. And if your Curve values pass 20 iterations in CoreCycler, you have one of the best binned chips ever.


I'll post my Curve when I get home. I believe I'm all 30 with 10 Scaler and 200 Boost except four cores at 7-17-23-29 if I recall right. CoreCycler and Y-Cruncher stable.

My SIL Quality is crazy high.


----------



## Piers

_AntLionBR_ said:


> I tested 10 min just in SSE mode on each core to adjust the CO. After tuning, I tested 1H per core in AVX2 mode.



Firstly, the author suggests 6 hours *per thread. *That doesn't mean you need to do that, but I'd go with one iteration per thread.
Forget about AVX testing. AVX workloads rarely use a single core. And multi-core stability is far less likely to be impacted by your Curve. 



_AntLionBR_ said:


> Core Cycler I can't configure correctly how to run the tests. My real language is Portuguese, English gets in the way of my interpretation.


*You don't need to configure anything*. Simply run the bat file and leave it. The default configuration is more than sufficient. If it passes that, then you can tweak values and I know a number of users here, including me, will be happy to help create a custom configuration. 


_AntLionBR_ said:


> I still don't understand how to do this and how to edit/change modes. If you can explain to me I would appreciate it.



Don't change modes
Open the directory with CoreCycler and delete or rename you config file. 
Run CoreCycler and it will generate a new configuration file with suitable values, including core randomisation, pausing, and using SSE. 
Leave you PC for as long as you can. Ideally, leave it running for (# of threads) iterations. On a 5950X, that's 32 iterations.


----------



## Luggage

Piers said:


> One hour in OCCT with AVX isn't going to be great at finding weaknesses with your Curve due to it using AVX (lower boosts)
> One hour per core without randomised switching is generally not long enough and unlikely to be effective (after all, you're looking for crashing or errors at lower voltages). The randomisation and pause is important.
> Have you tried CoreCycler yet with its default (SSE) configuration? I've had a core produce an error after 18 hours.
> You PC will likely be stable for general use, but over time you'll most likely find stuttering, crashing, and silent corruption.
> 
> OCCT and CoreCycler are, in my experience, the best ways to find and unstable Curve. And if your Curve values pass 20 iterations in CoreCycler, you have one of the best binned chips ever.


Dont know if its because of temps or avx or no boost over ride - but he might be stable with that curve as long as he's not boosting higher than he is...


----------



## Luggage

KedarWolf said:


> I'll post my Curve when I get home. I believe I'm all 30 with 10 Scaler and 200 Boost except four cores at 7-17-23-29 if I recall right. CoreCycler and Y-Cruncher stable.
> 
> My SIL Quality is crazy high.
> 
> View attachment 2543888


scalar x10 and low co values - swings and round abouts or whats the expression?


----------



## Imprezzion

It ain't a fair comparison as mine's a B2 5900X and not a 5950 but still. I can get away with -20 on all cores. Even the weakest ones. I run -25 but I haven't tested that in Corecycler as long. -20 was overnight stable. And -25 is fine for weeks now in normal daily usage like gaming. Not a single core error or crash or whatever. Only a few FCLK related WHEA's as it is on the very edge at 1933 but that also doesn't really impact performance negatively with like 1 single WHEA every 3-4 days.


----------



## Luggage

The curve values alone doesn’t say very much.

Boost over ride plays a big part, +25 and +200 are different animals.
Scalar plays a big part, undervolt with co but overvolt with x10.
Motherboard droop or overvolting plays a big part.

Thermals play a very big part, if you run too hot too boost very high it doesn’t really matter if the v/f curve is off at the top because it never happens. If your ambient drops enough you might have to tweak the curve.

And of course workload, games and cb are rather light, unless you have and idle problem you can probably run an “unstable” curve forever without crashing.


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> It ain't a fair comparison ... I can get away with -20 on all cores ... but I haven't tested that in Corecycler as long.


So you're merely assuming it's stable based on insufficient stability testing.


Imprezzion said:


> And -25 is fine for weeks now in normal daily usage like gaming.


But you've already admitted that you've not completed proper stability testing...


----------



## Imprezzion

Piers said:


> So you're merely assuming it's stable based on insufficient stability testing.
> But you've already admitted that you've not completed proper stability testing...


-20 is tested plenty. Multiple overnight runs of Corecycler totalling about 21 hours, about 8 hours of TM5 and plenty of y-cruncher.

-25 is not tested as long. Maybe 6-8 hours. Good enough for what it's used for. -30 isn't stable on all cores. 

I still don't get the obsession people have with unrealistically long stress testing only to prove absolutely nothing and just cause a massive waste of energy, time and (possible) degradation..


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> I still don't get the obsession people have with unrealistically long stress testing only to prove absolutely nothing and just cause a massive waste of energy, time and (possible) degradation..


Literally the only reason I suggest a number of iterations is because I've seen what happens when one Curve value is only slightly incorrect - it can pass 20 iterations and then fail on the 21st. This means it's not truly stable and the user will likely see seemingly random issues as they use their PC more and more, including silent, slow corruption. Otherwise, I generally agree with you.


----------



## _AntLionBR_

Piers said:


> One hour in OCCT with AVX isn't going to be great at finding weaknesses with your Curve due to it using AVX (lower boosts)
> One hour per core without randomised switching is generally not long enough and unlikely to be effective (after all, you're looking for crashing or errors at lower voltages). The randomisation and pause is important.
> Have you tried CoreCycler yet with its default (SSE) configuration? I've had a core produce an error after 18 hours.
> You PC will likely be stable for general use, but over time you'll most likely find stuttering, crashing, and silent corruption.
> 
> OCCT and CoreCycler are, in my experience, the best ways to find and unstable Curve. And if your Curve values pass 20 iterations in CoreCycler, you have one of the best binned chips ever.


Excuse my ignorance, but what is the random switching you say?

I will try Core Cycler in default mode without messing with anything. Thanks for the help and advice.



Piers said:


> Firstly, the author suggests 6 hours *per thread. *That doesn't mean you need to do that, but I'd go with one iteration per thread.
> Forget about AVX testing. AVX workloads rarely use a single core. And multi-core stability is far less likely to be impacted by your Curve.
> 
> *You don't need to configure anything*. Simply run the bat file and leave it. The default configuration is more than sufficient. If it passes that, then you can tweak values and I know a number of users here, including me, will be happy to help create a custom configuration.
> 
> 
> Don't change modes
> Open the directory with CoreCycler and delete or rename you config file.
> Run CoreCycler and it will generate a new configuration file with suitable values, including core randomisation, pausing, and using SSE.
> Leave you PC for as long as you can. Ideally, leave it running for (# of threads) iterations. On a 5950X, that's 32 iterations.


You say it would be 32 iterations exactly because I use a 5950X. But how many iterations do you suggest I run it and say it's stable?

Thanks a lot again!



dk_mic said:


> How do you cool the CPU? Should get higher CB scores with higher EDC and a bit higher TDC if you have the temp headroom. I would also start with SSE instructions only for CO, not AVX2 instructions.
> 
> CoreCycler readme:
> _Q: Why are you using SSE? AVX stresses the CPU much more!
> A: Yes, AVX/AVX2 does stress the CPU more than the SSE mode. However it is exactly this additional load on the core which prevents the boost clock from reaching its maximum (because it is temperature and load dependant), and so you can't really detect these edge cases which eventuall can cause an error sooner or later. So while being somewhat counterintuitive, the SSE mode with its lighter load is actually the one that finds the most stability problems. However, you can change the mode to AVX or AVX2 in the config.ini if you're happy with only AVX/AVX2 stability._


I use an Asus Ryujin 2 360mm AIO.

I will try to mess better in EDC and TDC, although in the tests I did running the R23 for 10min (Test Throttling) and messing in real time both increasing and decreasing, the best score I could get was in these TDC 160A and EDC 150A.


----------



## Piers

_AntLionBR_ said:


> Excuse my ignorance, but what is the random switching you say?


The cores can be tested out of order and with a 15s break between the next test.


The break allows just enough time for cores to go to idle states/parked, but then be suddenly hit with a high SSE workload - this makes it more likely to show instability.
The random switching means that rather than CoreCycler testing cores in default order - 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 - it will instead randomise the order - for example 12,0,1,14,9,8,2 and so on - therefore suddenly switching between CCDs which is more likely to show instability.



_AntLionBR_ said:


> Thanks for the help and advice.


There's no need to thank me for providing advice. Helping people with overclocking is one of the cornerstones of this forum.


_AntLionBR_ said:


> But how many iterations do you suggest I run it and say it's stable?


If you do any work you value:

I'd go with six hours *per thread* (192 hours/8 days) as the author of CoreCycler recommends. However, that's not feasible for most people,
so a sensible alternative is 24 hours.
If that's still too long, I'd go with 24 iterations.
After about 7-10 (IIRC) iterations, the algorithm repeats itself meaning (for example) you can test over night whilst asleep and then stop the test for daytime use. Then you can restart it to run for the following night and repeat that for as many nights as you can, obviously remembering to add the hours together.


----------



## tonynca

Does anyone know a good way to test idle/light work loads? I noticed that when you go a bit overboard with the undervolting using CO, it's the idle/light work loads that tends to crash the system. Not the high load.


----------



## Piers

tonynca said:


> Does anyone know a good way to test idle/light work loads? I noticed that when you go a bit overboard with the undervolting using CO, it's the idle/light work loads that tends to crash the system. Not the high load.


CoreCycler or OCCT paid (for longer testing).


----------



## tonynca

Piers said:


> CoreCycler or OCCT paid (for longer testing).


Those are not really light workloads though.


----------



## Piers

tonynca said:


> Those are not really light workloads though.


CoreCycler is designed to look for instability due to bad Curves.


----------



## tonynca

Piers said:


> CoreCycler is designed to look for instability due to bad Curves.


i don’t think it’ll be able to simulate idle crashes. It’s usually a light work load like loading a webpage or something as simple as navigating through an Explorer window that causes the crash


----------



## KedarWolf

tonynca said:


> i don’t think it’ll be able to simulate idle crashes. It’s usually a light work load like loading a webpage or something as simple as navigating through an Explorer window that causes the crash


You can make a .cmd script to open chrome to a bookmark, then close it again like a few seconds later, and repeat over and over. Not hard to do. Google is your friend. Just make the homepage for the load that often crashes low idle loads before running the script. Or open and close explorer repeatedly.


----------



## MadGoat

I decided to revisit my pbo2 settings on my 5950x. I noticed my time spy CPU score was a little low compared to others but my cpuz was about right. (Cpuz: multi ~13200 single ~665, time spy: CPU 9500) I upped my edc from 220 to 275 and ppt from 180 to 220 and ran again. Time spy CPU score went up over 10k but cpuz went down to multi: 12900 single: 650. 

Thoughts?


----------



## KedarWolf

MadGoat said:


> I decided to revisit my pbo2 settings on my 5950x. I noticed my time spy CPU score was a little low compared to others but my cpuz was about right. (Cpuz: multi ~13200 single ~665, time spy: CPU 9500) I upped my edc from 220 to 275 and ppt from 180 to 220 and ran again. Time spy CPU score went up over 10k but cpuz went down to multi: 12900 single: 650.
> 
> Thoughts?


I think there is something wrong with your Time Spy CPU score.

I have a really aggressive Curve but I scored 16385.

I scored 0 in Time Spy Custom 

Do you have Rebar enabled globally with Nvidia Inspector?


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf said:


> I think there is something wrong with your Time Spy CPU score.
> 
> I have a really aggressive Curve but I scored 16385.
> 
> I scored 0 in Time Spy Custom
> 
> Do you have Rebar enabled globally with Nvidia Inspector?


System Info updated next run.


----------



## KedarWolf

MadGoat said:


> I decided to revisit my pbo2 settings on my 5950x. I noticed my time spy CPU score was a little low compared to others but my cpuz was about right. (Cpuz: multi ~13200 single ~665, time spy: CPU 9500) I upped my edc from 220 to 275 and ppt from 180 to 220 and ran again. Time spy CPU score went up over 10k but cpuz went down to multi: 12900 single: 650.
> 
> Thoughts?


You must mean Time Spy Extreme.


----------



## MadGoat

KedarWolf said:


> You must mean Time Spy Extreme.
> 
> View attachment 2544795


Yes, you are correct. 

Just find it curious. Performance in all applications and games is great regardless... Just curious what y'all have seen as the best "all around" daily driver pbo setup for a5950x


----------



## Luggage

MadGoat said:


> Yes, you are correct.
> 
> Just find it curious. Performance in all applications and games is great regardless... Just curious what y'all have seen as the best "all around" daily driver pbo setup for a5950x


Cpu-z likes really low PBO limits, like lower than stock because it’s almost fully thermaly constrained.
Cinebench like a bit of PPT but not so much tdc,edc.
Heavier workloads needs more of everything.

So it depends.


----------



## MadGoat

Luggage said:


> Cpu-z likes really low PBO limits, like lower than stock because it’s almost fully thermaly constrained.
> Cinebench like a bit of PPT but not so much tdc,edc.
> Heavier workloads needs more of everything.
> 
> So it depends.


Ah, that would explain what I'm seeing then. I've found Cpuz really hates EDC and timespy loves it. 

Any experience to offer for a comfortable daily driven pbo setup? I had originally tweaked mine for just decent temp and performance but it turned out my frame times were suffering on the lows. 

I've got her juiced up now, tdc 150, EDC 200 and ppt 230. Frame times are great now but temps get up there ~74c at water temp stabilizes. (I guess that temp is still fine)


----------



## JohnnyFlash

tonynca said:


> i don’t think it’ll be able to simulate idle crashes. It’s usually a light work load like loading a webpage or something as simple as navigating through an Explorer window that causes the crash


The true answer is that for real, trustworthy stability, you need to use an all-core setting. I always ruffle feathers when I say that, but I get no WHEAs, no crashes, and my system is working 24/7. If I was primarily a gamer and not concerned about smaller errors here and there I would use PBO too.

You can make a prefered-core-only boost profile in Ryzen Master as well, if you need single core speed for a specific task. I don't think many people know that.


----------



## MadGoat

Well,

I've played around with vcore offsets. Currently running:

vCore Offset -.03125
CO -10 Core 0,1,4,6,7 -2
PPT 230
TDC 150 
EDC 200

Testing
Benchmarks so decent middle ground in scores, cpuz s660 m13000, timespy ex cpu 10064 and r23 29000.
2 iterations of core cycler stable. I know that is nothing for a stability test, it at least proves the machine isn't going to puke right away. 

Temps are not too much different, max 80c, gaming ~70c, basic tasks ~45c, idle 38c 

I did tighten up the power on my x470-f however. 
Phase control 400khz
LLC level 3 (out of 10 on this board)

Interesting if anything.


----------



## Owterspace

I use 216ppt 145tdc and 180edc with an air cooler, it works well. No LLC on cores, just on SOC. Board will feed my cpu 1.535-1.54 with those settings and will hit those limits lol.. max PBO all core is 4500 loaded with Linpack, and will boost to 5150ish for a Super Pi 32M run.


----------



## MadGoat

Eek, those volts though. What are your temps and is it capable of sustained all core load? (I wonder about throttling)

I'm getting 4600 all core and 4925 max boost (effective clocks). Lightly threaded it jumps between 4.8 and 4.9. Max voltage I'm seeing is 1.47.

I've tweaked a bit more and have her sitting with these settings:

PBO
PPT 230
TDC 150
EDC 200
Scalar x10

Voltage
vCore Offset -.03125
CO 6,7(best cores) -3 / 1,4 (Socond best) -5 / All others -10
LLC Level 3
Phase control 400khz

cpuz -s665 m13200
r23 - 29000
timespy extreme cpu - 10064

Max temp still hits 80c (all core load), multi threaded 72-74c, gaming (4-6 thread) 68-70c. Cooled with an old modified gen1 H220.

So far, I'm very happy with this as a daily driver setup. the negative core offset really seems to help a LOT. I'll run core cycler overnight and continue to stability test throughout the week.


----------



## dk_mic

Question about the order of setting up CO and PBO limits:

Would you rather 


build the curve while PBO limits are at stock, then adjust PPT/TDC/EDC after your liking/performance/cooling capability afterwards
build the curve with motherboard limits or something like 500/500/500, then adjust limits
find preferred PPT/TDC/EDC without CO and then build the curve with those limiters active

What makes the most sense, or am I overthinking this?


----------



## Luggage

dk_mic said:


> Question about the order of setting up CO and PBO limits:
> 
> Would you rather
> 
> 
> build the curve while PBO limits are at stock, then adjust PPT/TDC/EDC after your liking/performance/cooling capability afterwards
> build the curve with motherboard limits or something like 500/500/500, then adjust limits
> find preferred PPT/TDC/EDC without CO and then build the curve with those limiters active
> 
> What makes the most sense, or am I overthinking this?


From my experience co don’t care about PBO limits only scalar, offset and llc.


----------



## dk_mic

Alright, just received a 5950X 2201 SUS as RMA return, should be B2 stepping, not even a month old.
Looking forward to play with that new sample. My previous one was 2046 SUS and not stable at stock, needed positive CO offset.


----------



## Lyzzsha

dk_mic said:


> Alright, just received a 5950X 2201 SUS as RMA return, should be B2 stepping, not even a month old.
> Looking forward to play with that new sample. My previous one was 2046 SUS and not stable at stock, needed positive CO offset.


Cool. Waiting your review


----------



## MadGoat

Just wanted to update on my vcore offset experimenting. I have not set a negative offset of -.1. Proc now maxes out at 1.4v and is on average 6c cooler all around. Boost frequency is much higher and longer now. 

I can legit suggest now that using a negative offset in conjunction with your PBO settings is the way to go!


----------



## Luggage

MadGoat said:


> Just wanted to update on my vcore offset experimenting. I have not set a negative offset of -.1. Proc now maxes out at 1.4v and is on average 6c cooler all around. Boost frequency is much higher and longer now.
> 
> I can legit suggest now that using a negative offset in conjunction with your PBO settings is the way to go!


In theory it should make your co values unstable unless you raise them by 10(?) if they where on the limit. Which would bring us back where we started…

I might have this wrong…


----------



## Owterspace

MadGoat said:


> Eek, those volts though. What are your temps and is it capable of sustained all core load? (I wonder about throttling)


The volts arent a problem.

Linpack runs at 4500,, OCCT runs at 4750, TM5 runs at 4850, these are effective clocks. Pi32m runs at 5150. All core temps are usually upper 70s, lower 80s. My fans mixed with a Meshify C make for a potent combo. Also, FS140 is an excellent cooler, I would recommend.

Max voltage 1.545v, usually 1.535v.


----------



## ryouiki

Anyone have any insight on the date codes for B2 stepping 5950X? I just received one with 2146, which puts it around the 3rd week of November?


----------



## Imprezzion

ryouiki said:


> Anyone have any insight on the date codes for B2 stepping 5950X? I just received one with 2146, which puts it around the 3rd week of November?


2142 and up is b2 afaik.


----------



## FlanK3r

looking forward for B2 results in the forum!


----------



## Rujaza

Imprezzion said:


> 2142 and up is b2 afaik.


I can confirm only SUS with that date. 2148 SUT are B0.


----------



## dk_mic

Here a screenshot of the 5950X B2 with some first impressions. This is 100% at stock with Agesa 1.2.0.3c. Probably going to move to 1.2.0.5 eventhough voltage is reduced when going higher EDC.
CCD1 boosts to 5 GHz on all but one core, CCD2 to 4.8 - 4.9 GHz. CPU-Z 681 / 12129 (Core 0 not the best core though).
It can boot FCLK 2100, still WHEAs at 2000, which i couldn't get rid of, but didn't try too hard.
Didn't test anything else yet, but the weekend starts here and I just installed my first custom loop 

I think the CPU is nothing extraordinary? But I don't remember bone stock data of my previous sample. IOD is definitely WAY better on this one.










edit:
CB R20 ST: 635 MT: 10055
CB R23 MT: 25777


----------



## ryouiki

Imprezzion said:


> 2142 and up is b2 afaik.


Thanks, I'll be able to actually confirm in a few days, but have to teardown loop to install this so right now still sitting in the box.


----------



## ArchStanton

@Piers Your thoughts on the 720K-720K "flavor" of CoreCycler burried far back in the bowels of this thread? I would welcome the opinion of others as well of course.


----------



## Piers

ArchStanton said:


> @Piers Your thoughts on the 720K-720K "flavor" of CoreCycler burried far back in the bowels of this thread? I would welcome the opinion of others as well of course.


Not near PC/using phone. I'd test with the defaults for a longer period (min. 2h per thread). I've not found the ones supposedly optimised for Zen 3 (assuming the 720k flavour is for P95) any better at detecting instability. CoreCycler as a whole is a great script, and many people have found the y-cruncher option faster at detecting instability. Personally, I've not.


----------



## ArchStanton

Apologies, I mis-remembered what thread it was present in.



boldenc said:


> I am having hard time passing FFT 720k when testing my CO with CoreCycler so I suggest who ever looking for better stability to test custom FFT with CoreCycle in # Prime95 specific settings and edit FFTSize = 720-720
> I have passed the custom presets including Moderate, Heavy, HeavyShort and Huge for hours fine. But this specific FFT 720k will fail on all cores and I had to lower my offset to pass it for 1 hour each core.
> And the best core couldn't pass it till I used 0 offset, this core still boosts to 5GHz with - 0 CO but was hoping for better offset to use but guess not the best luck.


Having used that specific size test myself, I can confirm CoreCycler generating errors that it previoulsy had not (no errors in 48hrs vs multiple errors in 5 minutes). Might check it out if/when you have time.


----------



## Piers

ArchStanton said:


> Apologies, I mis-remembered what thread it was present in.
> 
> 
> 
> Having used that specific size test myself, I can confirm CoreCycler generating errors that it previoulsy had not (no errors in 48hrs vs multiple errors in 5 minutes). Might check it out if/when you have time.


Since then I've reverted to stock for daily use, but plan to overclock it again soon. I'll try that size again, but it made no observable difference last time (obviously factors such as the Curve and silicon will impact that).


----------



## KedarWolf

Also passes Heavywith time on Auto for 24 hours so it goes through all the FFTs. 

brb, will take screenshots of my curve, it's quite aggressive.



Code:


Starting the CoreCycler...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- CoreCycler v0.8.2.4 started at 2022-01-29 04:21:48 --------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Log Level set to: ......... 2 [Writing debug messages to log file]
Stress test program: ...... PRIME95
Selected test mode: ....... SSE
Logical/Physical cores: ... 32 logical / 16 physical cores
Hyperthreading / SMT is: .. ON
Selected number of threads: 2
Runtime per core: ......... 6 MINUTES
Suspend periodically: ..... DISABLED
Restart for each core: .... OFF
Test order of cores: ...... DEFAULT (ALTERNATE)
Number of iterations: ..... 10000
Selected FFT size: ........ 720-720 (720K - 720K)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The log files for this run are stored in:
D:\CoreCycler-v0.8.2.4\CoreCycler-v0.8.2.4\logs\
- CoreCycler:   CoreCycler_2022-01-29_04-21-45_PRIME95_SSE.log
- Prime95:      Prime95_2022-01-29_04-21-45_SSE_720-720_FFT_720K-720K.txt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


04:21:50 - Iteration 1
----------------------------------
04:21:50 - Set to Core 0 (CPU 0 and 1)
           Running for 6 minutes...
04:27:52 - Completed the test on Core 0 (CPU 0 and 1)
04:27:52 - Set to Core 8 (CPU 16 and 17)
           Running for 6 minutes...
04:34:43 - Completed the test on Core 8 (CPU 16 and 17)
04:34:43 - Set to Core 1 (CPU 2 and 3)
           Running for 6 minutes...
04:41:42 - Completed the test on Core 1 (CPU 2 and 3)
04:41:42 - Set to Core 9 (CPU 18 and 19)
           Running for 6 minutes...
04:48:40 - Completed the test on Core 9 (CPU 18 and 19)
04:48:40 - Set to Core 2 (CPU 4 and 5)
           Running for 6 minutes...
04:54:41 - Completed the test on Core 2 (CPU 4 and 5)
04:54:41 - Set to Core 10 (CPU 20 and 21)
           Running for 6 minutes...
05:00:42 - Completed the test on Core 10 (CPU 20 and 21)
05:00:42 - Set to Core 3 (CPU 6 and 7)
           Running for 6 minutes...
05:06:43 - Completed the test on Core 3 (CPU 6 and 7)
05:06:43 - Set to Core 11 (CPU 22 and 23)
           Running for 6 minutes...
05:13:57 - Completed the test on Core 11 (CPU 22 and 23)
05:13:57 - Set to Core 4 (CPU 8 and 9)
           Running for 6 minutes...
05:20:49 - Completed the test on Core 4 (CPU 8 and 9)
05:20:49 - Set to Core 12 (CPU 24 and 25)
           Running for 6 minutes...
05:28:02 - Completed the test on Core 12 (CPU 24 and 25)
05:28:02 - Set to Core 5 (CPU 10 and 11)
           Running for 6 minutes...
05:34:10 - Completed the test on Core 5 (CPU 10 and 11)
05:34:10 - Set to Core 13 (CPU 26 and 27)
           Running for 6 minutes...
05:41:44 - Completed the test on Core 13 (CPU 26 and 27)
05:41:44 - Set to Core 6 (CPU 12 and 13)
           Running for 6 minutes...
05:48:42 - Completed the test on Core 6 (CPU 12 and 13)
05:48:42 - Set to Core 14 (CPU 28 and 29)
           Running for 6 minutes...
05:55:43 - Completed the test on Core 14 (CPU 28 and 29)
05:55:43 - Set to Core 7 (CPU 14 and 15)
           Running for 6 minutes...
06:02:42 - Completed the test on Core 7 (CPU 14 and 15)
06:02:42 - Set to Core 15 (CPU 30 and 31)
           Running for 6 minutes...
06:09:40 - Completed the test on Core 15 (CPU 30 and 31)

06:09:40 - Iteration 2
----------------------------------
06:09:40 - Set to Core 0 (CPU 0 and 1)
           Running for 6 minutes...
06:15:41 - Completed the test on Core 0 (CPU 0 and 1)
06:15:41 - Set to Core 8 (CPU 16 and 17)
           Running for 6 minutes...
06:22:51 - Completed the test on Core 8 (CPU 16 and 17)
06:22:51 - Set to Core 1 (CPU 2 and 3)
           Running for 6 minutes...
06:29:13 - Completed the test on Core 1 (CPU 2 and 3)
06:29:13 - Set to Core 9 (CPU 18 and 19)
           Running for 6 minutes...
06:36:11 - Completed the test on Core 9 (CPU 18 and 19)
06:36:11 - Set to Core 2 (CPU 4 and 5)
           Running for 6 minutes...
06:43:10 - Completed the test on Core 2 (CPU 4 and 5)
06:43:10 - Set to Core 10 (CPU 20 and 21)
           Running for 6 minutes...
06:50:11 - Completed the test on Core 10 (CPU 20 and 21)
06:50:11 - Set to Core 3 (CPU 6 and 7)
           Running for 6 minutes...
06:56:13 - Completed the test on Core 3 (CPU 6 and 7)
06:56:13 - Set to Core 11 (CPU 22 and 23)
           Running for 6 minutes...
07:02:14 - Completed the test on Core 11 (CPU 22 and 23)
07:02:14 - Set to Core 4 (CPU 8 and 9)
           Running for 6 minutes...
07:08:16 - Completed the test on Core 4 (CPU 8 and 9)
07:08:16 - Set to Core 12 (CPU 24 and 25)
           Running for 6 minutes...
07:14:17 - Completed the test on Core 12 (CPU 24 and 25)
07:14:17 - Set to Core 5 (CPU 10 and 11)
           Running for 6 minutes...
07:21:17 - Completed the test on Core 5 (CPU 10 and 11)
07:21:17 - Set to Core 13 (CPU 26 and 27)
           Running for 6 minutes...
07:28:16 - Completed the test on Core 13 (CPU 26 and 27)
07:28:16 - Set to Core 6 (CPU 12 and 13)
           Running for 6 minutes...
07:35:17 - Completed the test on Core 6 (CPU 12 and 13)
07:35:17 - Set to Core 14 (CPU 28 and 29)
           Running for 6 minutes...
07:41:52 - Completed the test on Core 14 (CPU 28 and 29)
07:41:52 - Set to Core 7 (CPU 14 and 15)
           Running for 6 minutes...
07:47:53 - Completed the test on Core 7 (CPU 14 and 15)
07:47:53 - Set to Core 15 (CPU 30 and 31)
           Running for 6 minutes...
07:53:54 - Completed the test on Core 15 (CPU 30 and 31)

07:53:54 - Iteration 3
----------------------------------
07:53:54 - Set to Core 0 (CPU 0 and 1)
           Running for 6 minutes...
07:59:56 - Completed the test on Core 0 (CPU 0 and 1)
07:59:56 - Set to Core 8 (CPU 16 and 17)
           Running for 6 minutes...
08:06:57 - Completed the test on Core 8 (CPU 16 and 17)
08:06:57 - Set to Core 1 (CPU 2 and 3)
           Running for 6 minutes...
08:13:55 - Completed the test on Core 1 (CPU 2 and 3)
08:13:55 - Set to Core 9 (CPU 18 and 19)
           Running for 6 minutes...
08:19:58 - Completed the test on Core 9 (CPU 18 and 19)
08:19:58 - Set to Core 2 (CPU 4 and 5)
           Running for 6 minutes...
08:25:59 - Completed the test on Core 2 (CPU 4 and 5)
08:25:59 - Set to Core 10 (CPU 20 and 21)
           Running for 6 minutes...
08:32:00 - Completed the test on Core 10 (CPU 20 and 21)
08:32:00 - Set to Core 3 (CPU 6 and 7)
           Running for 6 minutes...
08:38:01 - Completed the test on Core 3 (CPU 6 and 7)
08:38:01 - Set to Core 11 (CPU 22 and 23)
           Running for 6 minutes...
08:44:02 - Completed the test on Core 11 (CPU 22 and 23)
08:44:02 - Set to Core 4 (CPU 8 and 9)
           Running for 6 minutes...
08:50:03 - Completed the test on Core 4 (CPU 8 and 9)
08:50:03 - Set to Core 12 (CPU 24 and 25)
           Running for 6 minutes...
08:56:57 - Completed the test on Core 12 (CPU 24 and 25)
08:56:57 - Set to Core 5 (CPU 10 and 11)
           Running for 6 minutes...
09:02:58 - Completed the test on Core 5 (CPU 10 and 11)
09:02:58 - Set to Core 13 (CPU 26 and 27)
           Running for 6 minutes...
09:08:59 - Completed the test on Core 13 (CPU 26 and 27)
09:08:59 - Set to Core 6 (CPU 12 and 13)
           Running for 6 minutes...
09:15:00 - Completed the test on Core 6 (CPU 12 and 13)
09:15:00 - Set to Core 14 (CPU 28 and 29)
           Running for 6 minutes...
09:21:02 - Completed the test on Core 14 (CPU 28 and 29)
09:21:02 - Set to Core 7 (CPU 14 and 15)
           Running for 6 minutes...
09:28:12 - Completed the test on Core 7 (CPU 14 and 15)
09:28:12 - Set to Core 15 (CPU 30 and 31)
           Running for 6 minutes...
09:35:11 - Completed the test on Core 15 (CPU 30 and 31)

09:35:11 - Iteration 4
----------------------------------
09:35:11 - Set to Core 0 (CPU 0 and 1)
           Running for 6 minutes...
09:41:12 - Completed the test on Core 0 (CPU 0 and 1)
09:41:12 - Set to Core 8 (CPU 16 and 17)
           Running for 6 minutes...
09:48:13 - Completed the test on Core 8 (CPU 16 and 17)
09:48:13 - Set to Core 1 (CPU 2 and 3)
           Running for 6 minutes...
09:54:14 - Completed the test on Core 1 (CPU 2 and 3)
09:54:14 - Set to Core 9 (CPU 18 and 19)
           Running for 6 minutes...
10:00:16 - Completed the test on Core 9 (CPU 18 and 19)
10:00:16 - Set to Core 2 (CPU 4 and 5)
           Running for 6 minutes...
10:07:08 - Completed the test on Core 2 (CPU 4 and 5)
10:07:08 - Set to Core 10 (CPU 20 and 21)
           Running for 6 minutes...
10:14:06 - Completed the test on Core 10 (CPU 20 and 21)
10:14:06 - Set to Core 3 (CPU 6 and 7)
           Running for 6 minutes...
10:20:28 - Completed the test on Core 3 (CPU 6 and 7)
10:20:28 - Set to Core 11 (CPU 22 and 23)
           Running for 6 minutes...

My curve.




























The rest of my CPU settings are in the Spoiler. I HATE when someone posts a ton of pics, then, especially on mobile, the scroll is hell. 



Spoiler


----------



## ArchStanton

KedarWolf said:


> Also passes Heavy for 24 hours.
> 
> brb, will take screenshots of my curve, it's quite aggresive.


Thank you for checking it on your rig. Having read the entirety of this thread, I have been jealous of your particular CPU and your skills as an OC'er for some time now .


----------



## ArchStanton

@KedarWolf I have no idea if this has any effects on the results, but I notice a couple differences between your CoreCycler config and mine. I only have a single thread loaded at a time, and I have the default "periodic suspension" on. I will try to test later today/tomorrow and see if this has any effect on my results one way or the other.


----------



## KedarWolf

ArchStanton said:


> @KedarWolf I have no idea if this has any effects on the results, but I notice a couple differences between your CoreCycler config and mine. I only have a single thread loaded at a time, and I have the default "periodic suspension" on. I will try to test later today/tomorrow and see if this has any effect on my results one way or the other.


The reason why I run two threads is some other CPU core testers do by default, and I think it's better as it tests both threads in a core, not just the first thread.

If you check in Task Manager, Performance, right-click the graph, 'Change graph to: Logical processors', you'll see it's testing with one thread, only the first thread in the core is being tested with a single thread.

The Periodic Suspension might be good though, as it tests loading and unloading the CPU occasionally.


----------



## Piers

ArchStanton said:


> I only have a single thread loaded at a time, and I have the default "periodic suspension" on.


You want both of those - especially the first.

With the former, the entire point of CoreCycler is to test at relatively low usage (1C) with high clocks that might show Curve instability in the form of errors or crashes.

With the latter, this behaviour is to take the cores from idle to high clocks very quickly, again trying to show instability.

Without using a single thread during testing, people might as well use pretty much any other software.


----------



## KedarWolf

ArchStanton said:


> Thank you for checking it on your rig. Having read the entirety of this thread, I have been jealous of your particular CPU and your skills as an OC'er for some time now .


If you check, I added the screenshots.


----------



## ArchStanton

KedarWolf said:


> If you check, I added the screenshots.


Aye.


----------



## ArchStanton

Piers said:


> You want both of those - especially the first.


I thought this might be the case. I imagined the boost would be higher, and the likelihood of instability greater, with only a single thread loaded at a time.


----------



## KedarWolf

Piers said:


> You want both of those - especially the first.
> 
> With the former, the entire point of CoreCycler is to test at relatively low usage (1C) with high clocks that might show Curve instability in the form of errors or crashes.
> 
> With the latter, this behaviour is to take the cores from idle to high clocks very quickly, again trying to show instability.
> 
> Without using a single thread during testing, people might as well use pretty much any other software.


We argued this before, but it makes no sense why only checking one logical thread in a core is better.

I checked with two threads and one in HWInfo, two threads the boost is 4.775GHz, one thread, 4.8GHz, really makes little difference.

And if you check other versions of core testing programs, they default to two threads.

I agree with you on Periodically Suspend though.


----------



## Piers

KedarWolf said:


> two threads the boost is 4.775GHz, one thread, 4.8GHz, really makes little difference


We've debated it before. That small bump will make a difference to a heavily refined Curve such as yours.

The only reason to test two threads at a time is to cut time, but it's likely to be less accurate.


----------



## dk_mic

@KedarWolf Why the high SoC Voltage and why do you disable c-states?


----------



## Piers

dk_mic said:


> @KedarWolf Why the high SoC Voltage and why do you disable c-states?


1.2v SoC is really pushing it.


----------



## KedarWolf

dk_mic said:


> @KedarWolf Why the high SoC Voltage and why do you disable c-states?


I need it to run CL14 3800 RAM.


----------



## Piers

KedarWolf said:


> I need it to run CL14 3800 RAM.
> 
> View attachment 2545575


And with GDM disabled!!! Makes perfect sense. How are you finding the impact of such a high SoC ⚡ on overall chip heat output?


----------



## dk_mic

some preliminary results from the B2 stepping 5950X

MSI Unify X570, AGESA 1.2.0.5, default bios settings with following changes:

PPT 300, TDC 168, EDC 220
VRM switching frequency 1000 Hz
SoC 1.100, VDDP 0.860, CCD 0.950, IOD 1.050
defaults: c-states enabled, cppc enabled, cppc per core enabled, auto vcore, auto llc, auto scalar, no telemetry trickery (hwinfo reports 100.8% power deviation under cinebench load)

I am aware that Vcore is limited to 1.425 or so.
Spend some time with core cycler to get my CO curve and it turned out really low:


core0​1​2​3​4​5​6​7​8​9​10​11​12​13​14​15​rating203​212​208​190​199​185​212​194​176​158​167​172​154​149​163​181​co30​20​30​30​30​30​21​30​25​29​30​29​30​30​27​23​

With those settings, boost tester gets all cores to 5 Ghz










Then I added 100 Mhz boost override. CCD0 added those 100 Mhz in boost tester, CCD1 did not.
Benchmarks didn't improve though, so i reverted the boost override.

Then I lowered VDDGs and SoC, but that also didnt improve benchmarks.

Here are my results (3D = 3D Mark CPU test)

3D 1T3D 2T3D 4T3D 8T3D 16T3D 32TCB20 1TCB20 MTCB23 1TCB23 NTCPUZ 1TCPUZ NTPPTTDCEDCAGESABIOSVRM SwitchingVSOCVDDPVDDG CCDVDDG IODPBOOffset FreqComment1003199038187088120881445212014166530933697.313583.73001682201205C110001.1000.8600.9501.050Curve0100219943827712111927144301205331052695.813595.23001682201205C110001.1000.8600.9501.050Curve100CCD0 boosts +100, benchmarks unaffected1003199738187115119161447211996166430863695.513571.13001682201205C110001.0750.8600.8600.980Curve0lower voltages, benchmarks unaffected

I will continue running core cycler, to verify the curve and probably play around with power limits in the future.


----------



## KedarWolf

Piers said:


> And with GDM disabled!!! Makes perfect sense. How are you finding the impact of such a high SoC ⚡ on overall chip heat output?


With Twitch open in the browser, and Diablo 3 running, and an EKWB Predator 360 AIO with an Optimus Foundation block thrown on, I average around 53C, t-die the hottest, with rather warm ambient temps currently. Hard to PrintScreen a screenshot of HWInfo as with Diablo 3 running it defaults to a screenshot of the game window only, D3 thing. I'll log a minute though.






Online CSV Viewer


The tool will help you view your CSV or various formats of delimited files online when load your file. The CSV Viewer is very powerful, in the display filed, click the column heading it will sort the columns, move cursor to right side of column heading resize your columns and so on.



www.becsv.com





Rename the file and remove the .txt.


----------



## Piers

Edit: for comparison, thought I'd share a screenshot of a stock (_power limit, not RAM. No other changes made to limits. All set to AMD defaults_) 5900X with B0 stepping.














dk_mic said:


> some preliminary results from the B2 stepping 5950X
> 
> MSI Unify X570, AGESA 1.2.0.5, default bios settings with following changes:
> 
> PPT 300, TDC 168, EDC 220
> VRM switching frequency 1000 Hz
> SoC 1.100, VDDP 0.960, CCD 0.950, IOD 1.050
> defaults: c-states enabled, cppc enabled, cppc per core enabled, auto vcore, auto llc, auto scalar, no telemetry trickery (hwinfo reports 100.8% power deviation under cinebench load)
> 
> I am aware that Vcore is limited to 1.425 or so.
> Spend some time with core cycler to get my CO curve and it turned out really low:
> 
> 
> core0​1​2​3​4​5​6​7​8​9​10​11​12​13​14​15​rating203​212​208​190​199​185​212​194​176​158​167​172​154​149​163​181​co30​20​30​30​30​30​21​30​25​29​30​29​30​30​27​23​
> 
> With those settings, boost tester gets all cores to 5 Ghz
> View attachment 2545622
> 
> 
> 
> Then I added 100 Mhz boost override. CCD0 added those 100 Mhz in boost tester, CCD1 did not.
> Benchmarks didn't improve though, so i reverted the boost override.
> 
> Then I lowered VDDGs and SoC, but that also didnt improve benchmarks.
> 
> Here are my results (3D = 3D Mark CPU test)
> 
> 3D 1T3D 2T3D 4T3D 8T3D 16T3D 32TCB20 1TCB20 MTCB23 1TCB23 NTCPUZ 1TCPUZ NTPPTTDCEDCAGESABIOSVRM SwitchingVSOCVDDPVDDG CCDVDDG IODPBOOffset FreqComment1003199038187088120881445212014166530933697.313583.73001682201205C110001.1000.8600.9501.050Curve0100219943827712111927144301205331052695.813595.23001682201205C110001.1000.8600.9501.050Curve100CCD0 boosts +100, benchmarks unaffected1003199738187115119161447211996166430863695.513571.13001682201205C110001.0750.8600.8600.980Curve0lower voltages, benchmarks unaffected
> 
> I will continue running core cycler, to verify the curve and probably play around with power limits in the future.


Nice detailed post.


dk_mic said:


> VRM switching frequency 1000 Hz


What's been your experience of frequency and stability with B0 and B2?


dk_mic said:


> I am aware that Vcore is limited to 1.425 or so


IIRC this is part of the AGESA 1.2.0.5 update.


----------



## dk_mic

Piers said:


> Nice detailed post.
> 
> What's been your experience of frequency and stability with B0 and B2?
> IIRC this is part of the AGESA 1.2.0.5 update.


Regarding switching frequency. I actually tuned the curve on auto. Afterwards i set it to 1000 Hz. I have no experience and never noticed a difference in short benchmarks. If and how it contributes to stability, I don't know.

I am aware that the Vcore limit is on AGESA. Veii recommended to run 1.2.0.4+ for the B2 stepping. There are ways to get 1.5V back and keep high EDC.. with Ryzen Master I think.
Anyways, 1660 CB 23 single core is alright i guess. Going to check single core under default powerlimits another day. 

So, on paper, the synthetic benchmarks are better compared to my early 2046 sample plus it is stable at stock settings and reaches nice boosts.
IOD is also greatly improved, I could easily boot 2100 FCLK.

If this is due to lottery or an actual improvement in B2, I really don't know. Curve looks definitly lower than what we are used to with B0.

Can't compare temps 1:1 as i switched from Arctic LF2 280 to a custom loop when switching CPUs.


----------



## dk_mic

KedarWolf said:


> I need it to run CL14 3800 RAM.


Doesn't SoC eat into the power budget? Did you test if you really need it that high?
Here (with GDM though)









Also, disabling C-States seems to lower performance and I would only do it in case of USB problems or CPU instabilities.


----------



## Piers

dk_mic said:


> Afterwards i set it to 1000 Hz. I have no experience and never noticed a difference in short benchmarks. If and how it contributes to stability, I don't know.


Ah, I see. Perhaps @Veii could add an opinion?


dk_mic said:


> I am aware that the Vcore limit is on AGESA. Veii recommended to run 1.2.0.4+ for the B2 stepping.


1.2.0.3 is the last version without the new offset (.3 reaches 1.500V). 1.2.0.4 and beyond contain the change, as far as I'm aware. 


dk_mic said:


> 1660 CB 23 single core is alright i guess.


It's a good score. The highest I've reached is ~1,620 with a Curve, and ~1,610 on stock.


dk_mic said:


> Going to check single core under default powerlimits another day.


Will look out for it.


dk_mic said:


> it is stable at stock settings and reaches nice boosts.


Certainly appears to. I used BoostTester to provide a comparison with a B0 chip, if you're interested. It's a couple of posts above.


dk_mic said:


> IOD is also greatly improved, I could easily boot 2100 FCLK.


My 5900X can run 2000 (couldn't justify the cost for the final build, but it was stress-tested), but B2 stepping appears to have greater stability at lower voltages. 


dk_mic said:


> If this is due to lottery or an actual improvement in B2, I really don't know.


From all the reviews I've seen, it certainly appears B2 offers ~1% extra performance at stock compared directly to B0. That's certainly meaningful.


----------



## KedarWolf

dk_mic said:


> Doesn't SoC eat into the power budget? Did you test if you really need it that high?
> Here (with GDM though)
> View attachment 2545628
> 
> 
> Also, disabling C-States seems to lower performance and I would only do it in case of USB problems or CPU instabilities.


C-States disabled:


















C-States enabled:


----------



## Piers

KedarWolf said:


> C-States disabled:
> 
> View attachment 2545635
> 
> View attachment 2545636
> 
> 
> C-States enabled:
> 
> View attachment 2545639
> 
> View attachment 2545638


30k? That's amazing considering it's 3700 more than a stock 12900K pulling ~250W.


----------



## KedarWolf

dk_mic said:


> Doesn't SoC eat into the power budget? Did you test if you really need it that high?
> Here (with GDM though)
> View attachment 2545628
> 
> 
> Also, disabling C-States seems to lower performance and I would only do it in case of USB problems or CPU instabilities.





Piers said:


> 30k? That's amazing considering it's 3700 more than a stock 12900K pulling ~250W.


This passed 1000% TM5, one cycle. I need to do my usual 1000% 8 cycles overnight.

The difference from my old settings is either I'm using AMD overclocking now, or my upgrade from a B550 Unify-X to an X570S Unify-X Max, or both.


----------



## KedarWolf

Single-core is not that great.


----------



## Piers

KedarWolf said:


> Single-core is not that great.
> 
> View attachment 2545658


With your overclock, or is this stock?


----------



## KedarWolf

Piers said:


> With your overclock, or is this stock?


With my overclock.


----------



## Piers

KedarWolf said:


> With my overclock.


Seems like a perfectly reasonable score at the higher end. It's not the highest but silicon lottery etc. 

I've seen many samples not be able to reach 1600 both overclocked and stock.

There comes a point where the SC performance increase isn't noticeable outside of benchmarks. I've had access to my brother-in-law's 12900K and didn't find it any more responsive. It's like the SATA SSD vs. PCIe M.2. NVMe SSD - few people notice the difference.


----------



## KedarWolf

Piers said:


> Seems like a perfectly reasonable score at the higher end. It's not the highest but silicon lottery etc.
> 
> I've seen many samples not be able to reach 1600 both overclocked and stock.
> 
> There comes a point where the SC performance increase isn't noticeable outside of benchmarks. I've had access to my brother-in-law's 12900K and didn't find it any more responsive. It's like the SATA SSD vs. PCIe M.2. NVMe SSD - few people notice the difference.


I can get higher tweaking my PPT etc. But I get great multicore so keep it at that.


----------



## KedarWolf

This after flashing 1.2.0.5 BIOS, seeing all my scores were lower, flashing back 1.2.0.3c, reapplying manually all my OC settings.


----------



## dk_mic

dk_mic said:


> some preliminary results from the B2 stepping 5950X
> ...
> SoC 1.100, VDDP 0.860, CCD 0.950, IOD 1.050
> ...
> Then I lowered VDDGs and SoC, but that also didnt improve benchmarks.
> [- SoC 1.075, VDDP 0.860, CCD 0.860, IOD 0.980]


I could notice that this affected stability in core cycler, so I am back at

SoC 1.100, VDDP 0.860, CCD 0.950, IOD 1.050
and continue testing the curve.

Will revisit boost override freq, test LLC, c-states on/off when curve is fixed.



KedarWolf said:


> C-States disabled:
> 
> View attachment 2545635
> 
> View attachment 2545636
> 
> 
> C-States enabled:
> 
> View attachment 2545639
> 
> View attachment 2545638


That is interesting. Did you check single core scores?
Is that latency difference constant (double clicking just the latency result a few times). Needs to be tested with as little background load as possible, best is safe mode



KedarWolf said:


> This after flashing 1.2.0.5 BIOS, seeing all my scores were lower, flashing back 1.2.0.3c, reapplying manually all my OC settings.


yeah, there is a vcore limit in effect and probably a lot of other changes under the hood. Needs definitely a re-tune of the curve. Not sure if you can get the same performance out of it at all..


----------



## dk_mic

what a waste of time, but for science (5950X B2)

fan and pump speeds were fixed and water temperature was constant within 1-2 degrees over all those runs










agesa 1203 performs slightly better than 1205, but not 100% consistent (3D Mark 32T)
powerlimit behaviour as expected, but I don't understand how performance tanks so much in run 10
llc other than auto has no serious effect (only changed to 5 and 8 = highest droop, instead of auto)
vsoc 1.2/1.1V no real difference, maybe slighty worse performance (R15 272/276 and 5161/5276)
boost override: the extra MHz show up boost tester, but thats about it
c-states: disabling has a small performance hit

also tested IF... can boot to windows with 2100. WHEAs even at 1933.
tried combinations of different soc up to 1.2, cpu +1.8V up to 1.95, and vdd* voltages, no chance

i settled for the settings from run 4, agesa 1205, but will stress the co values more.


----------



## ArchStanton

CoreCycler seems to be the consensus tool for verifying Curve Optimizer settings on the Ryzen 5000 platform. As such, I have made frequent use of it to date. However, CoreCycler appears to indicate I have "out of the box" instabilities.

I have previously checked the RAM installed in the system (2 DIMM's only, 32GB total) using 10 cycles of Testmem5 ([email protected]) and OCCT (6 hours) with DOCP both enabled and disabled. I have never had either program indicate a memory error.

If I clear CMOS and start from scratch, I get the results detailed below.


























I'm not sure of the best way for me to proceed from here.

DEEP background if desired: My middle-aged overclocking adventure | Overclock.net


----------



## Bix

Same issue here. After flashing the new AGESA 1.2.0.5 I quickly found my previous overclock wasn't stable. Spent a lot of time checking memory and FCLK stability going slightly mad and eventually resorted to running Core Cycler after loading optimised defaults earlier today and... lo and behold, core 1 crashed during the first iteration. 

Something in the update has clearly changed the voltage/boosting behaviour of my 5900x and not sure where to go from here either. Could probably fix the issue using a positive offset, either to Vcore or using a positive C/O setting, but considering whether it's worth trying to RMA since it's crashing at stock settings and I might end up with a better binned chip. On the other hand I'd managed to get 2000fclk running stable with a decent memory oc in AGESA 1.2.0.3b which wasn't easy and might well be impossible with a replacement. Flashing back to the old bios doesn't change the problem so there's clearly been a microcode update to the CPU. Pretty gutted!


----------



## ArchStanton

Bix said:


> Same issue here.


I'm currently about five pages into this thread; CoreCycler - tool for testing Curve Optimizer settings | Overclock.net . I'm trying to learn as much as I can about the tool that's indicating I have issues. Starting at about post 94 in that thread, @ManniX-ITA starts getting out in the deeper water (prior to that, I also found the "problems" with certain versions of prime95 of interest, though I haven't investigated on that front). I will likely try to read through the complete thread before attempting anything else, as the posts I've mentioned are from 8 months ago.

Best of luck moving forward .


----------



## Piers

ArchStanton said:


> CoreCycler seems to be the consensus tool for verifying Curve Optimizer settings on the Ryzen 5000 platform. As such, I have made frequent use of it to date. However, CoreCycler appears to indicate I have "out of the box" instabilities.
> 
> I have previously checked the RAM installed in the system (2 DIMM's only, 32GB total) using 10 cycles of Testmem5 ([email protected]) and OCCT (6 hours) with DOCP both enabled and disabled. I have never had either program indicate a memory error.
> 
> If I clear CMOS and start from scratch, I get the results detailed below.
> 
> View attachment 2545833
> 
> View attachment 2545834
> 
> View attachment 2545835
> 
> 
> I'm not sure of the best way for me to proceed from here.
> 
> DEEP background if desired: My middle-aged overclocking adventure | Overclock.net


If it's showing instability out of the box with entirely default motherboard settings (all Asus overclocking options turned off, RAM at 3,200 MT/s or lower - i.e DOCP disabled), it's most likely a faulty CPU... OR _possibly_ due to the new AGESA 1.2.0.5. 

No CPU should fail Prime95 (CoreCycler default) when brand new and used within specification.

You could try an older BIOS (1.2.0.3 'patch C').

And since on phone, can't really see your PC spec properly. Did notice the tight timing on your RAM, but you said the errors occur with RAM operating at default (DOCP/XMP disabled).


----------



## ArchStanton

Piers said:


> instability out of the box with entirely default motherboard settings


Yes, I 100% have this.



Piers said:


> all Asus overclocking options turned off


Well, there's the pickle, the default settings include some form of PBO (not explicitly authorized by the owner in the settings), or so the clock speeds included in the HWiNFO64 pic above would imply.



Piers said:


> RAM at 3,200 MT/s or lower - i.e DOCP disabled


Ram was at the bare JDEC 2133 for the scenario above



Piers said:


> OR _possibly_ due to the new AGESA 1.2.0.5.


From what I've been reading today, I gather some relevant voltages are a little lower in this AGESA than previous. I'm currently trying to educate myself on this front. I believe I should also go back into this BIOS and explicitly disable anything PBO related. It just feels odd to me for this be the default condition of the system 🤷‍♂️.


----------



## Piers

ArchStanton said:


> Well, there's the pickle, the default settings include some form of PBO (not explicitly authorized by the owner in the settings), or so the clock speeds included in the HWiNFO64 pic above would imply.


On the 5900X, PB2 _(not PBO - AMD should have come up with different names, as the first is the built-in opportunistic boosting algorithm, with the latter being 'overclocking' in the way AMD sees it) _sees normal multiplier boosts to 49.5 (4.95 GHz). This is expected behaviour and will depend on power limits, heat, etc. It is not considered overclocking by AMD, whereas PBO is.

Here's a screenshot I've just taken to demonstrate that point _(ignore the heat - that was the result of 100% utilisation with priority set to real-time for 12 hours in a room that's 26°C)_.

The CPU is running at default power limits (as it looks like yours is in the screenshot) with the only form of overclocking being relatively slow RAM running at its XMP clocks and timings (18-22-22-42 / 1.35V / 3600).

On the 5950X, I believe the stock multiplier limit is 50.5 so seeing peaks of up to 5.50 GHz is normal due to higher silicon quality. I'm happy to be corrected about the 5950X stock multiplier.










*The first thing I would try is to close HWiNFO or disabled the Asus EC sensor from being monitored and try again. If that doesn't work, I'd try it in safe mode (unlikely to make a difference but only takes a few minutes - again, don't have HWiNFO or any other monitoring software open, such as Afterburner, iCUE, etc.)*



ArchStanton said:


> Ram was at the bare JDEC 2133 for the scenario above


Good to know.


ArchStanton said:


> From what I've been reading today, I gather some relevant voltages are a little lower in this AGESA than previous


If you have access to a previous BIOS with 1.2.0.3 ('patch C'), the first thing I'd try (depending on if Secure Boot is in use) is to flash back to the older BIOS with the older Agesa version.


ArchStanton said:


> I'm currently trying to educate myself on this front. I believe I should also go back into this BIOS and explicitly disable anything PBO related.


From the screenshot, it doesn't appear anything related to PBO is set to enabled. Some may be set to auto and Asus has a history of forcing options on people by going outside of Intel and AMD's specs., so you can check but I doubt it would be enabled this late in the release cycle.

Try doing an all-core Cinebench R23 run and check the power limits after this completes. If that shows a maximum of 142W (PPT), 95A (TDC), and 140A (EDC), then it's at stock. 



ArchStanton said:


> It just feels odd to me for this be the default condition of the system 🤷‍♂️.


I had a solid two months of non-stop issues with my CPU. It was then fixed by manually installing AMD's drivers, rather than using the installer which doesn't appear to work correctly, but that just appears to be me. The drivers showed as installed and working, but the Events tab showed another story. However, with yours it seems very different and your CPU should absolutely pass 1,000 hours of CoreCycler using CPU defaults and JEDEC 2133 RAM.

To recap as I tend to ramble;
*1.* Try rebooting your PC and do not open HWiNFO and make sure all monitoring software is closed (iCUE, Afterburner, other software to control/monitor fans etc. including services, if possible). Then try CoreCycler again.

*2.* If this does not work, try doing the same in Safe Mode. Again, make sure all monitoring software is closed.

*3.* If that doesn't work and errors are still being shown with such a basic task, I would then backup important data (as a precaution) and try the BIOS available for your board with "AGESA 1.2.0.3 Patch C", as it's described for my Asus B550-E.

*4.* If that STILL shows errors, I'd start to think the CPU may be faulty.


----------



## ArchStanton

Piers said:


> PB2 _(not PBO - AMD should have come up with different names, as the first is the built-in opportunistic boosting algorithm, with the latter being 'overclocking' in the way AMD sees it) _sees normal multiplier boosts to 49.5 (4.95 GHz). This is expected behaviour and will depend on power limits, heat, etc. It is not considered overclocking by AMD, whereas PBO is.


Thank you for the clarification . It would appear I do have PB2 enabled, but not PBO, and Corecycler will still fail on certain cores (I turned DOCP back on while explicitly disabling PBO in both "Extreme Tweaker" and the separate "AMD Overclocking" portions of the BIOS as I just don't believe RAM to be the issue, too many hours in TM5 & OCCT for me to think it remotely likely).










I'll begin making preparations for steps 1-4 as outlined in your previous post (with DOCP disabled to be as close to 100% sure as possible). Thank you for the guidance.


----------



## ArchStanton

@Piers Well, we can still fail with the goodies turned off.










And we can fail in safe mode too.









Thankfully, this is a "toy" at the moment, and it has no important data (only the pieces of my shattered OC'ing dreams lol). Time to go BIOS hunting.


----------



## ArchStanton

Last but not least, a failure with the previous BIOS/AGESA.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

ArchStanton said:


> DEEP background if desired: My middle-aged overclocking adventure | Overclock.net


Interesting 

Can you post a Zentimings screenshot?
Which BIOS are you running and which AGESA is using?


----------



## dk_mic

I don't know much about microcode revisions, but according to AIDA:
This here from my new 5950X (AGESA 1205) switches when I change AGESA to 1203 to 0A20124h and back, does not seem permanent.










And yes you can RMA the CPU if it's not passing P95 at stock. It was an easy and straightforward process for me (sent it friday, received replacement coming week on thursday).
But, you enter the silicon lottery again. My faulty chip was not prime stable under any BIOS version I have tried and needed a positive offset off +6/+7 on the best cores.Total performance difference in CB23 is like 30k vs 31k, so maybe not worth it.


----------



## KedarWolf

dk_mic said:


> I don't know much about microcode revisions, but according to AIDA:
> This here from my new 5950X (AGESA 1205) switches when I change AGESA to 1203 to 0A20124h and back, does not seem permanent.
> View attachment 2545921
> 
> 
> 
> And yes you can RMA the CPU if it's not passing P95 at stock. It was an easy and straightforward process for me (sent it friday, received replacement coming week on thursday).
> But, you enter the silicon lottery again. My faulty chip was not prime stable under any BIOS version I have tried and needed a positive offset off +6/+7 on the best cores.Total performance difference in CB23 is like 30k vs 31k, so maybe not worth it.


What motherboard do you have? Or actually, what AGESA 1.2.0.5 BIOS has that microcode?

Edit: Never mind, it's the F12 B2 revision BIOS.


----------



## dk_mic

KedarWolf said:


> What motherboard do you have? Or actually, what AGESA 1.2.0.5 BIOS has that microcode?
> 
> Edit: Never mind, it's the F12 B2 revision BIOS.


Unify X570. MSI added a 1.2.0.5 Beta BIOS again after initially removing it from their website (A.C1)


----------



## Kha

Hey guys, anyone got a B2 revision Ryzen 5xxx yet ? I am trying to find out the earliest release date for it.


----------



## ArchStanton

ManniX-ITA said:


> Can you post a Zentimings screenshot?
> Which BIOS are you running and which AGESA is using?


I'll upload those items when I get home this evening.


----------



## Piers

ArchStanton said:


> Last but not least, a failure with the previous BIOS/AGESA.
> 
> View attachment 2545913


To me that says faulty CPU or much less likely the motherboard, but it is Asus and that company's QC is now bollocks.

1. Can you post CPU-Z screenshots (all tabs)?

2. Did any Asus malware install itself, such as Armoury Crate or its Dual Overclocking AI crap?

3. Do you have Ryzen Master installed?

(edit)
4. You could enable PBO (in the AMD area and make sure the Asus area has it set to auto) and only change the Curve to increase (to keep it simple) everything by +10. It would be a first step and interesting to see if it helps. 

5. Last thing to try before RMA, if you want to would be manual Vcore to 1.55v and see if it passes the first few cores in CoreCycler. Obviously there is some additional risk there (seems like a dead CPU anyway) but it would be interesting to see if it helps as well.


----------



## Piers

Kha said:


> Hey guys, anyone got a B2 revision Ryzen 5xxx yet ? I am trying to find out the earliest release date for it.


A number of people with B2 stepping. General result (from here and reviews) appears to be ~1% more performance at slightly lower voltages/temps. 

Read this thread from about 15 pages back.


----------



## dk_mic

Piers said:


> A number of people with B2 stepping. General result (from here and reviews) appears to be ~1% more performance at slightly lower voltages/temps.
> 
> Read this thread from about 15 pages back.


how can you determine 1%? There is so much variation in silicon quality, motherboard vrms, cooling, benchmark software, agesa versions. On top of that you only have seen data from a very few B2 samples. If you really want to draw conclusions you'd need a lot of samples from both steppings tested under 100% identical conditions.


----------



## Piers

dk_mic said:


> how can you determine 1%? There is so much variation in silicon quality, motherboard vrms, cooling, benchmark software, agesa versions. On top of that you only have seen data from a very few B2 samples. If you really want to draw conclusions you'd need a lot of samples from both steppings tested under 100% identical conditions.


It's based on the many reviews online that conclude 1-2%, as well as the few samples here. The B2 stepping is better, but not by much.


----------



## dk_mic

I have seen many of the same regurgitated news articles about shamino's tests (who would probably work with some cherry picked chip) and something from scatterbencher (?) who tested a OEM 5900 chip. Not sure how you can generalize that. 
Do you have other sources?


----------



## FlanK3r

dk_mic said:


> how can you determine 1%? There is so much variation in silicon quality, motherboard vrms, cooling, benchmark software, agesa versions. On top of that you only have seen data from a very few B2 samples. If you really want to draw conclusions you'd need a lot of samples from both steppings tested under 100% identical conditions.


As always, new stepping is better in average OC (bronze sample vs bronze sample), have better IMC (extra 100-150 on IF and the same on memory-or double value in MTs  ), lower temps, better scaling with low voltage - include overclocking and also undervolting. A little loewr powerconsumption with same manual voltage and frequency. 
Its basicaly same behaviors like it was in time C2 vs C3 Denebs.


----------



## 1devomer

FlanK3r said:


> As always, new stepping is better in average OC (bronze sample vs bronze sample), have better IMC (extra 100-150 on IF and the same on memory-or double value in MTs  ), lower temps, better scaling with low voltage - include overclocking and also undervolting. A little loewr powerconsumption with same manual voltage and frequency.
> Its basicaly same behaviors like it was in time C2 vs C3 Denebs.


To be honest, i don't know anymore what AMD considers a bin and what it considers a stepping.
All i have heard is what you just described, B2 being better than the previous.
The point is, nobody has really check the bin that AMD ships on EPYC, so it is hard to judge.

As far as i looked for, i didn't find any article citing improved masks for some critical cpu layers.
Neither i found a clear article specifying the B2 stepping changes at a manufacturing level, if done at the substrate level, silicon level, etc.

The stepping being just a CPUID number, it is hard at the moment, without a sample big enough, to provide a solid conclusion.
As far as i know, the 3rd Gen XT cpu were not a new bin, nor a new stepping, but an improved manufacturing leap.
Still, AMD at the time didn't disclose fully what made the XT better, than the potato bin sold at 3rd Gen launch.


----------



## Piers

dk_mic said:


> I have seen many of the same regurgitated news articles about shamino's tests


I have no idea who "shamino" is and don't remember seeing his or her name mentioned. I've read reviews from people with B2 models.


FlanK3r said:


> As always, new stepping is better


Not always.


----------



## dk_mic

Piers said:


> I have no idea who "shamino" is and don't remember seeing his or her name mentioned. I've read reviews from people with B2 models.











Ryzen 5000 B2 stepping has lower consumption and lower temperatures


AMD released the latest Stepping B2 version of their Ryzen 5000 CPUs, including manufacturing advancements garnered during the last few months, resulting in more efficient work, lower consumption, and...




www.guru3d.com






https://skatterbencher.com/2021/09/19/skatterbencher-29-amd-ryzen-9-5900-b2-overclocked-to-5152-mhz/


also

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1486646970361909248I don't see any temp or power consumption improvements over my B0 chip..

would be nice if you could link the reviews you mention, because i found nothing at all


----------



## ManniX-ITA

dk_mic said:


> I have seen many of the same regurgitated news articles about shamino's tests (who would probably work with some cherry picked chip)


I doubt Shamino ever shared his thoughts about B2 chips, he's probably bound to silence by a strong NDA with AMD 
I think it was all a misunderstanding about this test from Skatterbencher which is talking about the PBO Supercharged from Shamino which is an exclusive feature in the ROG Extreme.
The original article was from Videocardz and it's now gone.

There are posts here and at hardwareluxx about B2 samples and more or less they say it's between worse and same.


----------



## FlanK3r

They guys, not many, in the forum says, B2 is really better for OC. Im really at 99% sure, this stepping on AMD is similar levels up like C2 vs C3 in the Phenoms II days. New C3 Phenoms were still the same name and few new models later (I think new were x4 975 BE and 980 BE). If on XS forum in this days some guys had golden sample of C2 Phenoms X4 965 BE, it was like average C3 x4 965 BE. And also all C3 had significantly better IMC. CPUNB was improved about 200 MHz (from 2800 benchable on most C2 to 3000 on C3 with daily cooling), and RAM from around 1700 to 1866. The C3 was able betetr scaling with low voltage, example 3900-4000 MHz with 1.4V against 4000 MHz 1.5+ on C2 (ussually 3900-4000 MHz on C2 was almost finish for Cinebench tests and poor samples cant hit those clocks for Cinebench R10 run)

Same I seen on few B2 Ryzens - like up to 4300 DDR 1:1 benchable for SUperpi 32M. On B0 impossible (good samples ended with daily cooling and benchmarking at 4100-4150). One guy in this forum wrote, his two B2 Ryzens are definetelly better for overclocking than his one B0.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

FlanK3r said:


> Same I seen on few B2 Ryzens - like up to 4300 DDR 1:1 benchable for SUperpi 32M


So far everyone that go his hands on B2 here reported no changes in FCLK.
Same FCLK hole at 1900 for some and almost all with WHEA above 1900.
Even some 5950X can do 4266 1:1 benchable... I could do 4200 1:1 on the Aorus Master with a very old AGESA.


----------



## Piers

dk_mic said:


> Ryzen 5000 B2 stepping has lower consumption and lower temperatures
> 
> 
> AMD released the latest Stepping B2 version of their Ryzen 5000 CPUs, including manufacturing advancements garnered during the last few months, resulting in more efficient work, lower consumption, and...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.guru3d.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://skatterbencher.com/2021/09/19/skatterbencher-29-amd-ryzen-9-5900-b2-overclocked-to-5152-mhz/
> 
> 
> also
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1486646970361909248I don't see any temp or power consumption improvements over my B0 chip..
> 
> would be nice if you could link the reviews you mention, because i found nothing at all


I googled for reviews about a week after the first user here showed (via CPU-Z) they had one. I made a mental note that performance was about the same as reviews of my CPU, with maybe a 1-2% increase overall (outside the margin of error), and that was it. That increase could be due to usual variations in silicon quality.
_
Edit: There's certainly not enough of a sample size to tell if the reported difference in performance (*not* power use but boosting behaviour) is due to silicon quality or specifically due to new stepping. Given the reason for stepping (fixing issues, new process, etc.), and that it's minor stepping (B0 -> B2, rather than say A1 -> B2), something will have changed but only AMD will know._


----------



## FlanK3r

There is history about C2 vs C3 Phenoms








Minitest: Phenom II jde z C2 na C3 a klesá i spotřeba - Cnews.cz


Plato s hned několika aktuálními procesory AMD jsem vám ukázal už v aktualitě před nějakým časem. Tehdy jsem úmyslně fotku ustřihl o jeden procesor, neboť právě na Phenom II X4 […]




www.cnews.cz








__





Phenom II C2 vs C3 Stepping.


Hi everyone, I've read about these two and I'm just trying to get a clear decisive opinion on this. Is the overclocking difference that much on air (as opposed to water cooling/anything else extreme)? Or will they reach relatively same clock speeds? I'm thinking of buying a PII from someone on...




forums.anandtech.com


----------



## ManniX-ITA

I can quote a bit of a private conversation with someone reliable that tested for real a B2:

_substrate color has changed, and while that increases the chance of better samples 
You can also (like me) get a brand new first batch "low average" sample. 
The only change there, is potentially higher "luck" but also potentially more luck on getting a lemon = close to zero change 
MemoryOC limits. Zero change 
No change on FCLK, no change on LCLK range. 
New Microcode doesn't cover memory training, and security patches where integrated on HW level & PSP-FW 
Zero change between B0 and B2_


----------



## Piers

ManniX-ITA said:


> _Zero change between B0 and B2_


So that would fall in the 1-2% reported, given the natural variation of silicon quality from chip to chip.

Edit: I'm more interested in the "AGESA 1.2.0.3 Patch C" vs 1.2.0.5 changes. That appears to, in some cases, quite severely impact overclocking potential and behaviour (i.e. prior Curves no longer being supported at all).


----------



## ArchStanton

ManniX-ITA said:


> Can you post a Zentimings screenshot
> Which BIOS are you running and which AGESA is using?


As requested. I rolled back the BIOS to the one indicated below after it was suggested for testing purposes here in this thread. Sadly, the system will still fail CoreCycler for the time being.


----------



## ArchStanton

Piers said:


> 1. Can you post CPU-Z screenshots (all tabs)?














Piers said:


> 2. Did any Asus malware install itself, such as Armoury Crate or its Dual Overclocking AI crap?


NO



Piers said:


> 3. Do you have Ryzen Master installed?


No



Piers said:


> 4. You could enable PBO (in the AMD area and make sure the Asus area has it set to auto) and only change the Curve to increase (to keep it simple) everything by +10. It would be a first step and interesting to see if it helps.
> 
> 5. Last thing to try before RMA, if you want to would be manual Vcore to 1.55v and see if it passes the first few cores in CoreCycler. Obviously there is some additional risk there (seems like a dead CPU anyway) but it would be interesting to see if it helps as well.


I'll report back with my findings.


----------



## Piers

ArchStanton said:


> View attachment 2546117
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> 
> 
> I'll report back with my findings.


I'll wait for your findings, but based on the large amount of information you have provided and the testing you have done, I'm sorry to say it appears you have a defective CPU. 

If you haven't already, I'd be interested to see you try with one stick of RAM as a final test (or if you read this before using PBO, before). 

When did you buy it? If within the last couple of months, odd to see B0 stepping.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

ArchStanton said:


> As requested. I rolled back the BIOS to the one indicated below after it was suggested for testing purposes here in this thread. Sadly, the system will still fail CoreCycler for the time being.


At stock your VDDG is set to 900mV which could not not enough.
Try just changing CCD and IOD to 1000mV and test with CC.



Piers said:


> Edit: I'm more interested in the "AGESA 1.2.0.3 Patch C" vs 1.2.0.5 changes. That appears to, in some cases, quite severely impact overclocking potential and behaviour (i.e. prior Curves no longer being supported at all).


Yes all the counts are shifted around 5 to 10 down.

The vCore and VID are limited. All the cores in the 2nd CCD are boosting 80-100 MHz lower.
On my 5950X I can set a massive positive offset and get back to more or less the same performances and boost clock as before.
The vCore VID will be still locked but the vCore voltage will go back to 1.5V and something unlocking the Core VIDs.
If you have a 5600X and I guess 5800X the vCore VID is limited to 1.375V instead of 1.425V so you can't probably go back to normal.

The result is about 25 MHz max boost clock on CCD1 plus the overall lower boost on CCD2.
Benchmarks are scoring slightly lower, less reproducible scores.

Seems to be a sloppy way to limit overclocking, avoiding high boost clocks for anything which is a good core.
It does improve reliability at the expense of performances and makes happy those that needs a positive offset on the best cores...
My guess is they changed how the count is serialized in production and adapted the AGESA, completely disregarding old bins.

The irony is that those who got an exceptional bin in the past are going to be royally screwed up.
My best Cores needed a -10 and -20 to boost up to 5150 MHz and it's almost fine.
Core 0 as well needed -20 to boost up to 5000 MHz.
But my 3rd best Core was boosting 5150 MHz at -28.
Best I can get now at -30 is 5020 MHz. More than 120 MHz lost....

So if your best cores or Core 0 with old AGESA needs around -30 to boost to the max you'll get a big hit in performances.
To the very least they should have extended the CO counts limit to +/-45.

Also this reduction in VIDs voltages is merely appearance, cosmetic. They just adjusted the calibration to report a lower value.
Despite the -70 to -120 mV per core, which should be a quite significant change, the power consumption and temperatures are same or higher.


----------



## Piers

ManniX-ITA said:


> So if your best cores or Core 0 with old AGESA needs around -30 to boost to the max you'll get a big hit in performances.


Due to Asus appearing to have abandoned its B550 range after a year, I'm still on 1.2.0.3c. 

_I can't help but think the new reduction of 0.0500V is partly due to me speaking privately with AMD's director of technical marketing and by making threads on five different websites regarding voltages ... 🤔_


----------



## ArchStanton

Piers said:


> When did you buy it? If within the last couple of months, odd to see B0 stepping.


 I placed my order on November 13 2021 from Newegg (not a third party with listing hosted by Newegg).

When I left the house this morning the system had successfully completed "All" FFT's on "auto" runtime with SSE for all cores except 13, 6, 14, 7, and 15 (it was still working on 13). This is with the +10 "all core" CO offset. As previously demonstrated, without this +10 condition, it would have almost certainly failed core 1 within the first 5 minutes of begging its run on that core.



ManniX-ITA said:


> At stock your VDDG is set to 900mV which could not not enough.
> Try just changing CCD and IOD to 1000mV and test with CC.


I'll try to set that in motion tonight.


----------



## Piers

ArchStanton said:


> I'll try to set that in motion tonight.


Don't forget to try with just a single stick of RAM. I'd probably do that before voltage changes suggested above.


----------



## ArchStanton

Piers said:


> Don't forget to try with just a single stick of RAM. I'd probably do that before voltage changes suggested above.


As you wish. You are attempting to remove a "marginal" IMC from the equation?


----------



## Piers

ArchStanton said:


> As you wish.


It's entirely your choice - I'm just trying to help 😕


ArchStanton said:


> You are attempting to remove a "marginal" IMC from the equation?


Trying to rule out memory incompatibility (if you have any other DDR RAM you can test, that would be good as well) and a faulty motherboard (wouldn't be the first time Asus has shipped motherboards with temperamental DIMM slots and I've not checked the QVL for your board) .


----------



## ArchStanton

Piers said:


> I'm just trying to help 😕


And it is greatly appreciated  So, no  in this laboratory Dr. Piers.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Piers said:


> Don't forget to try with just a single stick of RAM. I'd probably do that before voltage changes suggested above.


It's a good test, before or after as more convenient.
But I started from the assumption that memory was properly tested with TM5 with the XMP profile.
Can you confirm?

Post a Zentimings screenshot once the voltages are adjusted and check the SOC voltage is at least 1.08V.

Considering the massive amount of failures at +10 count seems likely a voltage issue or a faulty CPU. 



Piers said:


> Due to Asus appearing to have abandoned its B550 range after a year, I'm still on 1.2.0.3c.


I wouldn't be so sad, it's still the best AGESA together with 1.2.0.1



Piers said:


> I can't help but think the new reduction of 0.0500V is partly due to me speaking privately with AMD's director of technical marketing and by making threads on five different websites regarding voltages ...


Well maybe he did listen cause it looks really like a marketing gimmick 
Temperatures are considerably higher despite the voltages are reported lower.
Totally useless....


----------



## dk_mic

Revisited AGESA 1203 (SMU 56.53 => A.A0 BIOS => AGESA 1.2.0.3b) with the 5950X B2, as scores seemed a little bit higher.
I don't know if there are differences between b and c, but I have RAM profiles saved and used that for the longest of time on my B0 sample.

Benched again before and after under exactly the same settings and watertemp: 1203 performed slightly better.

1.425V is max VCore on 1205, when exceeding 140A EDC, as we all know.
I have seen that the B2 doesn't surpass 1.487V on 1203. Tested with Boost Tester, 125 ms HwInfo polling rate, mouse movements, and just letting it idle.
Then I added 0.0125 mV positive offset and could read 1.5V. I thought that would eventually give headroom for a tighter curve on CO.

The curve i had was tuned on 1205 with several over-night runs. Turns out that it's not even remotely stable on 1203 with reboots on corecycler, even when adding +5 steps.

So the seemingly higher performance of AGESA 1203 comes due to an unstable curve? I guess when dialing in the curve on 1203, it would result on similar or even worse performance than 1205.

Note, this is a B2 sample and YMMV. I don't know what to make of this, but I am back on 1205 for now.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

dk_mic said:


> I don't know what to make of this, but I am back on 1205 for now.


Yes, seems the B2 stepping needs AGESA 1.2.0.4 and above to work properly.



dk_mic said:


> So the seemingly higher performance of AGESA 1203 comes due to an unstable curve? I guess when dialing in the curve on 1203, it would result on similar or even worse performance than 1205.


The CO offsets are different, you need to start from scratch.
Did you max PWM frequencies and OCP/OVP protection?
That and higher SOC and VDDG voltages may be needed if the cores are boosting higher.


----------



## Piers

dk_mic said:


> So the seemingly higher performance of AGESA 1203 comes due to an unstable curve?


Fiddling with the voltages a year+ after release is just odd. 

Anyway, if Asus remembers it manufactures B550 motherboards and BIOS updates are expected, I'll do a 1.2.0.5 vs 1.2.0.3 Patch C comparison.


----------



## dk_mic

ManniX-ITA said:


> Yes, seems the B2 stepping needs AGESA 1.2.0.4 and above to work properly.
> 
> The CO offsets are different, you need to start from scratch.
> Did you max PWM frequencies and OCP/OVP protection?
> That and higher SOC and VDDG voltages may be needed if the cores are boosting higher.



3D 1T3D 2T3D 4T3D 8T3D 16T3D 32TCB23 NTCPUZ 1TCPUZ NTPPTTDCEDCAGESABIOSVRMVSOCVDDPVDDG CCDVDDG IODPBOOffset FreqLLCVCoreWaterComment1002198638227136120191441230769696.6135593001682201205AC110001.10.860.951.05curve 30AutoAuto25.1new paste, new curve, less negative3103130952309591007200138587166120411442631147701.313595.83001682201203AA010001.10.860.951.05curve 30AutoAuto25.2AGESA 1203. slightly better performance310373102130891

These were the settings. Curve was

30183030303015302529302630302322

Don't feel like testing more for now.
PWM on Pump was 100%, fans not maxed but constant and high (Phanteks T30 at around 2000 RPM)
Auto on VDDG sets 1.150 on CCD and IOD, is this even safe?



Piers said:


> Fiddling with the voltages a year+ after release is just odd.
> 
> Anyway, if Asus remembers it manufactures B550 motherboards and BIOS updates are expected, I'll do a 1.2.0.5 vs 1.2.0.3 Patch C comparison.


They changed CO settings/offset/behaviour quite a bit. With 1205 and B2 I am not sure if they changed something in the CPU or if it's just AGESA/SMU
1205 is still beta for MSI, not sure about ASUS X570, dont they already have 1206 beta?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

dk_mic said:


> Auto on VDDG sets 1.150 on CCD and IOD, is this even safe?


It's safe, I run CCD 1080 and IOD 1140 for FCLK 2000 since almost a year.
But it's counterproductive... both will degrade performances if set too high.
For FCLK 1900 my sample best voltages are CCD 1020-1050 and IOD 1060-1100.
Depends on the AGESA version.

My advice is to add also Geekbench 5 to the benchmarks you run.
You can set a run as a baseline in the online browser and compare when you change the settings.
Don't focus only on the global scores.
There's a score for every test and you need to find the voltages where you get better on all tests.
It's very convenient and you'll quickly find out the right ones.

I would add something more to the VSOC and see if it helps together with higher VDDG.
It really depends on your sample so may be better or worse.

Test VSOC between 1.12V and 1.18V.
CCD between 980 and 1050, IOD between 1020 and 1100.

Now with VSOC 1100 and IOD 1050 under load the delta will probably fall below 30mV.
It hurts performances and stability; if you keep the gap at least >60mV it's better.

And also consider adding something to PLL/1P8 voltage.
Usually between 1.810 and 1.840 is the best.



dk_mic said:


> Don't feel like testing more for now.


I can understand


----------



## Piers

dk_mic said:


> 3D 1T3D 2T3D 4T3D 8T3D 16T3D 32TCB23 NTCPUZ 1TCPUZ NTPPTTDCEDCAGESABIOSVRMVSOCVDDPVDDG CCDVDDG IODPBOOffset FreqLLCVCoreWaterComment1002198638227136120191441230769696.6135593001682201205AC110001.10.860.951.05curve 30AutoAuto25.1new paste, new curve, less negative3103130952309591007200138587166120411442631147701.313595.83001682201203AA010001.10.860.951.05curve 30AutoAuto25.2AGESA 1203. slightly better performance310373102130891
> 
> These were the settings. Curve was
> 
> 30183030303015302529302630302322
> 
> Don't feel like testing more for now.
> PWM on Pump was 100%, fans not maxed but constant and high (Phanteks T30 at around 2000 RPM)
> Auto on VDDG sets 1.150 on CCD and IOD, is this even safe?
> 
> 
> 
> They changed CO settings/offset/behaviour quite a bit. With 1205 and B2 I am not sure if they changed something in the CPU or if it's just AGESA/SMU
> 1205 is still beta for MSI, not sure about ASUS X570, dont they already have 1206 beta?


I've seen the same voltage change reported with B0. Asus released 1.2.0.4 and 1.2.0.5 for X570... B550 is still stuck on an August 2021 release (1.2.0.3c).


----------



## dk_mic

@ManniX-ITA Excellent, thanks for the advice. I will give it a go soon, but gonna take a break from all those benchmarks for now


----------



## RHBH

I'm using my CO rock solid since december/2020. Since a few days ago, I'm getting idle bluescreens.

No changes were made in the system.

Curious: If I turn off the CO from one core (any core), I don't get any more idle bluescreens. The issue presents only when I have a negative CO in all cores (they are configure by "per core" in the BIOS).

As fix attempt I tried the following:

Updated BIOS (from AGESA 1.2.0.3 Patch C to AGESA 1.2.0.5).
Fresh Windows install.
Changed LLC in ASUS BIOS.
Changed Idle Current in BIOS (from Auto to Typical Current Idle).

My CPU voltage is set in Auto.


----------



## Piers

RHBH said:


> I'm using my CO rock solid since december/2020. Since a few days ago, I'm getting idle bluescreens.
> 
> No changes were made in the system.
> 
> Curious: If I turn off the CO from one core (any core), I don't get any more idle bluescreens. The issue presents only when I have a negative CO in all cores (they are configure by "per core" in the BIOS).
> 
> As fix attempt I tried the following:
> 
> Updated BIOS (from AGESA 1.2.0.3 Patch C to AGESA 1.2.0.5).
> Fresh Windows install.
> Changed LLC in ASUS BIOS.
> Changed Idle Current in BIOS (from Auto to Typical Current Idle).
> 
> My CPU voltage is set in Auto.


So you made zero changes to the system (no drivers, updates, etc.) and Windows suddenly started giving BSODs? It sounds like it wasn't entirely stable to start with. Rather than trying to troubleshoot, I'd start again (new Curve, etc.) and see how it goes. If you thoroughly test it and find it stable, but then in a few weeks you find the same issue, it's worth looking at more BIOS options and the hardware. Just my two pence.


----------



## ArchStanton

Piers said:


> Don't forget to try with just a single stick of RAM.


Passed 2 iterations of SSE/Auto/All in CC with +10. Will now retest with single DIMM populated and PBO disabled before moving on to ManniX-ITA's voltage tweaks


----------



## Piers

ArchStanton said:


> Passed 2 iterations of SSE/Auto/All in CC with +10. Will now retest with single DIMM populated and PBO disabled before moving on to ManniX-ITA's voltage tweaks


If it's now passed with two sticks, there's not much point in trying just one.


----------



## Kha

ryouiki said:


> Thanks, I'll be able to actually confirm in a few days, but have to teardown loop to install this so right now still sitting in the box.


Hey mate, can you confirm your BG 2142SUS sample is indeed B2 ?


----------



## Piers

Kha said:


> Hey mate, can you confirm your BG 2142SUS sample is indeed B2 ?


Without wanting to appear rude, why are you so interested in the B2 revision? It's minor stepping.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Piers said:


> Without wanting to appear rude, why are you so interested in the B2 revision? It's minor stepping.


rumored to be good at memory/IF overclocking..and overall runs cooler than the b0 stepping


----------



## Piers

kairi_zeroblade said:


> rumored to be good at memory/IF overclocking..and overall runs cooler than the b0 stepping


Rumoured but not generally confirmed in reviews. Based on the small sample size here, so not entirely valid, the B2 seems to have more IF issues in terms of stability (e.g it might boot at 1,900 but it's not remotely stable). A mediocre B0 like mine can hold 1,900 and, with more voltage than I'd like, 2,000.


----------



## dk_mic

ArchStanton said:


> Passed 2 iterations of SSE/Auto/All in CC with +10. Will now retest with single DIMM populated and PBO disabled before moving on to ManniX-ITA's voltage tweaks


it's already clear that your sample qualifies for RMA. Since this is s 'toy' machine, I would proceed with that


----------



## dk_mic

Piers said:


> Rumoured but not generally confirmed in reviews. Based on the small sample size here, so not entirely valid, the B2 seems to have more IF issues in terms of stability (e.g it might boot at 1,900 but it's not remotely stable). A mediocre B0 like mine can hold 1,900 and, with more voltage than I'd like, 2,000.


My B2 5950X can boot 2100 FCLK, and I had it whea free though half of the tests of y-cruncher at 2000, then the PC rebooted. Will probably not return to anything higher than 1900, but I think we can not say anything at all about changes in general FCLK capabilities. Please link B2 sample with FCLK issues?


----------



## Piers

dk_mic said:


> My B2 5950X can boot 2100 FCLK, and I had it whea free though half of the tests of y-cruncher at 2000, then the PC rebooted. Will probably not return to anything higher than 1900, but I think we can not say anything at all about changes in general FCLK capabilities. *Please link B2 sample with FCLK issues?*


It's not issues as in a defect (I apologise if my wording provided the wrong impression), but issues when compared to *similarly binned* B0 chips (i.e. little to no difference between IF capabilities, despite some claims). I believe it's been posted in this thread. Will try to find the posts.


----------



## dk_mic

ManniX-ITA said:


> It's safe, I run CCD 1080 and IOD 1140 for FCLK 2000 since almost a year.
> But it's counterproductive... both will degrade performances if set too high.
> For FCLK 1900 my sample best voltages are CCD 1020-1050 and IOD 1060-1100.
> Depends on the AGESA version.
> 
> My advice is to add also Geekbench 5 to the benchmarks you run.
> You can set a run as a baseline in the online browser and compare when you change the settings.
> Don't focus only on the global scores.
> There's a score for every test and you need to find the voltages where you get better on all tests.
> It's very convenient and you'll quickly find out the right ones.
> 
> I would add something more to the VSOC and see if it helps together with higher VDDG.
> It really depends on your sample so may be better or worse.
> 
> Test VSOC between 1.12V and 1.18V.
> CCD between 980 and 1050, IOD between 1020 and 1100.
> 
> Now with VSOC 1100 and IOD 1050 under load the delta will probably fall below 30mV.
> It hurts performances and stability; if you keep the gap at least >60mV it's better.
> 
> And also consider adding something to PLL/1P8 voltage.
> Usually between 1.810 and 1.840 is the best.


5950X B2 GB5 scores. 2 runs each, one with a preset on the high end of your recommended voltages and another on the low end.
P18 SET in BIOS results in +0.05V in Windows (HwInfo reads 1.84 / 1.81 with those settings)

Settings









Detailed scores


Spoiler: detailed SC and MC scores. Left = higher Voltages























Any recommendations? Seems it doesn't care at all 
Crypto MC is higher at lower voltages and when clicking rapidly thourgh all the 4 results, I think it's *slightly* doing better at the lower preset.


----------



## ArchStanton

Testing update.

System had no failures with *single* DIMM installed *and* 0 PBO offset (PBO explicitly disabled). Would previously fail core 1 consistently with 2 DIMMs and PBO disabled (enabling PBO and adding all core +10 CO would prevent failure). Now testing 2 DIMMs + ManniX-ITA's suggested voltage tweaks + PBO disabled (confirmed with CBR23 run prior to launching CC, stock PPT/TDC/EDC limits in effect).


----------



## dk_mic

CO values tend to stick if you just disable PBO. Did you clear CMOS? Could be you tested 1 stick with +10.
Also, take note of the failing core and FFT size and run only this, will save you time


----------



## ArchStanton

dk_mic said:


> CO values tend to stick if you just disable PBO. Did you clear CMOS? Could be you tested 1 stick with +10.


That being the case, I will redo test after 100% sure clearing of CMOS. <grumble> stupid POS excuse for a BIOS...



dk_mic said:


> Also, take note of the failing core and FFT size and run only this, will save you time


Aye, core 1 usually between 20k - 800k


----------



## dk_mic

I had a 5950X that would fail at 100% stock settings. Using SSE, 1 thread, FFT 13440 i could make it fail within 3 minutes. 
Took a screenshot showing the error, using P95, affinity set in task manager, sent to AMD support, together with a screenshot of memtest86 passing at stock. Whole procedure took less than 2 weeks until i had a replacement. 6 days from sending my sample until I had a replacement.
You're in for a OC journey, replace that one


----------



## ArchStanton

dk_mic said:


> You're in for a OC journey, replace that one


Noted . I feel like I'm learning quite a lot just from trying to diagnose *IF *my CPU, or possibly another component,100% has an issue. Would I, at times, prefer to have a known stable base to begin from and just be tweaking things for silly "benchmark scoreZ"? Yes, but long term all this testing and guidance is likely to teach me more.


----------



## KedarWolf

ArchStanton said:


> Noted . I feel like I'm learning quite a lot just from trying to diagnose *IF *my CPU, or possibly another component,100% has an issue. Would I, at times, prefer to have a known stable base to begin from and just be tweaking things for silly "benchmark scoreZ"? Yes, but long term all this testing and guidance is likely to teach me more.


You can be pretty sure if a CPU fails the tests at motherboard stock settings (or tweaking your board to what others run at stock) then it is a faulty CPU.

RMA that thing.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

dk_mic said:


> Any recommendations? Seems it doesn't care at all


Oh it does, likes more low voltage CCD.
The main score sure it's important but you need to compare the single tests.
AES-XTS in MC is telling you which VDDG CCD voltage is best; 800 more points is a lot.
You should test different values in the 980 to 1050 to find the right spot.
Most of the other tests are very close but there's a slight positive trend IOD at 1090mV.
I would test something like 1050.

You should have compared different VDDG voltages with same VSOC.
But anyway doesn't seem to have much influence.
It does matter a lot if the memory timings are very tight.
Otherwise its better to go for the lowest.


----------



## ArchStanton

@dk_mic Your instincts were correct. After CMOS clear, single DIMM populated, all settings stock, core 1 will fail CC in about 5 minutes or less. I went ahead and tested 2 other identical DRAM modules (bought a 4-stick kit) in the default slot, along with 2 (per the MB manual) non-optimal slots just to be as sure as possible. It failed in all the possible combinations. I initiated the voltage tweaks suggested by @ManniX-ITA and fired her back up.









It failed quickly with those tweaks as well. Time to buy my ticket for the RMA Express.

Thank you everyone for the coaching. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. 

P.S. There is a mildly paranoid part of me that suspects, given my purchase date, stepping number, and vendor, that this is not necessarily the first time this CPU has been RMA'd .


----------



## Piers

dk_mic said:


> I had a 5950X that would fail at 100% stock settings. Using SSE, 1 thread, FFT 13440 i could make it fail within 3 minutes.
> Took a screenshot showing the error, using P95, affinity set in task manager, sent to AMD support, together with a screenshot of memtest86 passing at stock. Whole procedure took less than 2 weeks until i had a replacement. 6 days from sending my sample until I had a replacement.
> You're in for a OC journey, replace that one


Are these the same settings you used?


----------



## FlanK3r

Also it could be software issue. I can now find it, but there was report about bug of PRIME (not all version of PRIME95) with Zen2 or Zen3 CPus


----------



## dk_mic

Piers said:


> Are these the same settings you used?
> View attachment 2546511
> 
> 
> View attachment 2546510


exactly, and then forcing the cpu affinity via task manager to the core i knew was failing. I think i had "in place" also checked and was using 12800-13400, as i had seen both failing previously


FlanK3r said:


> Also it could be software issue. I can now find it, but there was report about bug of PRIME (not all version of PRIME95) with Zen2 or Zen3 CPus


i am aware of this, but i could make it crash no matter which version used. Actually AMD also asked abnout P95 version during my RMA evaluation


----------



## dk_mic

does anyone know if there is a way in BIOS to set a max cpu temperature / shut down when doing an all core overclock on zen3?
i know that most/all safety checks are disabled when going that route, but Id like to have a temp limit when running some tests


----------



## Piers

dk_mic said:


> does anyone know if there is a way in BIOS to set a max cpu temperature / shut down when doing an all core overclock on zen3?
> i know that most/all safety checks are disabled when going that route, but Id like to have a temp limit when running some tests


As far as I'm aware, there are two options - one deep in the AMD part of the BIOS that will shutdown at n temperature, and another available when PBO is enabled. The latter allows you to set a temp limit and no matter what values you enter for PBO, when it reaches the temperature you've defined it will automatically throttle. 

I tested it set at 65°C with power limits maxes out and an aggressive Curve - it throttled under a heavy workload and kept the CPU at 64°C.

I've since disabled it, but when summer comes and with no air conditioning...


----------



## dk_mic

Will have a look. I just remember once with my previous chip, with a static OC on y-cruncher, suddenly my POST code display, which shows temps, suddenly ran out of enough digits 😂, so I want to avoid that.

Did some 3D Mark benching yesterday and managed to get within top 5 on several of those. (their own leaderboard, my HW combination, 5950X + single 2080Ti). There are of course some higher scores on hwbot..
I know that some of them are better on an all core OC, so I wanna try that at some point.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

dk_mic said:


> does anyone know if there is a way in BIOS to set a max cpu temperature / shut down when doing an all core overclock on zen3?


Depends on the BIOS but often the PBO limits are enforced also with a static OC.
Try limiting PPT/TDC/EDC and throttle temperature in the PBO section and see if it works.
There's also a TDP limit in the the CBS menu that could work with static.


----------



## diggiddi

Quick question, will the 5900x boost higher with 2 or 4 cores disabled? and if so how much higher


----------



## Piers

diggiddi said:


> Quick question, will the 5900x boost higher with 2 or 4 cores disabled? and if so how much higher


It should do, but I doubt it would be by a huge margin since both CCDs would be in use. A better option would be to disable one CCD.


----------



## diggiddi

Thanks, would that halve the cache?


----------



## Piers

diggiddi said:


> Thanks, would that halve the cache?


Using the 5900X as an example, yes and no. Ignoring L1, L2, µOP, etc. cache for obvious reasons, the L3 cache is per-CCD_ (some people refer to a the Zen 3 CCD as a CCX. For the purposes of this comment, CCD refers specifically to the single chip containing 8 cores, whether some are defective/fused or not)_ and allows each core to access the 32MB of L3 cache contained on the CCD. Disabling one CCD would not provide more cache, but would slightly reduce cache and DRAM latency.

So, technically the L3 cache on the example 5900X would be halved, but not in a meaningful way. Reducing/disabling cores on either CCD would, in theory, provide more L3 cache to the other cores on that CCD. A great example of this in use is found when comparing the 5900X to the 5950X. Both have 32MB (64MB total) of L3 cache per CCD, despite the 5900X having two fewer cores per CCD. However, with Zen 3 came the ability for any core on a single CCD to access all 32MB of L3 cache, so the performance benefit you would see is likely to be very small, and only present due to lower cross-chip communication. 

I'm happy to be corrected if any of the above is incorrect.


----------



## 1devomer

Piers said:


> Using the 5900X as an example, yes and no. Ignoring L1, L2, µOP, etc. cache for obvious reasons, the L3 cache is per-CCD_ (some people refer to a the Zen 3 CCD as a CCX. For the purposes of this comment, CCD refers specifically to the single chip containing 8 cores, whether some are defective/fused or not)_ and allows each core to access the 32MB of L3 cache contained on the CCD. Disabling one CCD would not provide more cache, but would slightly reduce cache and DRAM latency.
> 
> So, technically the L3 cache on the example 5900X would be halved, but not in a meaningful way. Reducing/disabling cores on either CCD would, in theory, provide more L3 cache to the other cores on that CCD. A great example of this in use is found when comparing the 5900X to the 5950X. Both have 32MB (64MB total) of L3 cache per CCD, despite the 5900X having two fewer cores per CCD. However, with Zen 3 came the ability for any core on a single CCD to access all 32MB of L3 cache, so the performance benefit you would see is likely to be very small, and only present due to lower cross-chip communication.
> 
> I'm happy to be corrected if any of the above is incorrect.


It depends on the kind of workload, you are dealing with.
If you are dealing with heavy O/I stuff, or a huge amount of data, halving the cache would be pretty detrimental.
Something that would not be compensated by the lower latency, due to one CDD being disabled.
You would end up with a simple 5800x.

Looking at the AMD server cpu, on a large scale, one will notice that they will perform better after some time they run the workload.
This because the cache will be trained, cache miss will decrease, decreasing the overall computation time, until a plateau.
This is why AMD is pushing so much cache into the cpu, because it matters for some workloads.


----------



## Gegu

Hello OC fellas 

Wanted to share with you my OC results for 5900X B0 (OC focused on MC performance)


5900X settings:

VSOC 1.125V
VDDP 0.925V
both VDDG 1.05V

BIOS:

FMAX Enhancer Disabled
PBO2 Power Limits: PPT 200 TDC 125 EDC 180
Boost Override + 50mhz

Curve Optimizer: 
CCD0 -5 +8 -15 -26 -24 -26 
CCD1 -26 -8 -26 -26 -26 -26

Stability validated in CoreCycler with custom script

Attached results from 3DMark TimeSpy CPU Test & Cinebench R23 (multi core + single core).


----------



## ronindj68

hi all, can someone suggest me a good link learning guide for overclock my build 5950x with PBO, CO and DOC on asus dark hero? Thanks


----------



## ManniX-ITA

ronindj68 said:


> hi all, can someone suggest me a good link learning guide for overclock my build 5950x with PBO, CO and DOC on asus dark hero? Thanks


There's a video from Skatterbencher which is quite easy to follow:


----------



## Piers

ManniX-ITA said:


> There's a video from Skatterbencher which is quite easy to follow:


I watched that before I had my 5900X in order to conduct research so I'd have some idea of how it works (and then ask here for more detailed information, which was warmly provided). It's certainly easy to follow, but he skips out a lot of the most important part - stability testing.


----------



## ronindj68

ManniX-ITA said:


> There's a video from Skatterbencher which is quite easy to follow:


Yes thank for your suggestion. I know this video and many other.. But all those are not very exaustive. For example i really do not understand yet how to discover correct PBO parameter for best single core score. 
Or i really still don't understand which priority to follow between configuring PBO / CO / DOC. and How to test stability of OC in single core  
Yes, I still have many doubts


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Thought you were looking for an introduction 



ronindj68 said:


> For example i really do not understand yet how to discover correct PBO parameter for best single core score.


Single core is best with lower TDC/EDC.
Higher is best for MT.
I use 280/175/215 while for better ST 280/150/180.
But if you set PBO in Auto with stock limits it's even a bit faster.
That's single core.
More threads working and less advantage/more penalty you get from lower limits.
Eg. gaming is not ST, it's light threaded. 4-8-12 cores in parallel.
So limits higher than the stock but not too high are better.

For testing CO use CoreCyler:









CoreCycler - tool for testing Curve Optimizer settings


Over the last couple of days resp. weeks I've been working with the Curve Optimizer for Ryzen processors a bit more, but I hadn't found a good way to test the settings for stability. CineBench single threaded almost always worked fine, and getting Prime95 stable with load on all cores was also...




www.overclock.net













Releases · sp00n/corecycler


Stability test script for PBO & Curve Optimizer stability testing on AMD Ryzen processors - sp00n/corecycler




github.com





You can test with prime95 and y-cruncher.
Use only one core at the timr.
It takes weeks to test all properly!

PJVol's (Rep+ him) tool to set CO counts on the fly without rebooting:









[Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread


This is the limit you can raise to in rm if you leave them on auto What's the point in raising it then, if it will never apply? I mean (if I get it right from your post) your BIOS allowed EDC limit to be manually set to max 220 amps, and that it's way below the actual mb limit? This is the...




www.overclock.net





For DOC first think if you need it.
If you do, think about your cooling.
Running a 5950x on static needs a very good cooling.

DOC is nice but only if you really need often MT.
When it detects load and switches to static you will loose the high single core boost.
Until it's switching back, for light loads the CPU is slower.
You need to carefully set it up otherwise you end up worse than without.
For DOC the videos from Skatterbench should be enough to understand how to set it.


----------



## ronindj68

First of all, thanks for your support  as you can see trying to apply this DOC setup as shown by Skatterbencher, my build go in crash !! 
My cpu is 5950x on dark hero MOBO. Cooler is a Coolermaster 360.. but when thereshold level reach load to start DOC (CPU SVI2 TFN value about 45) the computer go in crash..

Ps I understand that is not very necessary apply DOC. 
Can you specify what you mean with "MT" ?
regards


----------



## ManniX-ITA

ronindj68 said:


> Can you specify what you mean with "MT" ?


*M*ulti-*T*hreaded (generally meant for load on all cores) as opposed to *S*ingle-*T*hreaded (load on a single core).

You are doing the right thing.
Find the Static OC settings that you are stable with.
Better you make sure it works without DOC.
Then you can later configure it for DOC.

You can define a different ratio per CCD, try with 47.00 CCD0 and 45.00 CCD1.
Once you get it stable enough to run Cinebench R23 look for the lowest voltage you can go with.
If you can get at around 1.2V - 1.25V Core VID the temperature under load will drop significantly.
Once you have it stable run y-cruncher stress test.
Check if you are comfortable with it.

But I'd suggest you first to check at which frequency CB23 runs with PBO.
If you have to set DOC with a significantly lower clock then it's not worth it.
Just keep PBO active without DOC.


----------



## ronindj68

Hi Mannix-ITA thanks for all your information, i am taking note of everything you have told me.
Some word about my build:
CPU 5959x
MoBo ASUS DARK Hero
RAM: 2 dimms DDR4 G Skill F4-3600C16-16GTZNC
Video card MSI Gaming X Trio RTX3090 24gb

With PBO configured like: 250/158/170, i am reaching maximun frequency around 5.050 Mhz(testing with CB23), cpu temperature about 78c degrees.
But i dont' know if it is possible to get more cpu temperature about 78c degrees.

At the moment i am spending some time to find best possible value for Curve Optimizer in single core using core cycler script. and PBO with this value: 250/158/ 170 i have tryed

Anyway i really don't have understood if there is a good method to find best PBO values for Multi Core and what is the method to find the best values for Single Core.

Another question is: Is there some relationship between Curve Optimizer setting and Overdrive scalar parameter setting ?
Should I leave Overdrive scalar in auto mode ? or i have to search what is the best value that can give maximum bost frequency stability in the time ?
And what about for the OVERDRIVE parameter?
Many thanks for your help 
greeting from Italy


----------



## ManniX-ITA

ronindj68 said:


> With PBO configured like: 250/158/170, i am reaching maximun frequency around 5.050 Mhz


How do you check it?
HWInfo, enable AMD snapshot in settings for sensors and look at the effective clocks max.



ronindj68 said:


> Anyway i really don't have understood if there is a good method to find best PBO values for Multi Core and what is the method to find the best values for Single Core.


Limits should be tailored for your setup.
Use CB23 for MT and check CPU-z for ST.
Geekbench 5 for both and run 3DMark CPU.

Lower TDC/EDC will boost ST, higher MT.



ronindj68 said:


> Another question is: Is there some relationship between Curve Optimizer setting and Overdrive scalar parameter setting ?


The Scalar depends on the settings and setup.
In general 10x is more, overall.
It will add some to the max temperature but at 78c in CB23 you should be fine.



ronindj68 said:


> And what about for the OVERDRIVE parameter?


Not sure what parameter this is... take a BIOS screenshot should be F12.


----------



## 050

(5950x on an Asus crosshair 8 formula) - 
Can anyone clarify for me what settings may be involved in "high" single core temps? I see temps around 80-85c running core cycler but sometimes they get up to around 90c and I'd like to cool that off a bit If I can. The system is liquid cooled (6x 120mm) and the coolant temp is around 35c so that should be fine. I am running a 5950x, ppt 220, tic 140 and etc 140 to avoid the voltage drop imposed above that edc. Running r23 for a multicore test I see the system hit 140A (201w) under an all-core load, and it has each core at around 4250-4275mhz. This only pushes the cpu to around 77-80c, so I am perfectly happy with those all-core thermals. I suspect the higher peak temps are happening in short flashes of single (or a few cores) load, such as during core cycling. 

I am running a cpu core voltage offset of -.01875v. Originally I had it further offset but I reduced the offset to improve my CO settings. I mostly have the offset in place to try to cap the core voltage down a bit from the VID peak of 1.55v. With a Max CPU Boost Clock Override of +100 and COs of (-) 20, 17, 25,10, 25, 12, 25, 30, 30, 30, 30, 25, 30, 30, 25, 30 I am getting single core boosts up to 5150mhz (typically not above ~5050 in games and hwinfo64 is reporting effective clocks as high as 4950mhz. 

Any advice on settings to look for to reduce the single core thermal excursions? I know 90c isn't a "problem" per se but it would be nice to keep it a little cooler if I can do so without compromising single core performance much. I am getting ~28k multicore on r23 and 1600 single core, which is decent but not incredible. I suspect there may be some clock stretching at the upper end of clock speeds for some cores (I doubt it is hitting a full 5150mhz) but that may be fine as long as it's not unstable.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

050 said:


> I see temps around 80-85c running core cycler but sometimes they get up to around 90c


AFAIK only a bad mounting of the block.
But it's weird you don't see higher temps with CB23.

There's nothing that can bring a single core load to that temp.
I'm using a Dark Rock Pro 4 cooler, silent air, and I don't think I've ever seen a single core load go over 70-75c.
And the best ones peaks 5060 MHz effective clocks.
Max boost clock at 5150 MHz is normal, it's just not sustained for long.
90c means also temperature throttling so it's indeed a problem.
A single core doesn't go over 20-30 Watt generally, you have a big issue if you can't dissipate it properly.

Can you post a screenshot of HWInfo with all sensors expanded, especially cores related, after running a full cycle with CoreCycler?


----------



## 050

ManniX-ITA said:


> Can you post a screenshot of HWInfo with all sensors expanded, especially cores related, after running a full cycle with CoreCycler?


Sure, will do! Here's a shot from the system right now, it has just completed the first iteration on a corecycler run (on the "heavy" setting so iirc that's a spread covering small to some of huge on p95). It isn't quite hitting 90c here but you can see that it is sitting a bit warm. I previously ran an r23 so that's the peak 140/140/201 etc/tdc/package power. It is possible that the peaks in temperature I see are just when the room is a few degrees warmer but if there's something to be done to improve settings there's no harm in poking at it.


Spoiler: hwinfo64






















Any thoughts/Advice? Thanks!


----------



## Luggage

050 said:


> Sure, will do! Here's a shot from the system right now, it has just completed the first iteration on a corecycler run (on the "heavy" setting so iirc that's a spread covering small to some of huge on p95). It isn't quite hitting 90c here but you can see that it is sitting a bit warm. I previously ran an r23 so that's the peak 140/140/201 etc/tdc/package power. It is possible that the peaks in temperature I see are just when the room is a few degrees warmer but if there's something to be done to improve settings there's no harm in poking at it.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: hwinfo64
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2550137
> 
> View attachment 2550138
> 
> 
> 
> Any thoughts/Advice? Thanks!


Just a hunch - ASUS? dont use fmax enhancer.

But on the other hand if your water temp is 20C more than mine... core will be as well.



http://imgur.com/a/wZcQtUq


----------



## ManniX-ITA

050 said:


> Sure, will do! Here's a shot from the system right now, it has just completed the first iteration on a corecycler run (on the "heavy" setting so iirc that's a spread covering small to some of huge on p95)


You need to reset the counters in the sensors window.
Seems to me the max temp per core you see it's while running CB23.
That's normal as all cores were running at full load together.
Before staring HWInfo in the settings you need to select AMD Snapshot mode, doesn't seem it's enabled.
Also expand the Core effective clocks.

I see 58c on Core 0 which is the one I presume is running with CoreCycler.
What is abnormal is Core 3 which is clocked at 4020 MHz which should mean idling.
Despite that is at 81.8c current temperature.
Also in the 2nd screenshot is at 79c.
Either is unstable with the CO count big time or it's faulty.

Are you running on 1 core per time with SSE right?


----------



## 050

ManniX-ITA said:


> You need to reset the counters in the sensors window.
> Seems to me the max temp per core you see it's while running CB23.
> That's normal as all cores were running at full load together.
> Before staring HWInfo in the settings you need to select AMD Snapshot mode, doesn't seem it's enabled.
> Also expand the Core effective clocks.
> 
> I see 58c on Core 0 which is the one I presume is running with CoreCycler.
> What is abnormal is Core 3 which is clocked at 4020 MHz which should mean idling.
> Despite that is at 81.8c current temperature.
> Also in the 2nd screenshot is at 79c.
> Either is unstable with the CO count big time or it's faulty.
> 
> Are you running on 1 core per time with SSE right?


One core at a time, yes. I can reset the counters and let it run again, and I will look into the "AMD" snapshot mode. I had left the temps from the r23 run showing since the current temps were relevant more directly. I took the two screenshots back to back but the core cycler may have switched which core was active in between the screenshots since it took a moment to do. I'll expand the effective clocks as well.

As far as I know I did not _enable_ fmax enhancer, but I don't think I explicitly disabled it either. Will have to check later and set that to disabled!


----------



## 050

Luggage said:


> Just a hunch - ASUS? dont use fmax enhancer.
> 
> But on the other hand if your water temp is 20C more than mine... core will be as well.
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/wZcQtUq


Ok yeah that does track and makes sense - I should have mentioned I threw a load on the GPU as well to dump an extra ~300w into the loop since I want to ensure stability during any "full load" scenarios like gaming where the loop temp may be up. That said, from your screen shot it looks like your loop air intake is a pretty typical 22c but your loop liquid temps are down at 15-16c? Are you running some sort of chiller to get your liquid sub-ambient? That's pretty cool if so!


----------



## ManniX-ITA

050 said:


> I can reset the counters and let it run again, and I will look into the "AMD" snapshot mode.


Here's an example of what you should see in the very worst case.
Considering your cooling should be way better.

I'm on my bloated Windows install with the world open so the Core 4 under test isn't boosting much.
But still that's more or less the picture I have while running with the BenchOS.
You cores under test should not go over 75c at 18w for sure, some degrees less to be right.
Check also the L3 and IOD Hotspot temps.
They should be at same or lower temp than mine.
Otherwise it's sure the block is not properly mounted.

Run on a best core and then on this Core 3 which is quite suspect.
Reset the sensors in between.


----------



## Luggage

050 said:


> Ok yeah that does track and makes sense - I should have mentioned I threw a load on the GPU as well to dump an extra ~300w into the loop since I want to ensure stability during any "full load" scenarios like gaming where the loop temp may be up. That said, from your screen shot it looks like your loop air intake is a pretty typical 22c but your loop liquid temps are down at 15-16c? Are you running some sort of chiller to get your liquid sub-ambient? That's pretty cool if so!


Run my rad outside on the balcony and the ambient temp is case air intake temp.


----------



## 050

I switched to the snapshot mode and my effective clocks are looking more like what you're showing now so that's good. I'm doing this remotely so haven't yet gotten to go into the bios and ensure fmax enhancer is explicitly disabled, so that may still be an issue. I restarted hwinfo64 and let the core cycling run for a bit - here it is testing core 7 and it is clearly getting hot. The water temp is at 33-35c though, so perhaps that is simply all my issue is!


Spoiler: Extra Hwinfo64





























It seems core 7 is drawing 19A so that's not wildly out of normal from what I can tell.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

050 said:


> It seems core 7 is drawing 19A so that's not wildly out of normal from what I can tell.


You have to remount the block.
There's no proper contact with the CPU heat spreader.
Even 35c water temp doesn't justify remotely the temperatures I see.
I have a silent air cooler and it can't be so much better.
Even your L3 and IOD temps are off the rails by 8c.


----------



## 050

ManniX-ITA said:


> You have to remount the block.
> There's no proper contact with the CPU heat spreader.
> Even 35c water temp doesn't justify remotely the temperatures I see.
> I have a silent air cooler and it can't be so much better.
> Even your L3 and IOD temps are off the rails by 8c.


Ok, that's fair. I will have to drain the loop to do so but that's worth doing. Hopefully a re-paste and re-mount will help out!


----------



## ManniX-ITA

050 said:


> Ok, that's fair. I will have to drain the loop to do so but that's worth doing. Hopefully a re-paste and re-mount will help out!


What kind of setup this is?
Custom loop?
Do you have a flow meter?
The other possibility is that you flow is very low.
Which could be cause the pump is broken or you have a bending/occlusion somewhere.


----------



## 050

ManniX-ITA said:


> What kind of setup this is?
> Custom loop?
> Do you have a flow meter?
> The other possibility is that you flow is very low.
> Which could be cause the pump is broken or you have a bending/occlusion somewhere.


It is a custom loop, mostly corsair components - xd5 pump and 2 xr5 360mm radiators, LL120 (black) fans and some front of the case push noctuas. The front rad intakes fresh air while the top is exhaust - not ideal but should only be a few degrees of water temp. I will have to tweak my curve in icue for the pump to increase the flow rate as I do not have a flow meter inline - that is a good idea to get. It's a hardline loop so fortunately no kinks in tubing but there are bends and it is running through the gpu and cpu blocks and the two rads - a moderate amount of restriction. I will look more into the flow as a potential issue, thank you!


----------



## ManniX-ITA

050 said:


> I will look more into the flow as a potential issue, thank you!


D5 pumps are extremely reliable.
Hopefully it's just the block mount!


----------



## 050

ManniX-ITA said:


> D5 pumps are extremely reliable.
> Hopefully it's just the block mount!


Since I can't test a re-paste until later, I have for the moment altered my icue pump curve to increase the pump speed significantly. Previously at ~35c it was at about 3000 rpm and now 36c is a 4500 rpm setpoint. I'll have to let corecycler run for a while with this increased flow (or at least, increased pump rpm) and see if there's any major differences in the thermals.


----------



## Piers

050 said:


> Can anyone clarify for me what settings may be involved in "high" single core temps? I see temps around 80-85c running core cycler but sometimes they get up to around 90c and I'd like to cool that off a bit If I can. The system is liquid cooled (6x 120mm) and the coolant temp is around 35c so that should be fine.


That's not right at all. Even in my home office, where the ambient is ~24-25°C, I see temps of ~75°C (MAX) with CoreCycler. The only time I've seen higher temps are with all power limits 'uncapped' (board limits = 1000, 1000, 200). Then temps reached ~85°C. Coolant is about 2.5-3.5 degrees above ambient. Using a CLC (H150i 360mm).


----------



## Luggage

Piers said:


> That's not right at all. Even in my home office, where the ambient is ~24-25°C, I see temps of ~75°C (MAX) with CoreCycler. The only time I've seen higher temps are with all power limits 'uncapped' (board limits = 1000, 1000, 200). Then temps reached ~85°C. Coolant is about 2.5-3.5 degrees above ambient. Using a CLC (H150i 360mm).


His coolant is 15c over ambient and running the pump at a medium speed. (Slow is a stretch to say…)


----------



## 050

After increasing the pump speed I am seeing a peak temperature of around ~87c with the same coolant temps so that is good, it seems at least partially the system was suffering from inadequate flow. Getting some actual flow measurement is a good goal for the future, it is clearly important.

I will have to do more testing and may or may not need to re-paste/re-seat the block. A sustained load 53c delta from cpu temp to liquid temp (~34c) seems to be reasonable enough.


----------



## DeadSec

Yo guys,
I am planing to start oc with the 5950x in two steps. First is the RAM:










The RAM/IMC is stable, tested by 24 h karhu and many other tools.

The second step ocing the CPU failed. Here is the story:
I started running AIDA64 cache and memory benchmark when all of sudden the screens went black. I couldn't get any response of a keyboard input, the debug code of the mainboard showed up "00", even the rest button was out of order.
I had to shut down the power supply to get the system down.
A new start went through like everyday.
All the other benchmarks I know (3DMark, Cinebench 15, 20, 23, karhu) did not cause these issues but y-cruncher does the same.
PPT=200
TDC=140
EDC=180
+200 MHz.
I solved this issue listening to the advises of the boardie Piers here in the forum. Disabling PBO2 shot down the black-screen-problem. I lost a lot of cinebench points though.

Ocing a AMD CPU is pretty new for me. So what am I supposed to do getting a stable oc on a 5950X?
Cooling might not be the problem, a MO-RA3 does a good job.


----------



## mattliston

EDIT I horrifically missed a ton of thread posts on fullscreen. No need to worry about what I posted.


----------



## Shenhua

DeadSec said:


> Yo guys,
> I am planing to start oc with the 5950x in two steps. First is the RAM:
> 
> View attachment 2550496
> 
> 
> The RAM/IMC is stable, tested by 24 h karhu and many other tools.
> 
> The second step ocing the CPU failed. Here is the story:
> I started running AIDA64 cache and memory benchmark when all of sudden the screens went black. I couldn't get any response of a keyboard input, the debug code of the mainboard showed up "00", even the rest button was out of order.
> I had to shut down the power supply to get the system down.
> A new start went through like everyday.
> All the other benchmarks I know (3DMark, Cinebench 15, 20, 23, karhu) did not cause these issues but y-cruncher does the same.
> PPT=200
> TDC=140
> EDC=180
> +200 MHz.
> I solved this issue listening to the advises of the boardie Piers here in the forum. Disabling PBO2 shot down the black-screen-problem. I lost a lot of cinebench points though.
> 
> Ocing a AMD CPU is pretty new for me. So what am I supposed to do getting a stable oc on a 5950X?
> Cooling might not be the problem, a MO-RA3 does a good job.


Instead of adding +200, why don't you leave it at 0 and tighten the CO on every core with core cycler.

I understand it might not sound that attractive, but instead of boosting higher, it will boost for longer time.

Sent from my Redmi Note 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## tonynca

Shenhua said:


> Instead of adding +200, why don't you leave it at 0 and tighten the CO on every core with core cycler.
> 
> I understand it might not sound that attractive, but instead of boosting higher, it will boost for longer time.
> 
> Sent from my Redmi Note 5 using Tapatalk


Is there any proof of this? It sounds good in theory but does the processor really boost longer and you get better CR23 scores?


----------



## mattliston

The beauty of overclocking. Trial and error. Try it out yourself!


----------



## Shenhua

tonynca said:


> Is there any proof of this? It sounds good in theory but does the processor really boost longer and you get better CR23 scores?


I'm not sure the performance will translate to cinebench, as i imagine your CPU is running at 50°C during cinebench.
But it will behave like that with gaming loads.

I'm on a 5900x tuned by CO, and I'm getting 20800 (stock score) with the CPU limited at 114w. I'm running on air, so scaling due to efficiency it's a thing for me. With a mora3, might not be for you.

On the other hand, the CPU now boosts to 4.8ghz much more time, that it used to stay at 4,6 on stock settings.

Sent from my Redmi Note 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## tonynca

Shenhua said:


> I'm not sure the performance will translate to cinebench, as i imagine your CPU is running at 50°C during cinebench.
> But it will behave like that with gaming loads.
> 
> I'm on a 5900x tuned by CO, and I'm getting 20800 (stock score) with the CPU limited at 114w. I'm running on air, so scaling due to efficiency it's a thing for me. With a mora3, might not be for you.
> 
> On the other hand, the CPU now boosts to 4.8ghz much more time, that it used to stay at 4,6 on stock settings.
> 
> Sent from my Redmi Note 5 using Tapatalk


i already tuned the CO. It’s rock solid. 

so if you turn boost override to +200 you’ll only hit 4.6 but if you turn it off you’ll get 4.8 more often? Hmm I’ll try this out tomorrow. Thanks


----------



## Shenhua

tonynca said:


> i already tuned the CO. It’s rock solid.
> 
> so if you turn boost override to +200 you’ll only hit 4.6 but if you turn it off you’ll get 4.8 more often? Hmm I’ll try this out tomorrow. Thanks


No. I didnt say that. I said stock. Still, it's the same principle, either stock or +200, means more heat=less boosting.
At +0, you will have to tweak CO again from scratch, as you should have more room for negative CO.
Again this behaviour, might not show up in cinebench, since it's a full load. The only thing you can do is eyeball it.


----------



## Shenhua

I just added +100 for mine to test out my theory.. It seems to boost 50-100higher, but for much shorter bursts. And runs 5ºC hotter.

edit: for you it's probably gonna be margin of error increased temps, so it probably wont do anything at all.


----------



## jamie1073

This is what I get now in R23 with all cores at -30 on my 5950X. No offset on CPU voltage at all. This is the highest I have ever got my Single Core score to get to. I am now wondering if it would be worth it to undevolt and start the whole curve optimizer process over since I am at -30 on all of them. And no raising the two best cores CO values make the single core score lower as well as the MC score. Setup is in the Sig.


----------



## Luggage

jamie1073 said:


> This is what I get now in R23 with all cores at -30 on my 5950X. No offset on CPU voltage at all. This is the highest I have ever got my Single Core score to get to. I am now wondering if it would be worth it to undevolt and start the whole curve optimizer process over since I am at -30 on all of them. And no raising the two best cores CO values make the single core score lower as well as the MC score. Setup is in the Sig.
> 
> View attachment 2550809


R23 is a light load as far as stability is concerned. You are probably not stable at -30 for all cores, specially not in light single threaded loads, idle or heavier multi threaded.


----------



## KedarWolf

jamie1073 said:


> This is what I get now in R23 with all cores at -30 on my 5950X. No offset on CPU voltage at all. This is the highest I have ever got my Single Core score to get to. I am now wondering if it would be worth it to undevolt and start the whole curve optimizer process over since I am at -30 on all of them. And no raising the two best cores CO values make the single core score lower as well as the MC score. Setup is in the Sig.
> 
> View attachment 2550809


What Boost and Scaler do you use in BIOS? Like 200 Boost, 10 Scaler. And what EDC PPT etc.?


----------



## Elrick

Found a decent price tag for a new 5900X, here in Convict Town;









AMD Ryzen 9 5900X 4.8GHz 12 Cores 24 Threads AM4 C 100-100000061WOF | shopping express online


Buy AMD Ryzen 9 5900X 4.8GHz 12 Cores 24 Threads AM4 C 100-100000061WOF at the cheapest price on shopping express online Australia, money back guarantee.




www.shoppingexpress.com.au





$645.00AUD and has FREE shipping too.

I think this deal is only on for 24 hours. So if you live here in our country, then this is a really super-fine price for a new 5900X.


----------



## tonynca

how much offset do you need if you’re getting random restarts with high negative CO?


----------



## Piers

tonynca said:


> Is there any proof of this? It sounds good in theory but does the processor really boost longer and you get better CR23 scores?


I can confirm that only using a refined Curve, and leaving 'AutoOC' at 0, produces far better results on my 5900X. If you are after having 5.00 GHz displayed, go with AutoOC. If you want sustained performance on more cores (actual real-world difference), refine your Curve and leave Scalar at 1X, AutoOC at 0/disabled, and power limits as you prefer.



jamie1073 said:


> This is what I get now in R23 with all cores at -30 on my 5950X. No offset on CPU voltage at all.


It's certainly not going to be stable, but it's a great score. I'd start with -8 on your two/four best cores, -18 on the rest and work from there. There are a number of YouTubers and websites that say 'enter -30 on all cores and reboot'. That's irresponsible as it's likely 0.1% of CPUs will be able to sustain that. Some, as documented in this thread, even have to add steps on the best cores to keep a Curve stable (e.g. four best cores +3, the rest -20).


Luggage said:


> R23 is a light load as far as stability is concerned. You are probably not stable at -30 for all cores, specially not in light single threaded loads, idle or heavier multi threaded.


R23 is a good test if using a 12 hour loop as it's AVX2. Obviously, as we've discussed many times, CoreCycler w/ defaults or y-cruncher is better, or CoreCycler + y-cruncher.


tonynca said:


> how much offset do you need if you’re getting random restarts with high negative CO?


Identify your best cores (HWiNFO shows you, as does Ryzen Master). Set those cores to -8 to start with, and the rest -18. Test for a few hours using CoreCycler and other applications. If stable, move to -10 and -20. Test and repeat.

Edit: Found my guide from this thread _(that was created based on the huge amount of friendly advice received from experienced OCN users)_, for anyone wanting easy to follow steps that should produce a stable overclock. I prefer taking longer to make sure everything is stressed and tested, whereas others prefer less time. Both are, to a point, valid.

Here's a copy/paste from that thread. There are spelling mistakes which I've not corrected.: 



> Guide to Overclocking with Zen 3
> 
> Enter your BIOS _(technically UEFI) _in the Advanced View and save your existing configuration _(if you wish)_. Then Load Optimised Defaults and reboot.
> Re-enter the BIOS and enable your RAM profile _(XMP/AMP/A-XMP/DOCP - there are so many names for AMD's version of XMP)_. Save, reboot, and load in to Windows.
> Now it's time to test your 3600 MT/s _(or whatever speed)_ RAM _(and 1:1:1 configuration)_ with MemTest86 or similar software. For 32GB, this should be for 48 hours or until it shows no errors for the recommend amount of time or passes _(read the documentation for whichever piece of software you choose)_.
> If MemTest86 _(or similar)_ passes without errors for 48 hours/n passes _(or lower, if that's what the software says is OK)_, you know you have a solid start for overclocking. Now it's time to move on to PBO2.
> Enter your BIOS and enable PBO2 from the AMD Overclocking menu _(e.g. for Asus boards, this is Advanced -> AMD Overclocking -> Precision Boost Overdrive). _For Power Limit, select Motherboard power limits. Don't touch Scalar, Additional OC or MHz, or the Curve Optimiser yet. You can set a safe maximum temperature if you wish. 85 is at the higher end for two CCD parts _(e.g. 5900X)_ and 90 is at the higher end for one CCD parts _(e.g. 5600X)_. Save, reboot, and load in to Windows.
> Once in Windows, it's time to measure your improvements. Run a series of benchmarks_*****_, making sure to record the scores/boost clocks (effective)/voltages/etc. - it's especially important to note down PPT, TDC, & EDC.
> If you find acceptable performance, it's time to obtain your 'best' two cores for each CCD. This can be done using Ryzen Master or HWiNFO. Ryzen Master is generally preferred. Note which cores _(note: in Ryzen Master, it lists cores starting at 1. This is misleading as Core 01 is technically Core 00 in any BIOS. If Ryzen Master states your 'best' core on CCD0 is Core 05, this is Core 04 in your BIOS)._
> Reboot and enter your BIOS. It's time to set your power limits in the PBO2 menu you used earlier. Change the Power Limits from 'Motherboard' to the figures you obtained earlier from benchmarking. I would reduce the figures by ~10% _(especially EDC). _Save, reboot, and load in to Windows.
> Once back in Windows, carry out the same series of benchmarks you ran before. Make sure to note all scores/clocks/etc.
> If performance is satisfactory (incl. cooling), it's time to reboot and enter your BIOS again.
> Once in the BIOS, enable Curve Optimiser and select Per Core. Set all to cores to Negative and start with sensible values. If using a dual CCD part _(e.g. 5900X), y_ou can either choose to have CCD0 with lower values, or focus on per-core performance by optimising the two best cores _(as noted earlier in Ryzen Master)_ on each CCD. Regardless, I would use multiples of 3 to start with - this would be "-6" on your 'best' cores, and "-18" on the rest. Save, reboot, and load in to Windows.
> Once back in Windows, carry out the same series of benchmarks and tests. Again, make sure to note your scores/clocks/etc. If no crashes, BSOD, reboots, or errors, reboot back in your BIOS.
> Once back in the BIOS, drop the values by 3 _(e.g. Core 04 is your 'best' core, so you change the value from *-*6 to *-*9)_. Save, reboot, and load in to Windows.
> Repeat step #12 _(carry out the same series of benchmarks and note all important data)_.
> If all benchmarks and tests pass, you can lower the values even more and test, but be careful of single core performance loss. Generally, the consensus appears to be that a majority of chips will operate better with as little negative offset on the 'best' cores. This is not true for all chips so it's a matter of trial and error.
> Once you have found what seems like a stable configuration, it's time to start stability testing. This can take anywhere from 10m to 48+ hours _(ideally 4 to 8 hours per *thread*)_.
> For stability testing, CoreCycler is an effective and free script which utilises Prime 95 _(SSE and/or AVX2+)_, y-cruncher _(AVX2+)_, and Aida64 _(not included by default, less reliable)_. The script works by selecting cores at random and putting a full load on that core. It then moves on to another core and does the same. All data is logged in the script's directory and it shows which, if any, core failed. You can use the default Prime 95 SSE setup, or select y-cruncher instead. Both are good. Both should show any weakness in your Curve but in different ways _(SSE technically should allow for higher boost clocks which may expose too much undervolting more quickly. This is not always the case)_, so long as you let them run long enough. Running for 1 hour per core is not long enough. An *ideal *calculation = eight hours per thread. For a 5600X, this would be 96 hours. For a 5900X, this would be 144 hours. In my experience, errors in the default configuration are usually found within 48 hours or ~45 iterations.
> Notes and Software
> **** = *My choice of quick benchmarking and testing software (for about two hours worth of tests) includes:
> 
> HWiNFO for recording information
> IntelBurnTest (it's old but still effective) or another Linpack GUI with 50%-90% RAM loaded - 10 cycles (check for score consistency. If not reasonably consistent, it's likely the overclock isn't acceptable)
> Cinebench R23 - 15 mins multiple core and 15 mins single core
> 3D Mark Time Spy Extreme CPU test
> y-cruncher
> Blender benchmark (all demos included - don't select GPU to render, obviously)
> Aida64 stress test (incl. RAM) - 30 minutes
> FHD Benchmark (old, but still effective). Substitute this for a different AVX2 encoding benchmark if you wish - 5 passes assuming length=5 minutes
> Finally, some sort of document - notepad is fine, or create a spreadsheet to record benchmarking and testing results. You'll thank yourself later on.
> Obviously you can skill all of those points - it's merely a suggestion. I just see zero point in enabling and changing a dozen different options, then trying to test for stability. It's a total waste of time if the workstation is to be used for anything you care about.


And here's a screenshot in case anyone is like me and pokes around in the BIOS whilst using a mobile to read saved values/advice


----------



## Mike156

Good info, but man, 45 iterations of core cycler seems like a lot?

I stop at like 6 iterations and I was crash free for a year on the 5600X and two months so far on the 5900X.

I haven't pushed it that hard though, just stock PBO limits and no OC. Just per core CO and it picked up like 1000 points in CBR23. Didn't improve single core any though.


----------



## Piers

Mike156 said:


> Good info, but man, 45 iterations of core cycler seems like a lot?
> 
> I stop at like 6 iterations and I was crash free for a year on the 5600X and two months so far on the 5900X.
> 
> I haven't pushed it that hard though, just stock PBO limits and no OC. Just per core CO and it picked up like 1000 points in CBR23. Didn't improve single core any though.


It's entirely up to you. If you only game and don't have any important data, then it doesn't really matter. However, as the algorithm repeats, you can just leave it overnight for a couple of weeks and then be pretty sure it's stable. Silent corruption is a real issue. I completed one log test of CoreCycler and found it failed at iteration 21 (before the highest was, I think, 20). The system appeared totally stable, but clearly wasn't. Others in the OCN community swear by y-cruncher (which can produce a fail within a couple of hours - don't use the version included with CoreCycler - grab the newest build and run with defaults). I've found it's useful as a final stability test to run overnight/whilst at work if not working from home.

Again, it's your PC, your time, and your data. The more stability testing you can do, the less of a chance you will find random crashes in X months or corruption (obviously ECC would help as all Zen 2/3 parts support it, but I'm using normal RAM).

Edit: What's your R23 MS and SC score?


----------



## Mike156

Fair point, it's only for gaming on the 5900X system. I'd definitely probably push out longer if I was doing massive number crunching where a crash could cost me money. Out of curiosity, when you crash at 21 iterations, how much CO do you adjust by on that core?

R23
142W is ~22,950
185W is ~23,650
Out of the box was ~22,150 with the same 142W.

No idea how good/bad that is.


----------



## KedarWolf

Shenhua said:


> No. I didnt say that. I said stock. Still, it's the same principle, either stock or +200, means more heat=less boosting.
> At +0, you will have to tweak CO again from scratch, as you should have more room for negative CO.
> Again this behaviour, might not show up in cinebench, since it's a full load. The only thing you can do is eyeball it.


Running 0 Boost, Scaler Disabled and redoing my curve with Core Cycler, I gained 400 points in CB23. Single-core about the same though.


----------



## DeadSec

Shenhua said:


> Instead of adding +200, why don't you leave it at 0 and tighten the CO on every core with core cycler.
> 
> I understand it might not sound that attractive, but instead of boosting higher, it will boost for longer time.
> 
> Sent from my Redmi Note 5 using Tapatalk


Oh well, actually I need to know how to get all cores boosting longer on higher multiplier.


----------



## Piers

Mike156 said:


> when you crash at 21 iterations, how much CO do you adjust by on that core?


I have it set to try the same core again if it fails. The PC didn't crash; CoreCycler merely reported a rounding error indicating instability. I usually adjust steps by 2 or 3 - see mini guide a few posts above.



Mike156 said:


> R23
> 142W is ~22,950
> 185W is ~23,650
> Out of the box was ~22,150 with the same 142W.


22,150 on a 5900X? Would you mind showing stepping information? I'd also be interested in BIOS telemetry settings. What's your stock single-core score?



DeadSec said:


> Oh well, actually I need to know how to get all cores boosting longer on higher multiplier.


There's a one-click option on Asus motherboards if you want something that will work and don't really care about the heat of fine-tuning options. The idiotically-named *Asus Performance Enhancement*, AKA "APE" (it's a few options underneath the XMP enable/disable toggle) will let all cores boost using Asus-defined limits (based on the motherboard, VRM, etc.). It's not quite the same as enabling PBO2 and setting values to 'Motherboard'. For a one-click-overclock option, it works well - merely enabling it on my 5900X sees 4.65 GHz on all cores during a CBR23 test using ~200W. However, the downside is that the temperature reaches 87°C. I dislike my 5900X going above 70°C, 75°C if the ambient is higher.

So, if you want an easy way to have sustained multi-core boost clocks, that's certainly an option. Is your motherboard the Crosshair VIII Hero, or Dark Hero? The latter certainly has some truly excellent hybrid overclocking tools.

Edit: What sort of boost are you looking for/expecting on your 5950X?


----------



## DeadSec

I 've got the Crosshair VIII Hero.
A permanent boost up to 4900 MHz on Cinebench would be nice.
The temperature is not the problem. The Mo-Ra 3 is kind of bored...


----------



## Piers

DeadSec said:


> I 've got the Crosshair VIII Hero.
> A permanent boost up to 4900 MHz on Cinebench would be nice.
> The temperature is not the problem. The Mo-Ra 3 is kind of bored...


You're not going to see 4.90 GHz for all-core workloads, but you should be able to rather easily achieve at least 4.60 GHz @ 1.30V or 4.70 GHz @ 1.35V without much of an issue. It would be best to lower those voltages as much as possible, but that's an easy starting point. Obviously you'll lose single-core performance, but if you don't care about that then try it out. It can be refined later on.


----------



## Luggage

DeadSec said:


> I 've got the Crosshair VIII Hero.
> A permanent boost up to 4900 MHz on Cinebench would be nice.
> The temperature is not the problem. The Mo-Ra 3 is kind of bored...


What temps?

You need to get a bit under 60C and not care about stability. (my water was 4-6C and the curve was not stable)
Also your second ccx will probably be harder to get up to speed.



http://imgur.com/a/YK3ZFmz


Or yeet voltage and don't care about degradation


----------



## DeadSec

I underestimated the temperatures. 
A fixed multiplier at 46 combined with a fixed VCore at 1,35 V was for Cinebench okay. 
I had 87° C though. The scores were excellent. 
y-cruncher crashed after one minute. 
The goal is to have a high longtime boost. The question is how?


----------



## Imprezzion

4900 cinebench boost is a lot to ask tho for allcore. On my B2 5900X I run -25 CO on all cores +50Mhz auto voltage auto LLC and everything else. It will see around 4800-4850 in games on all cores but cinebench is around 4625-4650 ish. EDC 170 TDC 140 PPT 300. These settings give me by far the best scores both single thread and multi and game performance is sweet but it does get pretty hot even under a 420+240 Nemesis GTX and a TechN block. Around 80c cinebench and high 60's in gaming with the GPU also in the loop.


----------



## Mike156

Piers said:


> I have it set to try the same core again if it fails. The PC didn't crash; CoreCycler merely reported a rounding error indicating instability. I usually adjust steps by 2 or 3 - see mini guide a few posts above.


Got ya, wasn't sure if you were using 2-3 to "rough in" and then went by like increments of 1 when you got close.



Piers said:


> 22,150 on a 5900X? Would you mind showing stepping information? I'd also be interested in BIOS telemetry settings. What's your stock single-core score?


It's B0 stepping, got it from antonline in January 2022. Sorry, I don't usually do single core tests as I haven't really seen any settings that seem to impact it. I don't recall what the single score is but I can run it. What bios settings are you interested in? It's a MSI Unify-X B550 MB.




Piers said:


> There's a one-click option on Asus motherboards...the downside is that the temperature reaches 87°C.


I can second that, have the 5600X on a TUF X570 and that setting seems to be about the same as turning off all power/current limits. With that and PBO on, it runs real hot.


----------



## Piers

DeadSec said:


> A fixed multiplier at 46 combined with a fixed VCore at 1,35 V was for Cinebench okay.


That's good. Cinebench is an AVX2 workload, which many seem to forget, and the clocks and stability you see in CBR23 are representative of common AVX2 workloads, such x264/x265 encoding, and gaming _(Cyberpunk 2077 relies heavily upon AVX 128/256/512 - whichever is supported by the CPU)._


DeadSec said:


> I had 87° C though. The scores were excellent.


And that's part of the problem. You have to remember that you have 16 full cores and 32 threads in a tiny package and cooling (non-exotic) is one of the hardest parts to do. On the bright side, at least you don't have a 12700K or 12900K, where they'll easily reach 100°C at stock with an ambient of 21°C.


DeadSec said:


> y-cruncher crashed after one minute.


Y-cruncher also uses AVX, and other instructions, but due to the mixed algorithms it will stress out a lot more of your system, including cache and RAM. I see y-cruncher as the ultimate validation tool for a fixed overclock (not using PBO2).


DeadSec said:


> The goal is to have a high longtime boost. The question is how?


I'm encoding two films at the moment (AVX2), and the clocks are bouncing between 4.20 GHz and 4.55 GHz with 100% utilisation. That's at stock power limits, so only 142W and ~68-72°C.

The reason for mentioning that, is because if you *require*/want 16 core clocks at 4.70 GHz (for example) for daily use and under 75°C, you'll need to buy look in to more exotic cooling methods, or give up _(I mean that in a nice way)_. Remember, your CPU can already perform incredibly complex AVX2 tasks at ~4.20 GHz on all 16 cores, but only use 142W. That's incredible. Whilst it would seem many Intel 12900K CPUs can easily run 5.00 GHz on all the proper cores (not Atom cores), they will easily use ~300W.

Going back to your original point - "46 combined with a fixed VCore at 1,35 V" - you've now approximately found what your silicon is capable of in terms of voltage:clocks. 4.60 GHz @ 1.35V. It's not great, but also not bad. Only you can choose if you want to run that voltage as daily use. You could probably stabilise it _(@Luggage should be able to offer advice on the right voltages to help with stability)_ and maybe refine it, but that's about it for a fixed OC. The next step would be PBO2.

If you don't mind, can you please explain why you need all 16 cores to be at 4.60 GHz+? I don't understand what type of workloads you want to perform. The 5900X and 5950X are still in the top 5 of fastest consumer desktop processors.


----------



## Piers

Mike156 said:


> Got ya, wasn't sure if you were using 2-3 to "rough in" and then went by like increments of 1 when you got close.


Each step represents anywhere between 3 and 5 mV. Reducing the step by 1 has never appealed as there are too many variables. Reducing/increasing by a few steps makes more sense.


Mike156 said:


> It's B0 stepping, got it from antonline


Not sure what antonline is (assume it's a component shop) but B0 was the part I was interested in.


Mike156 said:


> Sorry, I don't usually do single core tests as I haven't really seen any settings that seem to impact it.


I have an entire spreadsheet of results for overclocking with PBO2, although I've found text files more useful recently. For example, if I set -12 and -22 (the former being for the best cores), I would then boot into Windows and:

run Cinebench R23 SC and MC once each
if they pass, then 10 minutes on a loop for SC and MC
if that passes, I would then use the benchmark in my signature or any other x264/x265 (AVC/HEVC) 'encoder' to see if high workloads are initially stable _(only a 5-10 minute encode)_
if that passes, I would then perform 20-30 iterations of IntelBurnTest - it's an old tool, but useful _(obviously there are better linpack GUIs available with more recent linpack release)_
assuming all of the above passes, I would then perform more using tools mentioned a few posts ago. 

And all of the important (to me) data from those tests - average temperature, clock/multiplier, voltage (approx.), etc. - would be recorded as well. 

The single core score in R23 is especially important as it's very easy to set 4.60 GHz @ 1.30V and call it a day, but that will heavily impact the SC performance in real-world use-cases. I realise it's annoying to sit and wait several minutes for it to slowly chug along, but there's little point in ignoring the single core performance when validating stability - most games _(including modern games like Cyberpunk 2077 and many more)_ continue to use a single core for loading, menus, and highly bursty workloads _(especially true if Resizable BAR, or "Smart Access Memory", as AMD labels it is enabled). _And older competitive games _(or games on older engines - Apex Legends has ~275,000 people playing on an average day, but it uses a heavily modified Source engine)_, such as CS:GO, Apex, Valorant, etc. still rely heavily on a few cores during play, and 1 core during almost everything else.



Mike156 said:


> What bios settings are you interested in? It's a MSI Unify-X B550 MB.


I'm interested in the telemetry options within the BIOS. I've not used an MSI UEFI/BIOS in a very long time. I assume it has a search feature - if you search for 'telemetry' you will hopefully find where MSI has the setting and what options are available to you. The telemetry settings are incredibly important as (in a very simplified way) it directly impacts the data used to work out boosting behaviour. Just setting mine with a 'auto' negative offset produced accurate power results and increased all-core clocks by a few hundred megahertz.


----------



## KedarWolf

I hadn't blown out my fans and 360 rad with my electric blower for my CPU in a long time. Gained 300 points.


----------



## KedarWolf

Disabled some unneeded services, but I still have a fully functional Windows 11 PC.

This on an EKWB Predator 360 AIO I threw an Optimus Foundation AM4 block on.

If anyone wants to compare BIOS settings, I can put BIOS screenshots in a spoiler. Let me know.


----------



## Mike156

I definitely wasn't saying single core didn't matter. Just saying I haven't seen any settings that had a big impact there, other then the maximum clock offset. I wasn't really able to get it to boost over 4950MHz regardless of that setting if I have my CO values negative. I did see 5100MHz with CO at 0. Just had way better results in multi core with the CO optimized values.

With current settings (CO optimized, +0MHz, scalar 10, 142W/95A/140A)
CBR23 - SC 1693, MC 23,112
CPU-Z - ST 692, MT - 10,315

CPU VDD_SOC Current Optimization
Once you set it to custom, it gives CPU and SOC values for full scale current and telemetry offset. 

Don't know if it matters since I have PBO on and CO, but it reports 94% power reporting deviation running CBR23.

Edit: I did a lot of logging the data, screen capture HWinfo, and record scores initially. At this point, I tend to do more "sensitivity analysis" where I find what settings actually do something. I then focus on a setting until I establish the usable range and try to narrow in on the optimal point. I don't usually collect data here though until I narrow in on that optimal area. I'll do that with a couple different variables and then start combining variables together to see how they interact.

I spent a ton of time and effort on memory timings and 5600X and came to the conclusion that its not really worth the extra 3% at the risk of instability so I usually use the system with settings much less "on the edge." I do find it enjoyable to push it as far as I can occasionally too though, and at that point "stability" mostly means "did it make it through the benchmark and improve performance?"


----------



## DeadSec

Piers said:


> If you don't mind, can you please explain why you need all 16 cores to be at 4.60 GHz+? I don't understand what type of workloads you want to perform. The 5900X and 5950X are still in the top 5 of fastest consumer desktop processors.


You 've got the point of my desire - no doubt about it. Well, there is no software that pulls me to hit the cores up to 4.900 MHz.
To be honest it is just my curiosity how high I'm able to oc all cores after I successfully overclocked the RAM.
Back to the cores: A fixed frequency seems not to be the best way. But for gaming should a strong boost be okay.
What am I supposed to do in the BIOS? PBO2 ? How?


----------



## Mike156

For all core, a fixed frequency and voltage might get you better results then PBO. Although maybe the clock stretching makes things more forgiving of instabilities in PBO?

There are complete threads and guides on how to use PBO. If all you want is high frequencies in all core and don't care if it's actually the best score?

Disable the power/current limits and set max frequency offset to +200MHz. If 0 in the curve optimizer doesn't get you to 200MHz above the max boost frequency or it's unstable, you could add a positive CO value. Temperatures are likely to be your main limit here although I think it won't increase voltage beyound a certain level in all core work loads. You could also use a CPU VDD offset.


----------



## KedarWolf

Changed some telemetry settings, over 31000!


----------



## DeadSec

Mike156 said:


> There are complete threads and guides on how to use PBO. If all you want is high frequencies in all core and don't care if it's actually the best score?


Just where is a good one?


----------



## KedarWolf

DeadSec said:


> Just where is a good one?


I just scored this on a 360 AIO I threw an Optimus Water Cooling AM4 block on. But I have a really good CPU, your curve likely won't go as high. 

I'm using an unlocked BIOS too. BIOS screenshots in the Spoiler.












Spoiler: BIOS Screenshots


----------



## DeadSec

Thanks man. 
I am trying to understand what the "negative" is doing to the system. 
What is it all about?


----------



## KedarWolf

DeadSec said:


> Thanks man.
> I am trying to understand what the "negative" is doing to the system.
> What is it all about?


All I know is it helps your cores boost higher.


----------



## Piers

Mike156 said:


> I wasn't really able to get it to boost over 4950MHz regardless of that setting if I have my CO values negative.


4.95 GHz is the top core speed without any changes _(i.e. at stock)_. 8 out of my 12 cores will boost to 4.95 GHz, but the sustained speed is obviously the only measurement that matters, and that's ~4.90 GHz for 2C/4T.



Mike156 said:


> With current settings (CO optimized, +0MHz, scalar 10, 142W/95A/140A)
> CBR23 - SC 1693, MC 23,112


OK, so stock power limits and no AutoOC. Why set the Scalar to 10x? 



Mike156 said:


> CPU VDD_SOC Current Optimization
> Once you set it to custom, it gives CPU and SOC values for full scale current and telemetry offset.


Do you mean that once you set the value to anything other than 'auto', new fields are revealed in the BIOS showing you Telemetry options?



Mike156 said:


> Don't know if it matters since I have PBO on and CO, but it reports 94% power reporting deviation running CBR23.


If you are taking that measurement from HWiNFO, I would completely ignore it. It's unreliable, only 'works' with 100% utilisation, and confuses people. I've disabled monitoring it. Under Telemetry in the BIOS, can you please take a photo/screenshot of what options you have?



DeadSec said:


> Well, there is no software that pulls me to hit the cores up to 4.900 MHz.


Well, cooling with LN2 and you could see 6.36 GHz on all cores with the 5950X, but that's not really practical 😋

For conventional cooling methods, you're not going to see an all-core 4.90 GHz overclock. I suppose it might be possible if a so-called golden sample running at 1.60V with an air conditioner attached, you might see some great sustained clocks for the 20 minutes the CPU lives for 😁



DeadSec said:


> To be honest it is just my curiosity how high I'm able to oc all cores after I successfully overclocked the RAM.


For me, overclocking the RAM offers maybe an extra ~2-3% performance and takes days of testing _(ideally)_ to validate as stable. However, just changing the Telemetry options _(so it's providing accurate information - motherboard vendors got into a lot of trouble for faking Telemetry to boost performance, and AMD told them to stop. The end result is most vendors now having Telemetry reporting inaccurate values that result in lower all-core boosts) _by setting them to a negative offset and 'auto' will see accurate information being provided, and therefore an extra 4-7% in measurable, real-world performance _(not clock-stretching)_.



DeadSec said:


> Back to the cores: A fixed frequency seems not to be the best way. But for gaming should a strong boost be okay.


It really depends. A fixed frequency will provide a solid performance increase in most workloads. My motherboard has an option to set a maximum VID and multiplier for CCD0 and CCD1 - it's a great feature, meaning the stronger CCD - CCD0 - can go up to 4.80 GHz 6C/12T - whilst the weaker CCD - CCD1 - can go up to 4.5 GHz 6C/12T. I've only very briefly played around with it, but that might be the sort of compromise you're looking for - it would allow boosting (on CCD0) to 4.80 GHz, but retain good all-core performance.



DeadSec said:


> What am I supposed to do in the BIOS? PBO2 ? How?


A couple of pages ago, there's a small guide I've written about how to use PBO2. It's a compact guide that should provide all the information you need to get started, with the community members providing more help the more you advance. Here's a screenshot of the guide _(right-click -> open image in new tab)_:












Mike156 said:


> For all core, a fixed frequency and voltage might get you better results then PBO. Although maybe the clock stretching makes things more forgiving of instabilities in PBO?


In my experience, a fixed OC will absolutely offer better multi-core performance compared to PBO2, but then you lose single-core and even few-core performance. I'd advise anyone to enable PBO2 _(Advanced -> AMD Overclocking)_, set power limits to 'Motherboard' and leave everything else as standard. Then boot into Windows and run some benchmarks, as well as monitor heat output and voltages.


----------



## Piers

DeadSec said:


> Thanks man.
> I am trying to understand what the "negative" is doing to the system.
> What is it all about?


Negative in regards to Telemetry?


----------



## DeadSec

Yes, this is completely new for me.


----------



## Mike156

Piers said:


> 4.95 GHz is the top core speed without any changes _(i.e. at stock)_. 8 out of my 12 cores will boost to 4.95 GHz, but the sustained speed is obviously the only measurement that matters, and that's ~4.90 GHz for 2C/4T.


Yeah, I get sustained is the important part. I think the only way I've seen above 4950MHz is by using the Max OC setting in the PBO settings though? As I understand, it just increases the max allowed frequency, provided there is voltage and thermal head room to allow it?

On the 5600X, this pretty much worked as expected, 4650MHz was the highest it would go if set to +0 MHz. +100 would raise single thread work loads to 4750MHz. Multi threaded wouldn't really change though and when I had power limits set high, it would run about 4600MHz in CBR23 regardless of that setting.




Piers said:


> OK, so stock power limits and no AutoOC. Why set the Scalar to 10x?


10X scalar came from this forum and a video of AMD engineer saying to do it. It fakes a higher silicon quality value and causes it to sustain higher clocks longer. I did just test it real quick and set to 1 (same as AUTO) it lost about 50 points in CBR23. Single thread in CPU-Z lost like 1 point, so probably no change.



Piers said:


> Do you mean that once you set the value to anything other than 'auto', new fields are revealed in the BIOS showing you Telemetry options?


Correct, once changed to custom, 4 more settings appear. CPU VDD full scale current and telemetry offset and the SOC full scale current and telemetry offset. I'm on my phone so no screen shots. Couple posts up though shows the settings. Edit: Post 1343, 3rd screen capture in the bios shows the settings.



Piers said:


> If you are taking that measurement from HWiNFO, I would completely ignore it. It's unreliable, only 'works' with 100% utilisation, and confuses people. I've disabled monitoring it. Under Telemetry in the BIOS, can you please take a photo/screenshot of what options you have?


If you are ignoring this value, what are you using to determine it's wrong then? Mine is set to auto, so would be "right" according to what you said? I do recall specifically though, the 5600X on the TUF X570 sat right at 100% on CBR23 where is solidly 94% on the Unify-X/5900X.




Piers said:


> It really depends. A fixed frequency will provide a solid performance increase in most workloads. My motherboard has an option to set a maximum VID and multiplier for CCD0 and CCD1 - it's a great feature, meaning the stronger CCD - CCD0 - can go up to 4.80 GHz 6C/12T - whilst the weaker CCD - CCD1 - can go up to 4.5 GHz 6C/12T. I've only very briefly played around with it, but that might be the sort of compromise you're looking for - it would allow boosting (on CCD0) to 4.80 GHz, but retain good all-core performance.


Have to look for this as it seems like my CCD1 is what's limiting me on all core as it needs quite a bit higher voltage.




Piers said:


> In my experience, a fixed OC will absolutely offer better multi-core performance compared to PBO2, but then you lose single-core and even few-core performance. I'd advise anyone to enable PBO2 _(Advanced -> AMD Overclocking)_, set power limits to 'Motherboard' and leave everything else as standard. Then boot into Windows and run some benchmarks, as well as monitor heat output and voltages.


"Motherboard" seems to disable power limits? Or I think it did on ASUS. Not sure what the Unify-X does actually...

Edit: Motherboard raises PPT to 1000, TDC to 240A and EDC to 220A on my system. Didn't have fans set to 100% so it got to 80C and scored lower then when I used 185W with fans at 100%. I'm guessing this would get real hot on prime 95, might even make the single core temps real high.


----------



## Piers

Mike156 said:


> Yeah, I get sustained is the important part.


Indeed. You can run BoostTester.exe if you want to see the maximum boost clock for each core. It's not that useful, other than to give an indication about which cores might be better suited to heavy refinement for overclocking.



Mike156 said:


> I think the only way I've seen above 4950MHz is by using the Max OC setting in the PBO settings though? As I understand, it just increases the max allowed frequency, provided there is voltage and thermal head room to allow it?


You can do that, and the results will *look *impressive, but you'll instantly start experiencing clock-stretching. I can easily make my CPU look as though it's boosting to 4.70 GHz on an all-core AVX2 ,100% utilisation workload at stock power limits using a combination of 'AutoOC' and even the Fmax tweak Asus forgot to disable for Zen 3 (that really messes with clock reporting as it's only works for Zen 2), but it's obviously not doing that, hence clock-stretching. Here's a short, but good, explanation if you are interested.



Mike156 said:


> On the 5600X, this pretty much worked as expected, 4650MHz was the highest it would go if set to +0 MHz. +100 would raise single thread work loads to 4750MHz. Multi threaded wouldn't really change though and when I had power limits set high, it would run about 4600MHz in CBR23 regardless of that setting.


That sounds like it was approaching clock-stretching.



Mike156 said:


> 10X scalar came from this forum and a video of AMD engineer saying to do it.


Robert Hallock, AMD's director of technical marketing and the man who created the slides that so many of us have seen _(don't let the 'marketing' part of the title fool you)_, was keen on 5x-10x for Zen 2, but less so for Zen 3 due to the incredibly aggressive and opportunistic algorithm PB2 (not to be confused with PBO2) uses. It can do more harm than good, although that's rare. Personally, I find it makes zero difference.



Mike156 said:


> I did just test it real quick and set to 1 (same as AUTO) it lost about 50 points in CBR23.


Personally, I'd say 50 points for a multi-core benchmark is well within the margin of error. And even for a single-core benchmark, it very much depends upon what Windows feels like doing to ruin your experience.



Mike156 said:


> Correct, once changed to custom, 4 more settings appear. [...] CPU VDD full scale current and telemetry offset and the SOC full scale current and telemetry offset. I'm on my phone so no screen shots. Couple posts up though shows the settings.


I'll wait until you can take a photo, if you want to, as I'm interested in your exact settings, not just how it's displayed in the MSI UEFI/BIOS. On Asus boards, or at least on mine, there are six or eight options. I still haven't got round to formatting a USB drive for BIOS screenshots, and my PC is still encoding.



Mike156 said:


> If you are ignoring this value, what are you using to determine it's wrong then?


By having a friend who's an electrical engineer (not that it's a requirement) come over to help. He knew what he was doing and measured VDC using his multimeter manually via the EPS12V. A much easier way of doing it is to use one of the clamp-style meters. That should be 95%+ accurate and take less than 30s.



Mike156 said:


> Mine is set to auto, so would be "right" according to what you said? I do recall specifically though, the 5600X on the TUF X570 sat right at 100% on CBR23 where is solidly 94% on the Unify-X/5900X.


Assuming we're talking about Telemetry BIOS settings, it may be set to auto, which on Asus corrects the issue of Asus overreacting to AMD's concerns, but that doesn't mean the measurement in HWiNFO is accurate enough to provide a solid figure. I've only seen Deviation Reporting worry people and make them think something is wrong with their motherboard or CPU, whereas that's not the case at all and it's trying to create a measurement from polling every 1,000ms _(default) _whereas the CPU will be making thousands of small changes every 1,000ms.

Essentially, after going on the HWiNFO forum and reading Martin's _(the developer) _explanation, as well as asking him questions and reading other people's views, what he is trying to do makes sense and should expose motherboard manufacturers which deliberately fake Telemetry data in order to trick the CPU into boosting for longer periods of time/with higher voltages in order to make performance on their motherboards look better than competing ones, *but *HWiNFO just doesn't have access to the same data resolution/low-level hardware access that AMD's tools do _(due to AMD deliberately appearing to be ****ers over the matter and not even sharing Ryzen Master's basic proprietary tools with him, something that nearly every manufacturer - including Intel - is happy to do under NDA)._



Mike156 said:


> Have to look for this as it seems like my CCD1 is what's limiting me on all core as it needs quite a bit higher voltage.


On my motherboard, it's one of the very first options. Here's an image I found from a quick search - obviously ignore clocks and other data as it's not my image. The option in this image that I'm talking about is labelled "*CPU Core Ratio (Per CCX)*" - at the bottom of the list in the screenshot - by Asus. I assume, or hope, that other vendors have a similar option. Even the cheapo TUF B550 boards have a similar option. Slight rant: despite Zen 3 effectively eliminating the CCX on the desktop side _(due to L3 cache being shared between all eight cores of a single CCD, amongst other reasons)_, the BIOS still refers to both CCX and CCD interchangeably.













Mike156 said:


> "Motherboard" seems to disable power limits?


Not always. Some manufacturers take the time to tune power limits to something sensible. Some even offer two types of 'motherboard limits' - one more tuned, and the other much wider in terms of limits. On my motherboard, Asus couldn't be bothered and set the values to 1,000, 1,000, 200(or possibly 220 or another value).



Mike156 said:


> Or I think it did on ASUS. Not sure what the Unify-X does actually...


It's a highly-rated motherboard, so should have the same sort of options but perhaps with a different name, unless they are made available by AMD. In my opinion, gone are the days of Asus producing the best (in terms of both hardware and software) motherboards, and now companies that were formerly terrible with motherboards (MSI, Gigabyte) produce some of the best boards money can buy whilst Asus is mentally stuck in 2015, except it appears as though it fired its QC department.


----------



## Piers

KedarWolf said:


> I just scored this on a 360 AIO I threw an Optimus Water Cooling AM4 block on. But I have a really good CPU, your curve likely won't go as high.
> 
> I'm using an unlocked BIOS too. BIOS screenshots in the Spoiler.
> 
> View attachment 2550895
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: BIOS Screenshots
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2550896
> 
> View attachment 2550897
> 
> View attachment 2550898
> 
> View attachment 2550899
> 
> View attachment 2550900
> 
> View attachment 2550901
> 
> View attachment 2550902
> 
> View attachment 2550903
> 
> View attachment 2550904
> 
> View attachment 2550905
> 
> View attachment 2550906
> 
> View attachment 2550907
> 
> View attachment 2550908
> 
> View attachment 2550909
> 
> View attachment 2550910
> 
> View attachment 2550911
> 
> View attachment 2550912
> 
> View attachment 2550913
> 
> View attachment 2550914
> 
> View attachment 2550915
> 
> View attachment 2550916
> 
> View attachment 2550917
> 
> View attachment 2550918
> 
> View attachment 2550919
> 
> View attachment 2550920
> 
> View attachment 2550921
> 
> View attachment 2550922
> 
> View attachment 2550923
> 
> View attachment 2550924
> 
> View attachment 2550925
> 
> View attachment 2550926
> 
> View attachment 2550927
> 
> View attachment 2550928


Why disable C-States? I was under the impression, although clearly incorrectly, that C-States are less of an issue with modern AMD and Intel CPUs.


----------



## KedarWolf

Piers said:


> Why disable C-States? I was under the impression, although clearly incorrectly, that C-States are less of an issue with modern AMD and Intel CPUs.


I score higher multicore and single core with c-states disabled.


----------



## Piers

KedarWolf said:


> I score higher multicore and single core with c-states disabled.


Interesting. I've not touched C-States since I started using this PC. I'll have to give it a go. Is the difference noticeable?


----------



## KedarWolf

Piers said:


> Interesting. I've not touched C-States since I started using this PC. I'll have to give it a go. Is the difference noticeable?


Yes, it's a decent improvement.
Edit: I also disable DF States in the CBS menu, helps stabilize the memory overclock.

I'm on my phone, checked my screenshots, it's DF Cstates.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Piers said:


> Indeed. You can run BoostTester.exe if you want to see the maximum boost clock for each core. It's not that useful, other than to give an indication about which cores might be better suited to heavy refinement for overclocking.


It's very useful, gives you a solid metric for max boost clock and sustained clock for legacy instructions.
First step for CO counts optimization and also give an immediate picture of the silicon quality of every core at CO count 0.



Piers said:


> Robert Hallock, AMD's director of technical marketing and the man who created the slides that so many of us have seen _(don't let the 'marketing' part of the title fool you)_, was keen on 5x-10x for Zen 2, but less so for Zen 3 due to the incredibly aggressive and opportunistic algorithm PB2 (not to be confused with PBO2) uses. It can do more harm than good, although that's rare. Personally, I find it makes zero difference.


Scalar always makes a difference if there's headroom.
Meaning unless there's aren't other constraints or limits already reached.
It will add a base positive offset value to Core VIDs and allow a higher sustained clock.
At the same time will raise the thermal throttling ceilings by 6-7c except the last throttle limit you can manually adjust in PBO.
This higher thermal limit corresponds to the added heat due to the higher voltages.

The voltage offset is very thin on a single core load and higher on all-core load.
In general the ST scores will remain the same and the all-core scores raise a bit.
Where's most important is light threaded workloads, primarily gaming.
On a 5950X can be tested with CPU-z between 4 and 12 threads where you can get easily up to 200-400 more points.



Piers said:


> You can do that, and the results will *look *impressive, but you'll instantly start experiencing clock-stretching. I can easily make my CPU look as though it's boosting to 4.70 GHz on an all-core AVX2 ,100% utilisation workload at stock power limits using a combination of 'AutoOC' and even the Fmax tweak Asus forgot to disable for Zen 3 (that really messes with clock reporting as it's only works for Zen 2), but it's obviously not doing that, hence clock-stretching. Here's a short, but good, explanation if you are interested.


Max boost clock will not add instantly clock-stretching, unless something is really wrong.
Especially with Zen3 where it works much better than Zen2.

Clock-stretching, which means a delta between reference and effective clocks too high, happens independently of max boost clock.
The most obvious cause is usually something else that can't support the Core to run at that speed, often insufficient CCD or IOD voltages.
Raising Fmax is the most complex thing to handle for PBO, therefore you have to handle it.

Higher Fmax has obviously a much bigger impact in ST but will also raise the all-core clocks.
Same as Scalar, if you have headroom.
Running TM5 with high FMax you can usually see a 25-50 MHz higher all-core.
And same as Scalar is very important for gaming and light workloads since the sustained clocks will be higher.



Piers said:


> Essentially, after going on the HWiNFO forum and reading Martin's _(the developer) _explanation, as well as asking him questions and reading other people's views, what he is trying to do makes sense and should expose motherboard manufacturers which deliberately fake Telemetry data in order to trick the CPU into boosting for longer periods of time/with higher voltages in order to make performance on their motherboards look better than competing ones, *but *HWiNFO just doesn't have access to the same data resolution/low-level hardware access that AMD's tools do _(due to AMD deliberately appearing to be ****ers over the matter and not even sharing Ryzen Master's basic proprietary tools with him, something that nearly every manufacturer - including Intel - is happy to do under NDA)._


It's not exactly like this.
The pooling interval is irrelevant, whatever is the resolution the deviation between time a and time b will be the same, saving a slightly higher decimal precision.
Telemetry manipulation will not make* look like* the CPU is faster, *will actually make the CPU faster*.

The point is that reviewers thought that with same stock bios settings they could compare different mainboards.
But hidden telemetry manipulation made some boards faster than the competition in an unfair 1:1 comparison.
It's OC and it's a pretty unsafe kind. Not everyone wants to run its CPU overclocked especially if he's not aware of it.

This probably also led to a lot of fake RMAs for CPUs that were working perfectly at stock but not at stock with fake telemetry.


----------



## jamie1073

KedarWolf said:


> What Boost and Scaler do you use in BIOS? Like 200 Boost, 10 Scaler. And what EDC PPT etc.?


No scalar and boost at 0. EDC=200 and TDC=180. I did not even realize I did not have a higher TDC.


----------



## jamie1073

Luggage said:


> R23 is a light load as far as stability is concerned. You are probably not stable at -30 for all cores, specially not in light single threaded loads, idle or heavier multi threaded.


It has ran for a few days and gamed on as well as ran p95 just to screw around. Strange I know, I never was able to run -30 on all cores heck not even a few cores until the latest BIOS.


----------



## jamie1073

Piers said:


> I can confirm that only using a refined Curve, and leaving 'AutoOC' at 0, produces far better results on my 5900X. If you are after having 5.00 GHz displayed, go with AutoOC. If you want sustained performance on more cores (actual real-world difference), refine your Curve and leave Scalar at 1X, AutoOC at 0/disabled, and power limits as you prefer.
> 
> It's certainly not going to be stable, but it's a great score. I'd start with -8 on your two/four best cores, -18 on the rest and work from there. There are a number of YouTubers and websites that say 'enter -30 on all cores and reboot'. That's irresponsible as it's likely 0.1% of CPUs will be able to sustain that. Some, as documented in this thread, even have to add steps on the best cores to keep a Curve stable (e.g. four best cores +3, the rest -20).
> R23 is a good test if using a 12 hour loop as it's AVX2. Obviously, as we've discussed many times, CoreCycler w/ defaults or y-cruncher is better, or CoreCycler + y-cruncher.
> Identify your best cores (HWiNFO shows you, as does Ryzen Master). Set those cores to -8 to start with, and the rest -18. Test for a few hours using CoreCycler and other applications. If stable, move to -10 and -20. Test and repeat.
> 
> Edit: Found my guide from this thread _(that was created based on the huge amount of friendly advice received from experienced OCN users)_, for anyone wanting easy to follow steps that should produce a stable overclock. I prefer taking longer to make sure everything is stressed and tested, whereas others prefer less time. Both are, to a point, valid.
> 
> Here's a copy/paste from that thread. There are spelling mistakes which I've not corrected.:
> 
> 
> 
> And here's a screenshot in case anyone is like me and pokes around in the BIOS whilst using a mobile to read saved values/advice
> 
> View attachment 2550844


I started with higher CO's and got really crappy SC but great MC scores. I just kept lowering it and got to there. I have ran the system for days without errors, both gaming and testing. It has not re-booted on its own or thrown a WHEA error. If it does then I will make changes. Not even sure how it is stable to be honest, the only real change I made was flashing the BIOS to 4002 on my board and adding a 240mm rad to the existing setup.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

jamie1073 said:


> I never was able to run -30 on all cores heck not even a few cores until the latest BIOS.


Latest BIOS?
You are probably running with capped vCore VID then.


----------



## Mike156

Turnt it up as high as I could get it on CBR23 multicore.

200W/125A/200A
~4675MHz
75C
23,927

5900X B0, B550 Unify-X, Arctic LFII 280, Gskill Trident Z @ 3733 16-16-16-16-32
CO is -20/-18 on the two best cores and -28 on the rest, +0 MHz frequency max override

24k felt like it was mocking me
Tried higher power and current settings but these got the highest score.
Oh well, turned back down to 142W/95A/140A for actual use on otherwise the same settings and it's been stable for the last two months like that and passes like 10 hours of core cycler.


----------



## DeadSec

I made the call:
PPT: 270
TDC; 168
EDC: 220
+300 MHz.
How can I identify the best cores? Is it the highest boost by taking the less Vcore?


----------



## Luggage

jamie1073 said:


> It has ran for a few days and gamed on as well as ran p95 just to screw around. Strange I know, I never was able to run -30 on all cores heck not even a few cores until the latest BIOS.


Well everyone has different stability demands 









[Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread


This is the limit you can raise to in rm if you leave them on auto What's the point in raising it then, if it will never apply? I mean (if I get it right from your post) your BIOS allowed EDC limit to be manually set to max 220 amps, and that it's way below the actual mb limit? This is the...




www.overclock.net


----------



## Luggage

DeadSec said:


> I made the call:
> PPT: 270
> TDC; 168
> EDC: 220
> +300 MHz.
> How can I identify the best cores? Is it the highest boost by taking the less Vcore?


"+300" are you running old agesa 11XX bios?


----------



## 1devomer

Piers said:


> 4.95 GHz is the top core speed without any changes _(i.e. at stock)_. 8 out of my 12 cores will boost to 4.95 GHz, but the sustained speed is obviously the only measurement that matters, and that's ~4.90 GHz for 2C/4T.
> 
> OK, so stock power limits and no AutoOC. Why set the Scalar to 10x?
> 
> Do you mean that once you set the value to anything other than 'auto', new fields are revealed in the BIOS showing you Telemetry options?
> 
> If you are taking that measurement from HWiNFO, I would completely ignore it. It's unreliable, only 'works' with 100% utilisation, and confuses people. I've disabled monitoring it. Under Telemetry in the BIOS, can you please take a photo/screenshot of what options you have?
> 
> Well, cooling with LN2 and you could see 6.36 GHz on all cores with the 5950X, but that's not really practical 😋
> 
> For conventional cooling methods, you're not going to see an all-core 4.90 GHz overclock. I suppose it might be possible if a so-called golden sample running at 1.60V with an air conditioner attached, you might see some great sustained clocks for the 20 minutes the CPU lives for 😁
> 
> For me, overclocking the RAM offers maybe an extra ~2-3% performance and takes days of testing _(ideally)_ to validate as stable. However, just changing the Telemetry options _(so it's providing accurate information - motherboard vendors got into a lot of trouble for faking Telemetry to boost performance, and AMD told them to stop. The end result is most vendors now having Telemetry reporting inaccurate values that result in lower all-core boosts) _by setting them to a negative offset and 'auto' will see accurate information being provided, and therefore an extra 4-7% in measurable, real-world performance _(not clock-stretching)_.
> 
> It really depends. A fixed frequency will provide a solid performance increase in most workloads. My motherboard has an option to set a maximum VID and multiplier for CCD0 and CCD1 - it's a great feature, meaning the stronger CCD - CCD0 - can go up to 4.80 GHz 6C/12T - whilst the weaker CCD - CCD1 - can go up to 4.5 GHz 6C/12T. I've only very briefly played around with it, but that might be the sort of compromise you're looking for - it would allow boosting (on CCD0) to 4.80 GHz, but retain good all-core performance.
> 
> A couple of pages ago, there's a small guide I've written about how to use PBO2. It's a compact guide that should provide all the information you need to get started, with the community members providing more help the more you advance. Here's a screenshot of the guide _(right-click -> open image in new tab)_:
> View attachment 2550932
> 
> 
> 
> In my experience, a fixed OC will absolutely offer better multi-core performance compared to PBO2, but then you lose single-core and even few-core performance. I'd advise anyone to enable PBO2 _(Advanced -> AMD Overclocking)_, set power limits to 'Motherboard' and leave everything else as standard. Then boot into Windows and run some benchmarks, as well as monitor heat output and voltages.





Piers said:


> Indeed. You can run BoostTester.exe if you want to see the maximum boost clock for each core. It's not that useful, other than to give an indication about which cores might be better suited to heavy refinement for overclocking.
> 
> You can do that, and the results will *look *impressive, but you'll instantly start experiencing clock-stretching. I can easily make my CPU look as though it's boosting to 4.70 GHz on an all-core AVX2 ,100% utilisation workload at stock power limits using a combination of 'AutoOC' and even the Fmax tweak Asus forgot to disable for Zen 3 (that really messes with clock reporting as it's only works for Zen 2), but it's obviously not doing that, hence clock-stretching. Here's a short, but good, explanation if you are interested.
> 
> That sounds like it was approaching clock-stretching.
> 
> Robert Hallock, AMD's director of technical marketing and the man who created the slides that so many of us have seen _(don't let the 'marketing' part of the title fool you)_, was keen on 5x-10x for Zen 2, but less so for Zen 3 due to the incredibly aggressive and opportunistic algorithm PB2 (not to be confused with PBO2) uses. It can do more harm than good, although that's rare. Personally, I find it makes zero difference.
> 
> Personally, I'd say 50 points for a multi-core benchmark is well within the margin of error. And even for a single-core benchmark, it very much depends upon what Windows feels like doing to ruin your experience.
> 
> I'll wait until you can take a photo, if you want to, as I'm interested in your exact settings, not just how it's displayed in the MSI UEFI/BIOS. On Asus boards, or at least on mine, there are six or eight options. I still haven't got round to formatting a USB drive for BIOS screenshots, and my PC is still encoding.
> 
> By having a friend who's an electrical engineer (not that it's a requirement) come over to help. He knew what he was doing and measured VDC using his multimeter manually via the EPS12V. A much easier way of doing it is to use one of the clamp-style meters. That should be 95%+ accurate and take less than 30s.
> 
> Assuming we're talking about Telemetry BIOS settings, it may be set to auto, which on Asus corrects the issue of Asus overreacting to AMD's concerns, but that doesn't mean the measurement in HWiNFO is accurate enough to provide a solid figure. I've only seen Deviation Reporting worry people and make them think something is wrong with their motherboard or CPU, whereas that's not the case at all and it's trying to create a measurement from polling every 1,000ms _(default) _whereas the CPU will be making thousands of small changes every 1,000ms.
> 
> Essentially, after going on the HWiNFO forum and reading Martin's _(the developer) _explanation, as well as asking him questions and reading other people's views, what he is trying to do makes sense and should expose motherboard manufacturers which deliberately fake Telemetry data in order to trick the CPU into boosting for longer periods of time/with higher voltages in order to make performance on their motherboards look better than competing ones, *but *HWiNFO just doesn't have access to the same data resolution/low-level hardware access that AMD's tools do _(due to AMD deliberately appearing to be ****ers over the matter and not even sharing Ryzen Master's basic proprietary tools with him, something that nearly every manufacturer - including Intel - is happy to do under NDA)._
> 
> On my motherboard, it's one of the very first options. Here's an image I found from a quick search - obviously ignore clocks and other data as it's not my image. The option in this image that I'm talking about is labelled "*CPU Core Ratio (Per CCX)*" - at the bottom of the list in the screenshot - by Asus. I assume, or hope, that other vendors have a similar option. Even the cheapo TUF B550 boards have a similar option. Slight rant: despite Zen 3 effectively eliminating the CCX on the desktop side _(due to L3 cache being shared between all eight cores of a single CCD, amongst other reasons)_, the BIOS still refers to both CCX and CCD interchangeably.
> 
> View attachment 2550957
> 
> 
> 
> Not always. Some manufacturers take the time to tune power limits to something sensible. Some even offer two types of 'motherboard limits' - one more tuned, and the other much wider in terms of limits. On my motherboard, Asus couldn't be bothered and set the values to 1,000, 1,000, 200(or possibly 220 or another value).
> 
> It's a highly-rated motherboard, so should have the same sort of options but perhaps with a different name, unless they are made available by AMD. In my opinion, gone are the days of Asus producing the best (in terms of both hardware and software) motherboards, and now companies that were formerly terrible with motherboards (MSI, Gigabyte) produce some of the best boards money can buy whilst Asus is mentally stuck in 2015, except it appears as though it fired its QC department.


Quite a heavy post here, a lot of knowledge of AMD and its marketing slides!



Piers said:


> Interesting. *I've not touched C-States *since I started using this PC. I'll have to give it a go. Is the difference noticeable?


So, how it comes you never used to play with the C-states option, and why you don't have the same deep explanatory heavy post as above?

Can i expect, yet, another new thread incoming, asking about C-state usage?


As a side note, all your posts, in the page, can be resumed by:
_AMD cpu doesn't have a real hardware way to measure their power consumption, the cpu evaluate its own power consumption based on a formula, algorithm.
So changing the input and pooling values that are fed to the power consumption formula, will change the cpu boost behavior. 💡_
Hope this one will stick in your mind, since you forgot what the ACPI CPPC was, shortly after it was explained to you!!


----------



## DeadSec

Nope


----------



## DeadSec

Luggage said:


> "+300" are you running old agesa 11XX bios?


Would you say 270 PPT is way too high?


----------



## Luggage

DeadSec said:


> Would you say 270 PPT is way too high?


since agesa 1200(?) you cant set more than +200


----------



## DeadSec

No man, it is the boost clock override.
Is PPT 270 way too high or not?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

DeadSec said:


> No man, it is the boost clock override.


I'd check with HWInfo.
Even if you can set +300, like on MSI XOC bios, it's very likely capped at +200.


----------



## Mike156

Where is the information on this 200W limit? Haven't seen that statement before, but mine definitely seemed to be limited to 194W despite PPT being set higher.

Something that thru me off a bit was that I could raise EDC to 220A and it would go up to that, but it didn't raise clocks or CBR23 score above what it would get with EDC set to 200A. I had also set PPT to 220W with it, but this is where I saw it not go above 194W.

Just some other things mentioned earlier, using per CCX clock, I was thinking it would allow the CCXs to run different clock speeds with PB2 setup and it set to Auto. That's not the case and it would only run different clock speeds of I manually set them.

Changing the telemetry settings from Auto made the reported power discrepancy go to 50%. Not sure what was going on there.


----------



## Piers

ManniX-ITA said:


> It's very useful, gives you a solid metric for max boost clock and sustained clock for legacy instructions.


It's useful for seeing the maximum frequency a core will boost to under current settings, which I stated. It's not useful for anything else. I specifically wrote:


> It's not that useful, other than to give an indication about which cores might be better suited to heavy refinement for overclocking.


 🤦‍♂️



ManniX-ITA said:


> Scalar always makes a difference if there's headroom


I'm only going with AMD's view on Scalar use for Zen 3, where Robert said it's far less useful at 10x than Zen 2 at 10x, and recommended 1x or auto be used.


ManniX-ITA said:


> The voltage offset is very thin on a single core load and higher on all-core load.
> In general the ST scores will remain the same and the all-core scores raise a bit.
> Where's most important is light threaded workloads, primarily gaming


Gaming is no longer a particularly good example of "light threaded workloads" when newer games use multiple cores with AVX (128, 256, or 512 whichever is the highest available to the engine). Older games, however, with engines such as Source (even the heavily modified version is Source used for Apex Legends) are fair examples of low-thread applications.

The current build of GTA V is also a good example, although the new version has engine upgrades that will use more cores and introduce real-time ray tracing (but the engine's upper limit is unlikely to have changed at ~180 fps) and incredibe dense crowds/engine AI.



ManniX-ITA said:


> On a 5950X can be tested with CPU-z between 4 and 12 threads where you can get easily up to 200-400 more points.


The same can be said with almost any many-core CPU for most applications that are built to take advantage of its features. In x264, which at standard is compiled to handle 128 threads, restricting it to 12 threads on CCD0 will result in higher clocks and therefore a quicker overall encode time. And that's using AVX2 - I assume the same is true with the (still experimental) CPU-Z AVX Benchmark.



ManniX-ITA said:


> Max boost clock will not add instantly clock-stretching, unless something is really wrong.
> Especially with Zen3 where it works much better than Zen2.


My point is that at the upper ends of what the silicon can handle, which unrestricted PBO2 or vendor enhancements such as Asus' "APE" should offer, clock-stretching is very easy to achieve on Zen 3.



ManniX-ITA said:


> Clock-stretching, which means a delta between reference and effective clocks too high, happens independently of max boost clock.


I know what clock-stretching is and even left a linked article for the user to read.



ManniX-ITA said:


> And same as Scalar is very important for gaming and light workloads since the sustained clocks will be higher.


I've seen little evidence of that with Zen 3, once power limits are set and a Curve is created, and it would appear neither has AMD.



ManniX-ITA said:


> It's not exactly like this.
> The pooling interval is irrelevant, whatever is the resolution the deviation between time a and time b will be the same, saving a slightly higher decimal precision.


The polling interval is only slightly relevant in terms of the precision offered for this specific metric as it's based on estimation between polling and the assumption the motherboard is 'being honest'. That's why it's essentially a useless metric. This is made worse with HWiNFO not making it clear to end-users that it only applies under 100% load. Even at 95% load there can be severe statistical abnormalities. It was a good idea at the time and help guide reviewers away from motherboard vendor tricks, but it should be retired or hidden by default.



ManniX-ITA said:


> Telemetry manipulation will not make* look like* the CPU is faster, *will actually make the CPU faster*.


And *that's exactly what I've said* - I even created a separate thread yesterday yesterday (5/3) about how with correct Telemetry, the CPU will perform at a higher frequency. I even stated the following:


> 'Fixing' the Telemetry, so that it reports accurately, results in higher performance using the same power


. 



ManniX-ITA said:


> The point is that reviewers thought that with same stock bios settings they could compare different mainboards.
> But hidden telemetry manipulation made some boards faster than the competition in an unfair 1:1 comparison.


And that's what I also explained in that thread and thought I had in an earlier post in this thread.


----------



## Piers

jamie1073 said:


> I started with higher CO's and got really crappy SC but great MC scores. I just kept lowering it and got to there. I have ran the system for days without errors, both gaming and testing. It has not re-booted on its own or thrown a WHEA error. If it does then I will make changes. Not even sure how it is stable to be honest, the only real change I made was flashing the BIOS to 4002 on my board and adding a 240mm rad to the existing setup.


And that's with -30, or which Curve values?

A system doesn't have to crash or produce a WHEA error - that's *why *proper stability testing is important, as you're unlikely to notice it being unstable. I can set my entire Curve to -30, see an error in the second iteration** of CoreCycler, and the system won't crash or report a WHEA error; instead CoreCycler will report a rounding error which means it's unstable and needs tweaking.

_** = my core 0 is the strongest core and will sustain 4.925 GHz / 4.950 GHz on a single core workload, but doesn't like to go below -10 using Curve Optimiser as it clearly requires that voltage. Other silicon will behave differently. An unstable Curve might not produce an error until 20 hours later, which is why the author of the script recommends 6 hours of iterations *per thread*. Of course, it's perfectly possible you might find errors faster with y-cruncher (not the version/settings included with CoreCycler) which is why both are useful. _



jamie1073 said:


> It has ran for a few days and gamed on as well as ran p95 just to screw around. Strange I know, I never was able to run -30 on all cores heck not even a few cores until the latest BIOS.


I'd generally ignore Prime95 and, instead, go with y-cruncher's stresstest. The combination of algorithms used makes it the only application that is able to make my CPU go above 90°C and bring the all-core clock to ~3.675 GHz. It's incredibly stressful on the system, assuming you pick the defaults - or close to default algorithms. 

Here's a post where I show the settings used for y-cruncher, and HWiNFO output after over 21 hours of y-cruncher.


----------



## Piers

1devomer said:


> Quite a heavy post here, a lot of knowledge of AMD and its marketing slides!


I was waiting for your trolling behaviour to start. It's knowledge of speaking with the director of technical marketing at AMD. By stating he created the slides that almost everyone has seen, it helps demonstrate who he is and his knowledge in a technical capacity.


1devomer said:


> So, how it comes you never used to play with the C-states option, and why you don't have the same deep explanatory heavy post as above?


I was under the impression C-States on AMD were less relevant than on Intel and I've seen very little mention of them on here. This appears to not be the case and I will disable them to see the impact on performance and stability. I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong, or when I don't have knowledge about a particular topic, and this is an example of that. You could perhaps learn something, rather than trolling or spending 90% of your time complaining about GPU prices.


1devomer said:


> Can i expect, yet, another new thread incoming, asking about C-state usage?


I wasn't aware that you are in charge of people creating threads. Odd.


1devomer said:


> As a side note, all your posts, in the page, can be resumed by:
> _AMD cpu doesn't have a real hardware way to measure their power consumption, the cpu evaluate its own power consumption based on a formula, algorithm.
> So changing the input and pooling values that are fed to the power consumption formula, will change the cpu boost behavior. 💡_
> Hope this one will stick in your mind, since you forgot what the ACPI CPPC was, shortly after it was explained to you!!


So you are providing a generalisation of what you believe I've written over a 4-5 month period since owning a Zen-based CPU, including starting out and having little idea about AMD's technology _(after avoiding the company's products for over a decade)_, learning from community members (not you), to now where I'm able to offer advice in certain areas. That's an incredibly immature way of looking at things, but I'll address each point you raise.

For each of these points, provide a link showing an example, where relevant.

1. I've not stated AMD "_doesn't have a real hardware way to measure their power consumption_". Of course AMD, via proprietary and open means, has a way to measure the power consumption of its hardware.
2. I don't understand what you mean by "_the cpu evaluate its own power consumption based on a formula, algorithm_". If you are referring to PB2, then yes the CPU will manage limits. If you are referring to PBO2, then it will still manage limits but to a lesser extent.
3. Regarding "_So changing the input and pooling values that are fed to the power consumption formula, will change the cpu boost behavior. 💡[sic]_", yes - obviously. That's why making sure accurate Telemetry is being reported is important.
4. Please provide an example of where I "_... forgot what the ACPI CPPC was, shortly after it was explained to you!!_". A link will suffice. As stated elsewhere on OCN - and I believe when you were trolling, I have dealt with family deaths in the previous six months and due to that, and your abusive tone, have made mistakes. However, unlike you, where you troll to the point of being ignored/blocked by (so far) over a dozen members, and as I've mentioned above, I'm happy to admit where I'm wrong or have made a mistake.

Additionally, as I've suggested to you before, please grow up and learn how to engage with people in a civil manner. Instead of writing yet-another trolling post, you could have replied and helped the user(s) asking for advice. Trolling doesn't help anyone.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Piers said:


> It's useful for seeing the maximum frequency a core will boost to under current settings, which I stated. It's not useful for anything else. I specifically wrote:


I'm referring to this:



Piers said:


> It's not that useful, other than


"*It's not that useful*" means that.. it's not that useful 
I think the purpose, that you described as well, *it's extremely useful*.



Piers said:


> I'm only going with AMD's view on Scalar use for Zen 3, where Robert said it's far less useful at 10x than Zen 2 at 10x, and recommended 1x or auto be used.


Yeah got it, I don't share the same opinion. There are conditions were it's not that useful but I've mostly found myself in a scenario where it is.



Piers said:


> Gaming is no longer a particularly good example of "light threaded workloads" when newer games use multiple cores with AVX (128, 256, or 512 whichever is the highest available to the engine). Older games, however, with engines such as Source (even the heavily modified version is Source used for Apex Legends) are fair examples of low-thread applications.
> 
> The current build of GTA V is also a good example, although the new version has engine upgrades that will use more cores and introduce real-time ray tracing (but the engine's upper limit is unlikely to have changed at ~180 fps) and incredibe dense crowds/engine AI.


Not only light threaded but mostly.
Also depends a lot on how any threads the CPU has but considering we are talking about 5900X/5950X even the most threaded game hardly surpass the count of 16 for short periods.
I think it's still much more relevant for gaming the light threading scenario than the opposite.



Piers said:


> My point is that at the upper ends of what the silicon can handle, which unrestricted PBO2 or vendor enhancements such as Asus' "APE" should offer, clock-stretching is very easy to achieve on Zen 3.


I've only see it happening easily with ASUS Fmax not even the "APE" stuff.
For the rest I don't remember many instances.



Piers said:


> I know what clock-stretching is and even left a linked article for the user to read.


The point is that "clock stretching" as we call it with Ryzen doesn't have much to do with the description of it in the article you linked about the I2C bus case.
The higher delta between effective and reference, it's a different thing, a manifestation of throttling.
It's not a induced desync between 2 base clocks which are supposed to run at the same frequency.



Piers said:


> I've seen little evidence of that with Zen 3, once power limits are set and a Curve is created, and it would appear neither has AMD.


I've posted a while ago a specific round of testing.
You can test yourself with CPU-z or any benchmarks where you can set the threads.
It's more relevant to medium-threaded and up than light treaded and below.
If the PBO limits are higher enough the Scalar will give a very nice boost.



Piers said:


> The polling interval is only slightly relevant in terms of the precision offered for this specific metric as it's based on estimation between polling and the assumption the motherboard is 'being honest'. That's why it's essentially a useless metric. This is made worse with HWiNFO not making it clear to end-users that it only applies under 100% load. Even at 95% load there can be severe statistical abnormalities. It was a good idea at the time and help guide reviewers away from motherboard vendor tricks, but it should be retired or hidden by default.


I don't really understand why it should be a problem 
Then should we remove the effective clocks since are only relevant at 100% load?
Doesn't make sense.
Don't think I've seen many complaining about it.



Piers said:


> And *that's exactly what I've said* - I even created a separate thread yesterday yesterday (5/3) about how with correct Telemetry, the CPU will perform at a higher frequency. I even stated the following:


Yes I know but not in that post I quoted; you said that telemetry was making the board looking faster.
Out of context of your previous posts wasn't right.


----------



## Piers

ManniX-ITA said:


> "*It's not that useful*" means that.. it's not that useful
> I think the purpose, that you described as well, *it's extremely useful*.


It's an expression or way of making a point. Saying 'it's not that useful, apart...' means that it does have a use - one which is specifically wrote.



ManniX-ITA said:


> Yeah got it, I don't share the same opinion. There are conditions were it's not that useful but I've mostly found myself in a scenario where it is.


You may not share the same opinion as AMD, and that's fine. I will take AMD's advice on the relevance of scalar settings on Zen 3. What is the "scenario where [scalar at 10x] is useful"?



ManniX-ITA said:


> Also depends a lot on how any threads the CPU has but considering we are talking about 5900X/5950X even the most threaded game hardly surpass the count of 16 for short periods.
> I think it's still much more relevant for gaming the light threading scenario than the opposite.


It's true most games wouldn't go near 16 threads, let alone 16 cores/32 threads, but I don't consider modern games utilising up to 16T and AVX (such as REDengine 4, the engine behind Cyberpunk 2077) to be 'lightly-threaded' applications, which is the point I made in my reply. Of course, you are free to consider that to be a light workload in terms of threads and instruction sets/extensions used.



ManniX-ITA said:


> I've only see it happening easily with ASUS Fmax not even the "APE" stuff.


For the most part, APE (Asus Performance Enhancement) is Asus' replacement for MCE (Multi-core Enhancement).



ManniX-ITA said:


> The point is that "clock stretching" as we call it with Ryzen ...


Define "we".



ManniX-ITA said:


> The point is that "clock stretching" as we call it with Ryzen doesn't have much to do with the description of it in the article you linked about the I2C bus case.
> The higher delta between effective and reference, it's a different thing, a manifestation of throttling.
> It's not a induced desync between 2 base clocks which are supposed to run at the same frequency.


That's an interesting point. Using an AMD lecture as a reference, they define clock-stretching in the 'traditional' sense. So how would you describe clock-stretching in terms of Zen?



ManniX-ITA said:


> I've posted a while ago a specific round of testing.


Link?



ManniX-ITA said:


> You can test yourself with CPU-z or any benchmarks where you can set the threads.
> It's more relevant to medium-threaded and up than light treaded and below.
> If the PBO limits are higher enough the Scalar will give a very nice boost.


I have tested with CPU-Z, x264, x265, and CBR23 (where threads can be set) and have not seen any sustained difference - i.e. there might be a momentary increase, but that doesn't remain for the duration of the test (in the case of x265, that test might be 30 minutes long). The difference I have seen, with scalar at 1x and using "medium-threaded" applications, is that clicks will increase (for obvious reasons) and measurable performance will increase. A good example is x264 - set the threads in x264 to 12 instead of the default 36 (on a 5900X, x264 threads = logical processors * 1.5). Despite fewer threads, the file is encoded in 7% less time.



ManniX-ITA said:


> I don't really understand why it should be a problem
> Then should we remove the effective clocks since are only relevant at 100% load?
> Doesn't make sense.


If you want to be that pedantic, OK, but then we could remove nearly all reported values in software without access to AMD's proprietary sensor-reading methods. My point about the power deviation figure, and only the power deviation figure, is that it requires exact conditions to be even vaguely accurate, including 100% utilisation. And as already mentioned, measuring it manually and calculating the figure shows the provided value is accurate, assuming Telemetry is accurate.



ManniX-ITA said:


> Don't think I've seen many complaining about it.


I've seen many complaints and concerns about it due to the lack of clarity in HWiNFO. Then there's the time where HWiNFO made the value colour change to red by default if it deviated too much from the expected range. That's not helpful for anyone. Instead, it should be a hidden feature by default with the option to enable it. Then it might be of some value to some people.



ManniX-ITA said:


> Yes I know but not in that post I quoted; you said that telemetry was making the board looking faster.
> Out of context of your previous posts wasn't right.


Please link to the exact comment and line number where I stated that that the "board" 'looks faster' when using Telemetry. I've only said that Telemetry being accurate makes the CPU "faster" in terms of frequency.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Piers said:


> It's an expression or way of making a point. Saying 'it's not that useful, apart...' means that it does have a use - one which is specifically wrote.


It's still an expression to say that it's not much useful as it does help in a specific use case which is not much relevant.
I think it's a critical tool to assess before, during and after the overclock.



Piers said:


> You may not share the same opinion as AMD, and that's fine. I will take AMD's advice on the relevance of scalar settings on Zen 3. What is the "scenario where [scalar at 10x] is useful"?


With the right settings and conditions it'll make the CPU faster, especially together with a positive max boost clock.
Which is the main goal for an overclock.
If you don't think it's useful cause you like lower temperatures fine but I don't think it's a good advice, about overclocking, saying it's better at 1x.
AMD of course is advising to run it cooler with lower voltages with 1x scalar, no wonder why.
If it was not so relevant why wasn't removed? Cause it is relevant.



Piers said:


> Define "we".


Community



Piers said:


> That's an interesting point. Using an AMD lecture as a reference, they define clock-stretching in the 'traditional' sense. So how would you describe clock-stretching in terms of Zen?


I've already did it in the last 2 posts.



Piers said:


> Link?


I have too many posts to find out where.
When I'll have time I'll repeat the test and post it here.



Piers said:


> If you want to be that pedantic, OK, but then we could remove nearly all reported values in software without access to AMD's proprietary sensor-reading methods. My point about the power deviation figure, and only the power deviation figure, is that it requires exact conditions to be even vaguely accurate, including 100% utilisation. And as already mentioned, measuring it manually and calculating the figure shows the provided value is accurate, assuming Telemetry is accurate.


I don't want to be pedantic, I honestly don't understand why you think it should be hidden or removed.
You say the value reported by HWInfo it's accurate when measured manually and when load is at 100%.
Which is exactly the expected behavior... what are these other conditions?



Piers said:


> Then there's the time where HWiNFO made the value colour change to red by default if it deviated too much from the expected range. That's not helpful for anyone.


This one I agree, wasn't making any sense when it was marked with different colors.



Piers said:


> Please link to the exact comment and line number where I stated that that the "board" 'looks faster' when using Telemetry. I've only said that Telemetry being accurate makes the CPU "faster" in terms of frequency.





Piers said:


> Essentially, after going on the HWiNFO forum and reading Martin's _(the developer) _explanation, as well as asking him questions and reading other people's views, what he is trying to do makes sense and should expose motherboard manufacturers which deliberately fake Telemetry data in order to trick the CPU into boosting for longer periods of time/with higher voltages *in order to make performance on their motherboards look better than competing ones*, *but *HWiNFO just doesn't have access to the same data resolution/low-level hardware access that AMD's tools do _(due to AMD deliberately appearing to be ****ers over the matter and not even sharing Ryzen Master's basic proprietary tools with him, something that nearly every manufacturer - including Intel - is happy to do under NDA)._


Please look at your posts, don't ask me to quote you from the previous page.


----------



## Piers

ManniX-ITA said:


> It's still an expression to say that it's not much useful as it does help in a specific use case which is not much relevant.
> I think it's a critical tool to assess before, during and after the overclock.


It's literally just an expression. The last part of the sentence, which you failed to include, explains how and why it is useful for overclocking. Stop being disingenuous.



ManniX-ITA said:


> With the right settings and conditions it'll make the CPU faster, especially together with a positive max boost clock.
> Which is the main goal for an overclock.
> If you don't think it's useful cause you like lower temperatures fine but I don't think it's a good advice, about overclocking, saying it's better at 1x.
> AMD of course is advising to run it cooler with lower voltages with 1x scalar, no wonder why.
> If it was not so relevant why wasn't removed? Cause it is relevant.


I'm providing my opinion based on my experience and AMD's advice. You are providing yours based your experience. As for "why wasn't [scalar options] removed", have you seen the state of AMD's UEFI modules (not vendor parts)? There are still setting only related to Zen+ in Zen 3 boards. Additionally, just because AMD doesn't remove the option, doesn't mean it's valid if present...



ManniX-ITA said:


> Community


Which community?



ManniX-ITA said:


> I've already did it in the last 2 posts.


No, you didn't sufficiently explain how it's different.



ManniX-ITA said:


> I have too many posts to find out where.
> When I'll have time I'll repeat the test and post it here


Why make statements referring to a post or posts without having a source link?



ManniX-ITA said:


> I don't want to be pedantic, I honestly don't understand why you think it should be hidden or removed.
> You say the value reported by HWInfo it's accurate when measured manually and when load is at 100%.
> Which is exactly the expected behavior... what are these other conditions?


You are being pedantic and misrepresenting what I've written. I believe it should be hidden as it's not accurate. And what I stated was accurate are the W/A values reported, *NOT* the deviation percentage. It's clear that there's either a communication issue, you are being disingenuous, or you are trolling. I believe it's probably the first option.



ManniX-ITA said:


> Please look at your posts, don't ask me to quote you from the previous page.


If you can't be bothered to find an example of a point you claim I've made - that you claim is only one page back -, it shows you are lazy or trolling and I have no interest in continuing this conversation with you. You've not provided a single link to support your counterclaims, when asked. That's not how an honest debate works.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Piers said:


> If you can't be bothered to find an example of a point you claim I've made - that you claim is only one page back -, it shows you are lazy or trolling and I have no interest in continuing this conversation with you. You've not provided a single link to support your counterclaims, when asked. That's not how an honest debate works.


I've quoted it in the last post and it's literally in the page before.
Maybe you didn't notice it but you keep asking for quotes of statements you just made.
*I* don't think this is how an honest debate works.
And I'm definitely not trolling nor lazy, just annoyed.


----------



## 1devomer

Piers said:


> [...bla, bla, bla...]


I will eagerly wait the C-states thread then, at the end, be sure to create yet another thread, when your search of the holly bios features is complete!

_Side note, the current Web page is actually horrible to read, no fluent information, no fluent discourse, horrible forum experience!!!!_


----------



## Piers

ManniX-ITA said:


> I've quoted it in the last post and it's literally in the page before.
> Maybe you didn't notice it but you keep asking for quotes of statements you just made.
> *I* don't think this is how an honest debate works.
> And I'm definitely not trolling nor lazy, just annoyed.


I can't see where you've quoted it. And this is not how an honest debate works - you've made a series of counterclaims and refused to provide a link when asked.



1devomer said:


> I will eagerly wait the C-states thread then!


1devomer, I can see it was a mistake to remove the 'ignore' from you as you still appear to have the mentality of a child. I should have taken the advice from those who messaged me when you started trolling me and permanently set you to ignore.


----------



## Mike156

Kind of clicked finally on how to deal with PB2 and single core. Sorry if this is all common sense but this is the conclusion I came to.

A more negative CO is the answer, as this will raise the frequency that the CPU will run at a given voltage. Seems like there is a hard VID limit though and the CPU runs at that limit on ST loads. Maybe that max VID changes per CPU? As it seems to vary a bit from core to core?

So what to do when it gets unstable with the more negative CO? Add an offset voltage to CPU VDD. The CPU still thinks it's running at VID but it's actually getting a higher voltage.

Best core (#1 for me) could run -20CO and would hit 4945MHz. With a 25mV offset and -24CO it would hit 5035MHz. I was also able to drop all the other cores from -28 to -30. This gave a CPU-Z ST score of 699.5 (come on!) and CBR23 SC of 1671. CBR23 MC was 23,204 with 142W limit, slightly higher then where I topped out on before.

It was clock stretching in CBR23 SC and Vcore was 1.494V at this point so I didn't push it any further.

If you aren't at -30CO, using some VDD offset might be able to get you there. Obviously watch out though as this raises the max voltage the CPU sees. Up to you how much that worries you, I went back to my normal settings though.


----------



## Piers

Mike156 said:


> Kind of clicked finally on how to deal with PB2 and single core. Sorry if this is all common sense but this is the conclusion I came to.
> 
> A more negative CO is the answer, as this will raise the frequency that the CPU will run at a given voltage. Seems like there is a hard VID limit though and the CPU runs at that limit on ST loads. Maybe that max VID changes per CPU? As it seems to vary a bit from core to core?
> 
> So what to do when it gets unstable with the more negative CO? Add an offset voltage to CPU VDD. The CPU still thinks it's running at VID but it's actually getting a higher voltage.
> 
> Best core (#1 for me) could run -20CO and would hit 4945MHz. With a 25mV offset and -24CO it would hit 5035MHz. I was also able to drop all the other cores from -28 to -30. This gave a CPU-Z ST score of 699.5 (come on!) and CBR23 SC of 1671. CBR23 MC was 23,204 with 142W limit, slightly higher then where I topped out on before.
> 
> It was clock stretching in CBR23 SC and Vcore was 1.494V at this point so I didn't push it any further.
> 
> If you aren't at -30CO, using some VDD offset might be able to get you there. Obviously watch out though as this raises the max voltage the CPU sees. Up to you how much that worries you, I went back to my normal settings though.


The more you lower the Curve (negative), the higher the cores should boost (within the limit of the silicon, assuming no AutoOC) and the more chance there is of crashing when idle.

As previously mentioned, CoreCycler is great at detecting that instability by, at default settings, using Prime95 with SSE which allows for higher boost clovkst compared to AVX. It's completely automated and free to use - all you have to do is start the script. It will tell you if there's a rounding error (this means it's not stable), but it rarely crashes or produces a WHEA error unless the Curve is incredibly unstable.

It can also pause between tests and can test cores out-of-order in order to mimic very lightly-threaded workloads and idle conditions. However, it does take time (ideally 6 hours per thread, not core). Personally, I don't mind allocating ~2.5-3 hours per thread (5900X) in order to have absolute stability, but that's still at least 60 hours. On a positive note, you can run the test an night over a week as the algorithm repeats. This will still produce valid results (pass or fail).

The alternative, which some users have found can find/create errors more quickly is y-cruncher using SSE4.x. I generally use y-cruncher after all other tests to validate my results under extremely heavy loads.

*Edit*: I have yet to see someone using a two CCD Zen 3 part with a highly aggressive Curve (-25 to - 30 on all cores) pass CoreCycler's default test for the recommended time of 6 hours per thread.


----------



## DeadSec

Well, I set all cores negative, the best ones were put - 8 the others got - 12.
The system is stable but I couldn't realize much performance progress.
How can I find the anointed setting?

Under load the CCX0 is boosting up to 4400 MHz the CCX1 is just boosting up to 4200 MHz, what the hell


----------



## Mike156

Wanted to break 24,000 CBR23 and 700 ST CPU-Z
Cold air got it done


----------



## Piers

DeadSec said:


> Well, I set all cores negative, the best ones were put - 8 the others got - 12.
> The system is stable but I couldn't realize much performance progress.
> How can I find the anointed setting?
> 
> Under load the CCX0 is boosting up to 4400 MHz the CCX1 is just boosting up to 4200 MHz, what the hell


It's mostly covered in the short guide I posted... but I'd start by:

making sure you have benchmark scores recorded for default or stock performance
reboot and load optimised defaults
change non-performance settings, such as disabling RGB LEDs, etc.
save and reboot into BIOS
look for Telemetry and set it to automatic with a negative offset. If that doesn't work, If that doesn't work, set it to manual with a negative offset (If you've posted screens of exactly how your Telemetry is configured, I've missed them)
enable PBO
set power limits to whatever you want - I'd go with conservative settings
ignore Scalar & AutoOC
set Curve to -8 on all cores
Boot into Windows and run the same benchmarks as you did in step 1
There are lots of extra steps, but without setting how your Telemetry is set up, as well as how testing goes, it's hard to provide any more steps than I've already provided in my mini guide a few pages back.

Overclocking through fixed voltage or changing the voltage table via PBO takes time. The former is far simpler and works like Intel systems. The latter can take weeks to find a fully stable and optimised configuration.


----------



## Piers

Mike156 said:


> Wanted to break 24,000 CBR23 and 700 ST CPU-Z
> Cold air got it done
> View attachment 2551022


Most interesting part is the single-core score in R23. Which configuration did you end up going with?


----------



## Gegu

I've installed my brand new 5950X. 2141SUS, stepping B0

And I'm starting my OC journey!

Temps - perfect! 26/7C Idle with ALF II 420. 1900FCLK WHEA free (will try FCLK 2000), but ...

Cinebench R23 on stock only 27k - it is bad result for non-PBO 5950X?


----------



## Shenhua

DeadSec said:


> Well, I set all cores negative, the best ones were put - 8 the others got - 12.
> The system is stable but I couldn't realize much performance progress.
> How can I find the anointed setting?
> 
> Under load the CCX0 is boosting up to 4400 MHz the CCX1 is just boosting up to 4200 MHz, what the hell


Set it to 1min, and each core at -20, then go adjusting by 2units, at a time. If it fails you go back, if it passes you go lower. When all pass, jump to 3min and adjust by 1 unit, then when all pass, start doing long stability test. 

Once you finish, lose it up for 1unit or 2, so the CPU has some room to wiggle, and to compensate for degradation over time.

Sent from my Redmi Note 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Mike156

Piers said:


> Most interesting part is the single-core score in R23. Which configuration did you end up going with?


+125MHz, CO -22 best core/-20 2nd best core and -30 on the rest, 220W/135A/220A, +25mV offset on CPU VDD.

HWinfo was like 5035MHz on the best core and 5010MHz on the second best core while running core cycler. VID was like 1.404 and Vcore on motherboard was 1.494 with VID Effective at 1.5V. Effective clock was about 3-5 MHz lower so some stretching seemed to be happening. All core CBR23 was like 4675MHz and 4750MHz in CPU-Z.


----------



## Imprezzion

How is you guy's opinion on CPPC and Preferred Cores enabled vs disabled with PBO2 at the moment? I have had it disabled for quite a while now resulting in this being perfectly stable:









There's only 1 core that won't hit 5Ghz regularly with latest Windows 11 Insider Dev channel build. 

ASUS B550-XE, 5900X 2143 B2 stepping, 1.2.0.3c AGESA, CO -25 all cores, +50Mhz max boost, auto voltage and LLC, CPPC and Preferred Cores disabled, EDC 170, TDC 140, PPT 300, scalar 1x, all power saving features enabled. This passes 24h Corecycler just fine and has held up for over 3 months in daily gaming and such perfectly fine. RAM 3733C15 1T GDM Off 1:1 IF. 

In gaming loads it sits around 4800-4850 on all cores. It does 10700 multi core in CPU-Z and 674 single core.


----------



## Owterspace

Imprezzion said:


> It does 10700 multi core in CPU-Z and 674 single core.


Nice, mine does ~10500 mc and ~705 sc. That is a nice CPU.. tempted to buy a new one.. I have had mine about a year now.


----------



## Piers

Mike156 said:


> CO -22 best core/-20 2nd best core and -30 on the res


How long has stability testing lasted so far?


Imprezzion said:


> How is you guy's opinion on CPPC and Preferred Cores enabled vs disabled with PBO2 at the moment? I have had it disabled for quite a while now resulting in this being perfectly stable:


I've tried PBO2 with CPPC/PC enabled and disabled. How long did you perform stability testing? The behaviour is the same, regardless of whether it's with PBO2 enabled or stock:

disabled multi-core: provides up to an 8% (maximum) improvement in very heavy workloads that use AVX, but obviously no difference to clocks
disabled single-core: brings a reduction of single-core performance by ~4% with some minor clock changes due to 'worse' cores being used
I don't believe you need an opinion on it enabled.


----------



## Imprezzion

Piers said:


> How long has stability testing lasted so far?
> I've tried PBO2 with CPPC/PC enabled and disabled. How long did you perform stability testing? The behaviour is the same, regardless of whether it's with PBO2 enabled or stock:
> 
> disabled multi-core: provides up to an 8% (maximum) improvement in very heavy workloads that use AVX, but obviously no difference to clocks
> disabled single-core: brings a reduction of single-core performance by ~4% with some minor clock changes due to 'worse' cores being used
> I don't believe you need an opinion on it enabled.


That would explain my low 674 single core score. The "problem" I was mostly having is that even the best cores will not go very far above 5000 stable at such a large - CO value. Corecycler errors out at CO -25 at 5100Mhz after a few cycles but passes 24h total time at 5000 on all cores fine so I kinda figured why not just run all cores at 5000 max and let windows decide which core to use since they can all do it but without running a static allcore OC with all it's downsides. 

Maybe I'll re-enable both and do some comparison tests and test a higher max boost around +150 with a bit less -CO for the problem cores.


----------



## Mike156

Piers said:


> How long has stability testing lasted so far?


Ah... These were Hail Marys, I didn't stability test that at all beyond running the benchmarks to get the scores.

Stock power limits with CO and memory timing optimized is about all I care to sort out for day to day use.


Tried out the CPPC/PC disabled stuff and I don't get what it's supposed to do? Didn't affect the clock speeds at all, just doesn't have a preferred core any more was about the only change for me.

That 5000MHz on every core seems up be a banger of a chip. I've got cores that barely break 4800MHz.


----------



## KedarWolf

Piers said:


> And that's with -30, or which Curve values?
> 
> A system doesn't have to crash or produce a WHEA error - that's *why *proper stability testing is important, as you're unlikely to notice it being unstable. I can set my entire Curve to -30, see an error in the second iteration** of CoreCycler, and the system won't crash or report a WHEA error; instead CoreCycler will report a rounding error which means it's unstable and needs tweaking.
> 
> _** = my core 0 is the strongest core and will sustain 4.925 GHz / 4.950 GHz on a single core workload, but doesn't like to go below -10 using Curve Optimiser as it clearly requires that voltage. Other silicon will behave differently. An unstable Curve might not produce an error until 20 hours later, which is why the author of the script recommends 6 hours of iterations *per thread*. Of course, it's perfectly possible you might find errors faster with y-cruncher (not the version/settings included with CoreCycler) which is why both are useful. _
> 
> I'd generally ignore Prime95 and, instead, go with y-cruncher's stresstest. The combination of algorithms used makes it the only application that is able to make my CPU go above 90°C and bring the all-core clock to ~3.675 GHz. It's incredibly stressful on the system, assuming you pick the defaults - or close to default algorithms.
> 
> Here's a post where I show the settings used for y-cruncher, and HWiNFO output after over 21 hours of y-cruncher.


Y-cruncher will pass for me when Core Cycler Prime95 720-720 FFTs fails. I need to do both.


----------



## ArchStanton

KedarWolf said:


> Y-cruncher will pass for me when Core Cycler Prime95 720-720 FFTs fails.


+1. For whatever reason, I find CoreCycler/Prime95/720-720/auto runtime/hyperthreading disabled/SSE mode to be the hardest thing for a CO "tune" to pass. Everything I've managed to get 100 iterations of that configuration to pass has yet to fail another test, _so far, _but my benchmark scores do suffer substantially to achieve that level of stability.


----------



## Piers

Mike156 said:


> Stock power limits with CO and memory timing optimized is about all I care to sort out for day to day use.


I'm not even using PBO for daily use anymore. I just use stock power limits with a negative Vcore offset of 0.00625 (you'd be surprised by the difference that tiny offset makes) with semi-optimised RAM (XMP 3600 CL18 is only 10ns latency).


CBR23 single-core result (taken today) of 1,609, and multi-core result of 21,540.
Sustained single-core clock of 4.925 GHz. 
Sustained dual-core clock of 4.875 GHz
Sustained all-core clocks of 4.35 GHz with two x265 (AVX2) instances running_ (99.4% utilisation reported, and for some reason over 17GB of RAM used, but I think that's a Windows 11 issue from a recent update)._
On a different note, I've also just enabled virtualisation in preparation for the Windows Subsystem for Android update as there are Android apps I want to use on Windows. It's the first time using virtualisation on the 5900X and performance is remarkably good compared to a Skylake-era 24C/48T Xeon 8160 - we still have a few deployed at work and I plan to buy one when they're decommissioned. I created a virtual machine with Zorin installed and have that saved for future use. The only issue I found was resolution - anything over 1920*1200 didn't work but I've seen that issue before so should be able to fix it.


----------



## DeadSec

Shenhua said:


> Set it to 1min, and each core at -20, then go adjusting by 2units, at a time. If it fails you go back, if it passes you go lower.


Thanks man
It sounds like a stupid question but where is the option to set it to 1 or even more minutes? The ASUS BIOS seems to be different.


----------



## Shenhua

DeadSec said:


> Thanks man
> It sounds like a stupid question but where is the option to set it to 1 or even more minutes? The ASUS BIOS seems to be different.


My bad, i picked up the core cycler tips and gave you my way of doing things without specifying of what i was talking about. The durations you see in my comment are to set core cycler script per core.

Here!, Now it should make more sense:

Set core cycler from the default 6min to 1min, and each core at -20 in bios, then go adjusting by 2units, at a time. If it fails you go 2 units back, if it passes you go 2 units lower. When all pass, jump to 3min, and when 3min is stable and all cores pass, start going lower 1 unit at a time, then when all pass, start doing long stability test. 

Once you finish, losen it up for 1unit or 2, so the CPU has some room to wiggle, and to compensate for degradation over time.

If your CPU is like many others, it should look like this:
2-3 best cores -7/8 to 0 or even positive
4-6 cores ranging between -20 to -12
Rest of cores, from -30 to -20


----------



## Piers

DeadSec said:


> Thanks man
> It sounds like a stupid question but where is the option to set it to 1 or even more minutes? The ASUS BIOS seems to be different.


I'd say 1 minute is far too short. At least let one iteration pass, or use Cinebench R15 (SSE) instead.


----------



## Imprezzion

Mike156 said:


> Ah... These were Hail Marys, I didn't stability test that at all beyond running the benchmarks to get the scores.
> 
> Stock power limits with CO and memory timing optimized is about all I care to sort out for day to day use.
> 
> 
> Tried out the CPPC/PC disabled stuff and I don't get what it's supposed to do? Didn't affect the clock speeds at all, just doesn't have a preferred core any more was about the only change for me.
> 
> That 5000MHz on every core seems up be a banger of a chip. I've got cores that barely break 4800MHz.


CPPC PC off is discussed in the past and is supposed to improve multicore performance, latency and 1% lows in games but I can't say my testing proves or disproves that except for the slight bump in multicore scores in both cinebench r23 and CPU-Z.

I still don't know how people can get away with -30 on most/all cores lol. My CPU is a incredibly good sample and it still can't go under -25 for most of the cores.


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> I still don't know how people can get away with -30 on most/all cores lol


Not enough stability testing. I can boot at -28 on all cores, but it's not stable.


----------



## Imprezzion

Just did a comparison in CPU-Z and CB R23 

CPPC enabled CB R23 23777 multi core, clocks held at 4675-4700 all cores. CPU-Z 10422 / 669.

CPPC disabled CB R23 23425 multi core, clocks held 4650-4675 all cores. CPU-Z 10338 / 665

So, this current testing on windows 11 Insider Dev shows a performance regression even with it disabled on both single and multicore and effective clocks are 1-2 25Mhz bins lower at the same EDC/TDC/PPT. 

Temps around 72c max for both runs so not thermally limited.


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> Just did a comparison in CPU-Z and CB R23
> 
> CPPC enabled CB R23 23777 multi core, clocks held at 4675-4700 all cores. CPU-Z 10422 / 669.
> 
> CPPC disabled CB R23 23425 multi core, clocks held 4650-4675 all cores. CPU-Z 10338 / 665
> 
> So, this current testing on windows 11 Insider Dev shows a performance regression even with it disabled on both single and multicore and effective clocks are 1-2 25Mhz bins lower at the same EDC/TDC/PPT.
> 
> Temps around 72c max for both runs so not thermally limited.


I remember our previous discussion about CPPC/PC and the benefits of it being enabled vs disabled, with me showing a very noticeable uplift in encoding.

I currently have CPPC/PC enabled and have just completed a CBR23 test for comparison (still at stock power limits, PBO2 disabled). SC: 1,603 | MC: 21,490 (edit: temp 67°C, ambient 22.4°C)


----------



## DeadSec

Shenhua said:


> My bad, i picked up the core cycler tips and gave you my way of doing things without specifying of what i was talking about. The durations you see in my comment are to set core cycler script per core.
> 
> Here!, Now it should make more sense:
> 
> Set core cycler from the default 6min to 1min, and each core at -20 in bios, then go adjusting by 2units, at a time. If it fails you go 2 units back, if it passes you go 2 units lower. When all pass, jump to 3min, and when 3min is stable and all cores pass, start going lower 1 unit at a time, then when all pass, start doing long stability test.
> 
> Once you finish, losen it up for 1unit or 2, so the CPU has some room to wiggle, and to compensate for degradation over time.
> 
> If your CPU is like many others, it should look like this:
> 2-3 best cores -7/8 to 0 or even positive
> 4-6 cores ranging between -20 to -12
> Rest of cores, from -30 to -20


Oh yeah, I'm getting close to the "anointed" setting.
I set all cores negative .
The best two ones got -2
the worst one got -22
all the others have - 20
scalar 2x (3x is not stable, the screen goes black, no response of keybaord...)
I determine in HWInfo a boost of the cores in CCX0 going up to 5000 MHz shortly, falling down to 4400
Meanwhile the cores if CCX1 are boosting around 4200 MHz.


----------



## KedarWolf

ArchStanton said:


> +1. For whatever reason, I find CoreCycler/Prime95/720-720/auto runtime/hyperthreading disabled/SSE mode to be the hardest thing for a CO "tune" to pass. Everything I've managed to get 100 iterations of that configuration to pass has yet to fail another test, _so far, _but my benchmark scores do suffer substantially to achieve that level of stability.


I find Auto run-time cycles too fast. I do 1.5 minutes all cores at first, then 3 minutes when I narrow it down, then finally six minutes overnight to make sure I'm completely stable.


----------



## ArchStanton

KedarWolf said:


> I find Auto run-time cycles too fast. I do 1.5 minutes all cores at first, then 3 minutes when I narrow it down, then finally six minutes overnight to make sure I'm completely stable.


A valid point, and I do usually put CC on "Heavy" (and also combinations of fft size and AVX/AVX2 for good measure) and let it run for a week or so after I "think" I've got everything dialed in. It just seems like 720-720 SSE finds things faster than anything else I've tried to date.


----------



## RickyOC

Hey guys, just got my 5900x b2. It can do 2000 fclk. Best way to find best cores?

When i ran 3 times cb23 single core hwinfo uses 2nd core


----------



## Shenhua

DeadSec said:


> Oh yeah, I'm getting close to the "anointed" setting.
> I set all cores negative .
> The best two ones got -2
> the worst one got -22
> all the others have - 20
> scalar 2x (3x is not stable, the screen goes black, no response of keybaord...)
> I determine in HWInfo a boost of the cores in CCX0 going up to 5000 MHz shortly, falling down to 4400
> Meanwhile the cores if CCX1 are boosting around 4200 MHz.
> View attachment 2551158


My suggestion is to leave everything else on auto, both scalar and maximum boost clock.

I can't tell you much about scalar, but I can tell you that adding positive maximum boost clock, will reduce the time and the amount of cores that the CPU boosts at the max frequency.

In English, by going higher at all costs, it's not worth it.

Sent from my Redmi Note 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Shenhua

Piers said:


> I'd say 1 minute is far too short. At least let one iteration pass, or use Cinebench R15 (SSE) instead.


It's not. It's only for roughing in values, starting at -20 each individual core. It works really well.

Sent from my Redmi Note 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Piers

Shenhua said:


> It's not. It's only for roughing in values, starting at -20 each individual core. It works really well.
> 
> Sent from my Redmi Note 5 using Tapatalk


We've obviously had different experiences. I find Cinebench R15 a better tool for really short tests, but prefer one iteration of CoreCycler. The default time per test can be changed to 3 minutes, if someone has such little time to overclock and wants a very vague approximation of stability.


----------



## Piers

RickyOC said:


> Hey guys, just got my 5900x b2. It can do 2000 fclk. Best way to find best cores?
> 
> When i ran 3 times cb23 single core hwinfo uses 2nd core


Ryzen Master and HWiNFO show 'best' cores. There's a post about it in the previous few pages with screenshots.


----------



## Mike156

Imprezzion said:


> I still don't know how people can get away with -30 on most/all cores lol. My CPU is a incredibly good sample and it still can't go under -25 for most of the cores.


I'm not that convinced -30 actually means it's a good core. All but two of my cores can run -28 but only about half of those can break 4900MHz. Only the two best can hit the stock boost limit of 4950MHz.

I thought my 5600X was garbage because none of the cores could do more than -20. In reality though, every single one of the cores could do 4750MHz (+100MHz) and most could do +200MHz. Also it could do 4700 all core, took like 115W to get there though.

If I understand correctly, every core has a built in F/V curve and then the CO value shifts that curve up and down. If you have a crap curve to start with though and -30 still can't bring the curve down far enough to hit peak frequency before the max VID, that core will never hit peak boost frequency. Seems like that's what I've got going on anyway, I can run a ton of -CO yet my peak frequencies are still trash.


----------



## Mike156

Piers said:


> We've obviously had different experiences. I find Cinebench R15 a better tool for really short tests, but prefer one iteration of CoreCycler. The default time per test can be changed to 3 minutes, if someone has such little time to overclock and wants a very vague approximation of stability.


I think you are missing what they are suggesting. It's not for actual stability testing, it's just for roughing in on the CO values. CC is far better here because it tells you what core failed.

Absolutely it's not long enough to check stability and they suggested exactly that by going up to 3 minutes and then longer after everything is passing.


----------



## Piers

Mike156 said:


> I think you are missing what they are suggesting. It's not for actual stability testing, it's just for roughing in on the CO values. CC is far better here because it tells you what core failed.


I understand exactly what it's for, and part of "roughing in" when initially testing a Curve change should be a few goes in CB, which is why I suggested R15 due to lack of AVX2 (higher boosts - the same premise as CoreCycler's default configuration... ). Both SC and MC should be tested. If those pass, move to CoreCycler. I suggested a CBR 15 cycle as people seem too impatient and want instant validation. 

Personally, I always prefer CoreCycler and use that when testing Curve changes, but at one minute there's very little point in using it. I also suggested three minutes, as that's going to be vaguely useful.


----------



## Mike156

If you can get quicker validation to the 80% solution, why wouldn't you want that.

For sure though, I had two cores that would take 2-3 6 minute iterations to fail at like -25, but it ended up at -20 and -18 in the end... They just kept failing eventually. For them, I started skipping the other cores and just looping those and two other cores on the other CCD to speed things up.


----------



## Piers

Mike156 said:


> If you can get quicker validation to the 80% solution, why wouldn't you want that.


What do you mean by this?


----------



## DeadSec

Shenhua said:


> My suggestion is to leave everything else on auto, both scalar and maximum boost
> 
> I can't tell you much about scalar, but I can tell you that adding positive maximum boost clock, will reduce the time and the amount of cores that the CPU boosts at the max frequency.
> 
> In English, by going higher at all costs, it's not worth it.


You are right. Less than - 12 on the average cores weren't stable anyway. Y-cruncher closed the system in a hard lock-up like it did before. Whatever I will stay tuned in this issue. 
By the way, what about the P-States? Some guys set them to 0. 
What do you think about it?


----------



## Kodo28

AMD acknowledges fTPM stuttering issues, promises a BIOS fix in May - VideoCardz.com


----------



## Mike156

Piers said:


> What do you mean by this?


Think of it from starting fresh.

If you change CO 3 counts at a time and run 6min tests and your CPU can run around -25 on most cores, it's going to take hours to get even close to that stability point. In contrast, use 1 minute tests, start at -15 and move 5 at a time. It's going to take about 20 minutes to arrive pretty close to that -25. Once you get to where you have the basic trend of the CPU worked out (which cores in general use more or less CO) then you switch to smaller CO changes and longer test intervals. It's just about using your time more efficiently.

In the end, yeah, you are going to be running hours of stability testing to ensure you found it to be stable, hopefully you just cut out some of the initial test time.


----------



## Piers

Kodo28 said:


> AMD acknowledges fTPM stuttering issues, promises a BIOS fix in May - VideoCardz.com


I'm glad it's been acknowledged by AMD as I've seen videos of the impact and behaviour of the issue as I've not personally experienced the behaviour on my 5900X with fTPM enabled on Windows 11. 

That being said, AMD's temporary solution of 'buy a TPM module' is unacceptable for a technology that's been present in AMD CPUs for nearly a decade.

And the actual (alleged) fix of a BIOS update is perhaps a little too late for those using motherboard vendors that have already issued a final AM4 update. What a mess AMD has made due to incompetence and extremely poor quality assurance (testing).


----------



## Piers

Mike156 said:


> If you change CO 3 counts at a time and run 6min tests and your CPU can run around -25 on most cores, it's going to take hours to get even close to that stability point


That's why you start with sensible values - of which three people have suggested - and work from there.


----------



## Shenhua

Piers said:


> We've obviously had different experiences. I find Cinebench R15 a better tool for really short tests, but prefer one iteration of CoreCycler. The default time per test can be changed to 3 minutes, if someone has such little time to overclock and wants a very vague approximation of stability.


But my suggestion it's not for testing stability, that's why my suggestion looks wrong for you.

You already know that having all cores at -20, there will be at least some that will fail very fast, with the minimum stress test, or setting them to -10, there will be many that have a lot of headroom to go lower.

so what your doing at 1min, it's finding ASAP the cores that are further away from their stability point, because if you start with 6min and you set one core at -20 but it's stable at -2, you will lose a lot of time reaching there.

Another example. You have a core that can do -30, but you start at -10. It takes a lot of time going 3 units at a time for each 6min. Yes 6min will take you from the start (-10) to the finish (-30), but you can reach -20 or -24 making that core fail with the 1min mode.


Using shorter times for per core stress in core cycler to longer, will help you reach the same point faster..... A lot faster.
Running shorter times per core, you basically speed up the process TOWARDS the point they are stable, NOT TO IT.


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> That would explain my low 674 single core score. The "problem" I was mostly having is that even the best cores will not go very far above 5000 stable at such a large - CO value. Corecycler errors out at CO -25 at 5100Mhz after a few cycles but passes 24h total time at 5000 on all cores fine so I kinda figured why not just run all cores at 5000 max and let windows decide which core to use since they can all do it but without running a static allcore OC with all it's downsides.
> 
> Maybe I'll re-enable both and do some comparison tests and test a higher max boost around +150 with a bit less -CO for the problem cores.


That's a great way of looking at it. In both 1T and 4T workloads, what sort of sustained clocks do you see with you current configuration? 



Mike156 said:


> I've got cores that barely break 4800MHz.


Out of curiosity, what voltage are those cores (the lower-boosting cores) reporting when boosting?



KedarWolf said:


> Y-cruncher will pass for me when Core Cycler Prime95 720-720 FFTs fails. I need to do both.


Would you mind taking a screenshot of your P95 config?



DeadSec said:


> scalar 2x (3x is not stable, the screen goes black, no response of keybaord...)


And what sort of voltage and clock behaviour do you see if you keep Scalar on 1x?



RickyOC said:


> When i ran 3 times cb23 single core hwinfo uses 2nd core


It's common for the primary, or 'best', cores to constantly switch due to higher voltages and, therefore, heat. This behaviour is by design and not a fault. There are ways of changing this behaviour as some believe it introduces latency, but I've not seen any evidence of that.



Shenhua said:


> My suggestion is to leave everything else on auto, both scalar and maximum boost clock.
> 
> I can't tell you much about scalar, but I can tell you that adding positive maximum boost clock, will reduce the time and the amount of cores that the CPU boosts at the max frequency.


Absolutely. Simply changing power limits and setting a medium Curve provides the best chance for the opportunistic boosting algorithm to work as it's meant to - out of the three restricting factors. This part of the PBO*2* slide is always useful.













Mike156 said:


> I'm not that convinced -30 actually means it's a good core. All but two of my cores can run -28 but only about half of those can break 4900MHz. Only the two best can hit the stock boost limit of 4950MHz.


Hopefully you should find this useful; running cores at -30 is akin to reducing the voltage available _(assuming max VID/Vcore=1.500V & droop is minimal)_ by anywhere from 0.090V (1.410V) and 0.150V (1.350V). If we take the latter figure, 1.350V works well for a fixed overclock at 4.7 GHz (I wouldn't run it that high), but not when cores are trying to boost under normal conditions (i.e. not a fixed overclock, instead using the opportunistic algorithm).



Shenhua said:


> You already know that having all cores at -20, there will be at least some that will fail very fast, with the minimum stress test, or setting them to -10, there will be many that have a lot of headroom to go lower.


That's why I take a note of the 'best' 2 cores from each CCD (as noted by Ryzen Master), the uninstall Ryzen Master and start creating a Curve. 

I set the best four cores (2 per CCD) to a starting value of -8 or -9, and the rest to -18 or -21.
I then test overnight and whilst at work with using CoreCycler
If that passes, I drop the values down by -2 or -3 and test again
There's zero point in going into the BIOS and setting all cores at -30 on the Curve. The chances of a person buying such a highly binned chip without knowing it is very low. There is an advantage to having the 'best' 2 cores on the lower-quality CCD being able to boost higher if using Windows, as the Scheduler is weak and will often picks those cores (especially on Windows 11).



Shenhua said:


> so what your doing at 1min, it's finding ASAP the cores that are further away from their stability point, because if you start with 6min and you set one core at -20 but it's stable at -2, you will lose a lot of time reaching there.


See my reply above.


----------



## Shenhua

Piers said:


> That's why I take a note of the 'best' 2 cores from each CCD (as noted by Ryzen Master), the uninstall Ryzen Master and start creating a Curve.
> 
> I set the best four cores (2 per CCD) to a starting value of -8 or -9, and the rest to -18 or -21.
> I then test overnight and whilst at work with using CoreCycler
> If that passes, I drop the values down by -2 or -3 and test again
> There's zero point in going into the BIOS and setting all cores at -30 on the Curve. The chances of a person buying such a highly binned chip without knowing it is very low. There is an advantage to having the 'best' 2 cores on the lower-quality CCD being able to boost higher if using Windows, as the Scheduler is weak and will often picks those cores (especially on Windows 11).


Ok, Checking ryzen master and starting with values, closer to the stability point of each core it definitely helps reducing the time, but then, as you're explaining it, you can only make changes once in the morning, and once after-work, or wait 72min or 96, for the PC to make a full cycle. If you're away and the PC shut down before completing a full cicle because one core failed, you don't have data for the others.
Making changes when you come and after-work, means you can do 2 times per 24h.

Using shorter to longer times as I'm saying, got me a Saturday from 8:30 AM close to 13:00 to reach the point where i needed to start doing stability testing with a 5900x.
In 4,5h~ i had that CPU with each core, within 2-4 points of their stability point.

I moved some of the cores ( the best ones) from -25 (where i started), to -2 and -5.




Sent from my Redmi Note 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Piers

Shenhua said:


> but then, as you're explaining it, you can only make changes once in the morning, and once after-work, or wait 72min or 96, for the PC to make a full cycle. If you're away and the PC shut down before completing a full cicle because one core failed, you don't have data for the others.


That's why I allow CoreCycler to test failed cores, and also have HWiNFO logging enabled (without buffering) in case it crashes. The CSV shows the last value for the core that caused the crash.


----------



## DeadSec

Piers said:


> And what sort of voltage and clock behaviour do you see if you keep Scalar on 1&1?


I am going to test it tonight. 
Could a too low VSoC cause these issues? The system is running at 1,145 V.


----------



## tonynca

Setting EDC to 140A to get the 1.5v limit has done wonders for sustaining higher boost for me on my 5950X in multithreaded games like Fortnite. I don’t do a lot of rendering so I’m willing to give up some max all cores performance. I think I lost about 600pts on CB23, but I’m getting better and longer boosts at the expense of heat and power consumption.

+0mhz max boost and 1x scalar did not “sustain” boost for me. I have it at +100mhz and x3.


----------



## Piers

DeadSec said:


> I am going to test it tonight.
> Could a too low VSoC cause these issues? The system is running at 1,145 V.


SoC voltage at 1.145V? I've never seen mine (or those with 5950X) go above ~1.10V unless they specifically enter a high value to stabilise an overclock. Under a 100% load with all cores at 4.40 GHz, my SoC voltage is at 1.087V. At idle, it goes to 1.11V MAX. I'd try manually setting your SoC to 1.10V and see how it goes.


----------



## PJVol

Mike156 said:


> I thought my 5600X was garbage because none of the cores could do more than -20


My 5600X has lowest count -17, and I haven't seen many 6-core samples here of better quality (if at all).


Mike156 said:


> If I understand correctly, every core has a built in F/V curve


Every core has built-in CO value, so yes, the lowest possible count you can set has nothing to do with a core quality.
What is F/V curve?


----------



## Imprezzion

Piers said:


> That's a great way of looking at it. In both 1T and 4T workloads, what sort of sustained clocks do you see with you current configuration?


Just 5000 on 1T solid and around 4925 on 4T. Even playing lighter games that use more threads like world of tanks or space engineers it keeps it around 4900 all the time. Voltage is pretty high tho even with -25. SVI sits around 1.476v ish. Full load like CB R23 is 4650-4675 @ 1.313v and CPU-Z slightly higher 4675-4700 at 1.334v.


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> Just 5000 on 1T solid and around 4925 on 4T. Even playing lighter games that use more threads like world of tanks or space engineers it keeps it around 4900 all the time. Voltage is pretty high tho even with -25. SVI sits around 1.476v ish. Full load like CB R23 is 4650-4675 @ 1.313v and CPU-Z slightly higher 4675-4700 at 1.334v.


How about an AVX2 encoding load such as *two simultaneous *instances of x265?


----------



## Imprezzion

Piers said:


> How about an AVX2 encoding load such as *two simultaneous *instances of x265?


About the same as CB R23. 4675 sustained all core @ 1.331v. 
Effective clocks are slightly lower so it might be stretching a slight amount but nothing drastic.


----------



## 050

I have been stability testing a slightly different oc to see how it performs for me - instead of ppt220/tdc140/edc140 I switched to ppt220/tdc160/edc160 to see how the more limited voltage (In theory capped at 1.425v?) performs. I have no voltage offset set, positive or negative. Interestingly, I am seeing SVI2 core voltage reported as high as 1.438v. This is on a crosshair 8 formula. My two best cores are 0 and 5, and I am running (all negative) CO of 25,25,30,18,30,18,30,30,30,30,30,30,30,30,30,30. +50mhz boost clock cap. I see boosts reported by rtss as high as 5025-5050mhz so that's good, and hwinfo64 in cpu snapshot polling mode reports as high as 4984mhz clock, 4938mhz effective. Not bad. The odd thing is that I seem to have one particular core that is responsible for the peak temps on my cpu - core 7 is not my best core (ppc ranks it at around 7-8 according to hwinfo) but when it is loaded by core cycler or a game, it runs noticeably hotter than the other cores - Any thoughts? I may have to try a re-paste to see if that changes the behavior but it seems too specific and localized to be just due to paste. I would have thought the heat spreader would smooth out that effect a fair bit. 









Is there a setting in the bios somewhere that I can use to limit the current on a specific core, or reduce the voltage to a specific core? I already have 7 at -30 on CO and it seems fine and stable, just hot. 
(For what it's worth these temps were hit while running a gpu load to heat soak my loop so the coolant temp is around 33-35c for core cycler stability tests. 85c isn't a huge problem on it's own but I would like to reduce that one core if possible.)


----------



## KedarWolf

Piers said:


> I'm glad it's been acknowledged by AMD as I've seen videos of the impact and behaviour of the issue as I've not personally experienced the behaviour on my 5900X with fTPM enabled on Windows 11.
> 
> That being said, AMD's temporary solution of 'buy a TPM module' is unacceptable for a technology that's been present in AMD CPUs for nearly a decade.
> 
> And the actual (alleged) fix of a BIOS update is perhaps a little too late for those using motherboard vendors that have already issued a final AM4 update. What a mess AMD has made due to incompetence and extremely poor quality assurance (testing).


I know you shouldn't have to do this, but this script removes the fTPM and ALL requirements from a Windows 11 install ISO so you can install Windows 11 with it disabled and keep it disabled.









Win 11 Boot And Upgrade FiX KiT


Win 11 Boot And Upgrade FiX KiT v3.0 Name: Win_11_Boot_And_Upgrade_FiX_KiT_v3.0.zip Mirror1: Win_11_Boot_And_Upgrade_FiX_KiT_v3.0.zip Mirror2:...




forums.mydigitallife.net


----------



## PJVol




----------



## Piers

050 said:


> and I am running (all negative) CO of 25,25,30,18,30,18,30,30,30,30,30,30,30,30,30,30


If that passed CoreCycler for 192 hours (minimum 48 hours), you have a golden chip and the best I've ever seen.


----------



## Piers

KedarWolf said:


> I know you shouldn't have to do this, but this script removes the fTPM and ALL requirements from a Windows 11 install ISO so you can install Windows 11 with it disabled and keep it disabled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Win 11 Boot And Upgrade FiX KiT
> 
> 
> Win 11 Boot And Upgrade FiX KiT v3.0 Name: Win_11_Boot_And_Upgrade_FiX_KiT_v3.0.zip Mirror1: Win_11_Boot_And_Upgrade_FiX_KiT_v3.0.zip Mirror2:...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forums.mydigitallife.net


Useful for those with the issue.


----------



## ArchStanton

Piers said:


> If that passed CoreCycler for 192 hours (minimum 48 hours), you have a golden chip and the best I've ever seen.


I think it would also be relevant to point out what *configuration* of CoreCycler its passing?


----------



## 050

Piers said:


> If that passed CoreCycler for 192 hours (minimum 48 hours), you have a golden chip and the best I've ever seen.





ArchStanton said:


> I think it would also be relevant to point out what *configuration* of CoreCycler its passing?


It is currently ~11.5 hrs into testing with core cycler set to "heavy" (6 min per core) and has passed 7 cycles so far. Obviously I will continue testing longer but I am limited by the need for time to pass. I have been tuning in this CO over time but it may yet need a core or two tweaked up by a few points. The heavy run can (I believe) take up to a half hour to run a 'full cycle' of all of the fft sizes so I will likely switch to testing with 30 min per core if it runs without any rounding errors for 48 hours or so as you suggest. I can then run a handful of cycles at the 30 min setting but in that case each cycles takes ~8 hours. The 6 min interval seems to give a good initial stability shot of the various cores while only taking an hour and a half or so to touch each core at least once.

I have been using the "heavy" setting as it seems (based on the sizes listed in the config) to touch both the low end (smallest) and the higher end. My understanding of p95 was that the smallest fft setting tends to push the highest heat and direct core load, so I wanted to hit that but also by sweeping up in size if there's any large fft stability issues it'd hopefully expose those as well.

When I do set the CO lower on cores that are borderline, I see the fatal error message for rounding being off - "rounding was .5, expected less than .4, the error likely happened at FFT size 4k". I don't know if that's a default error or if it in fact detects the error fft size but it seems 4k is typically what is exposing instability.


----------



## Piers

050 said:


> but I am limited by the need for time to pass. I have been tuning in this CO over time but it may yet need a core or two tweaked up by a few points.


Just use the default settings and allow 1.5 hours per thread as an absolute minimum, otherwise there's little point in using CoreCycler. The author recommends, for your CPU, 192 hours.

I always find it odd that people want to skip or shorten stability testing. Why? It's overnight and work/university testing for for about two weeks, but it provides you with certainty (as much as possible), the overclock/undervolt is stable and you don't need to touch it for years.

The alternative is a fixed or static overclock, where most two CCD parts should hit 4.70 GHz @ 1.350V (mine does at 1.300V).


----------



## ArchStanton

@050 Sounds good. When you have time, consider this configuration: prime95 SSE mode / 720-720 (in place of heavy) / hyperthreading disabled / 3 minute runtime per core. If it passes 12 hours of that you have a really nice CPU .


----------



## Piers

ArchStanton said:


> @050 Sounds good. When you have time, consider this configuration: prime95 SSE mode / 720-720 (in place of heavy) / hyperthreading disabled / 3 minute runtime per core. If it passes 12 hours of that you have a really nice CPU .


I can run that and it passes, but then fails in either CoreCycler (defaults) or y-cruncher (custom)


----------



## ArchStanton

Piers said:


> I can run that and it passes, but then fails in either CoreCycler (defaults) or y-cruncher (custom)


I do not mean to imply that he should _*only *_use that test. I am simply stating that I will be shocked/impressed/jealous if he does .


----------



## 050

Piers said:


> Just use the default settings and allow 1.5 hours per thread as an absolute minimum, otherwise there's little point in using CoreCycler. The author recommends, for your CPU, 192 hours.
> 
> I always find it odd that people want to skip or shorten stability testing. Why? It's overnight and work/university testing for for about two weeks, but it provides you with certainty (as much as possible), the overclock/undervolt is stable and you don't need to touch it for years.


I certainly am not trying to skip or shorten stability testing - I was simply noting that I have tested this particular combo of settings for ~12 hours _so far_, limited by the rate at which time passes, so I can't speak to it being stable longer than that. Further testing is actively ongoing.

6m per core is the default setting for core cycler, though I can increase that. I had previously run 30m/core for the heavy setting but I could increase it to 1.5hrs/core. Where are you pulling that number from?

To be clear, I am letting it run multiple cycles, so even if it is set to "heavy, 30m/core", after one full iteration finishes it runs again - after 8 iterations it has tested for 4 hours per core, in 30 minute chunks, 64 hours total (for the overall cpu). After 24 iterations at 30 min/cycle it is up to 12 hours per core, 192 overall. Are you saying that it is preferable to run for 1.5hr chunks rather than 30, for stability/stress reasons? I do intend to run the test for many hours to reach a satisfactory "reasonable certainty of stability" but I am starting with the 6 min/core cycles to see if any pop an error early on, so I can tweak the CO and restart testing.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

050 said:


> When I do set the CO lower on cores that are borderline, I see the fatal error message for rounding being off - "rounding was .5, expected less than .4, the error likely happened at FFT size 4k". I don't know if that's a default error or if it in fact detects the error fft size but it seems 4k is typically what is exposing instability.


You may want to test also bigger FFTs, especially if you use Boost Clock.
Sometimes the instabilities will only show up with a higher clock.
Small FFTs are more complex but the Core will run at a lower clock.
My best Cores mostly failed between 16000K and 26000K.
At the end you need to test all FFTs to be sure.

If you are using Heavy test with Auto runtime to test all FFTs.
Don't use a pre-defined time in minutes, Prime95 will test FFTs randomly not in sequence.
You can get inconsistent results.
Better to run 2 times all FFT sizes than 10 times some of them randomly.
But of course more cycles you can run better it is.

After full Heavy then you can specify manually a custom FFT size.
You can go with, to optimize time:

FFTSize = 1344-27000

And then:

FFTSize = 27000-32768

Or for AVX2:

FFTSize = 27000-51200

I think full SSE is almost mandatory.
Then I would recommend, if you are willing to spend the time, to test at least AVX.
Ideally also AVX2 but it's indeed a gigantic hurdle...

Plus doesn't hurt a quick single core pass 10-12 cycles with y-cruncher instead of P95 with CoreCycler.



ArchStanton said:


> hyperthreading disabled


I wouldn't disable it if you plan to use it.
It's not the same and the Count could become unstable when you re-enable it.


----------



## 050

Oh good to know about the "auto" time setting, I had forgotten about that option. I just hit 13 hours/8 iterations of 6 min heavy per core with no errors, so I switched it and restarted with "all" fft sizes and auto time - should take around an hour per core estimated, but we'll see. Currently still testing SSE but if that runs fine for a couple iterations I will try out AVX or AVX2 to see if that has issues.


----------



## tonynca

050 said:


> I have been stability testing a slightly different oc to see how it performs for me - instead of ppt220/tdc140/edc140 I switched to ppt220/tdc160/edc160 to see how the more limited voltage (In theory capped at 1.425v?) performs. I have no voltage offset set, positive or negative. Interestingly, I am seeing SVI2 core voltage reported as high as 1.438v. This is on a crosshair 8 formula. My two best cores are 0 and 5, and I am running (all negative) CO of 25,25,30,18,30,18,30,30,30,30,30,30,30,30,30,30. +50mhz boost clock cap. I see boosts reported by rtss as high as 5025-5050mhz so that's good, and hwinfo64 in cpu snapshot polling mode reports as high as 4984mhz clock, 4938mhz effective. Not bad. The odd thing is that I seem to have one particular core that is responsible for the peak temps on my cpu - core 7 is not my best core (ppc ranks it at around 7-8 according to hwinfo) but when it is loaded by core cycler or a game, it runs noticeably hotter than the other cores - Any thoughts? I may have to try a re-paste to see if that changes the behavior but it seems too specific and localized to be just due to paste. I would have thought the heat spreader would smooth out that effect a fair bit.
> View attachment 2551449
> 
> 
> Is there a setting in the bios somewhere that I can use to limit the current on a specific core, or reduce the voltage to a specific core? I already have 7 at -30 on CO and it seems fine and stable, just hot.
> (For what it's worth these temps were hit while running a gpu load to heat soak my loop so the coolant temp is around 33-35c for core cycler stability tests. 85c isn't a huge problem on it's own but I would like to reduce that one core if possible.)


Hey how did you get HWinfo to show per core temp? i have a 5950x as well but i dont see per core temps.


----------



## ArchStanton

tonynca said:


> Hey how did you get HWinfo to show per core temp? i have a 5950x as well but i dont see per core temps.


Click ">" symbol next to Core Temperatures to expand per core readings on the version I use.


----------



## 050

tonynca said:


> Hey how did you get HWinfo to show per core temp? i have a 5950x as well but i dont see per core temps.


I didn't do anything in particular to get those readings, if your hwinfo doesn't have the > to expand the core temperatures section (as the poster noted above) and show individual cores, then possibly it is somehow a mobo/bios limitation or some missing bit of driver that provided access to those sensor readouts. As far as I know though, it should "just work", unfortunately.


----------



## Piers

050 said:


> I certainly am not trying to skip or shorten stability testing - I was simply noting that I have tested this particular combo of settings for ~12 hours _so far_, limited by the rate at which time passes, so I can't speak to it being stable longer than that. Further testing is actively ongoing.
> 
> 6m per core is the default setting for core cycler, though I can increase that. I had previously run 30m/core for the heavy setting but I could increase it to 1.5hrs/core. Where are you pulling that number from?
> 
> To be clear, I am letting it run multiple cycles, so even if it is set to "heavy, 30m/core", after one full iteration finishes it runs again - after 8 iterations it has tested for 4 hours per core, in 30 minute chunks, 64 hours total (for the overall cpu). After 24 iterations at 30 min/cycle it is up to 12 hours per core, 192 overall. Are you saying that it is preferable to run for 1.5hr chunks rather than 30, for stability/stress reasons? I do intend to run the test for many hours to reach a satisfactory "reasonable certainty of stability" but I am starting with the 6 min/core cycles to see if any pop an error early on, so I can tweak the CO and restart testing.


You can leave it on all defaults. Time how long it takes to complete one iteration (6m != 360s with every core). Once you have that figure, you can calculate how many iterations to run for the recommended 192 hours of total testing. If you'd prefer to spend less time, but enough that it should produce a good result, use 48-64 hours instead.

Edit: Are you running Prime95 standalone, or CoreCycler?


----------



## Mike156

Meh, if it's a low consequence system where data corruption is a mild inconvenience then you likely don't need 8 days worth of testing to avoid crashes.

If you are building a system that you rely on for your financial prosperity or important data and the speed actually matters, I'd consider buying a better chip and leaving it at stock settings. I'd put overclocking in the hobby column though and that might not be the case for everybody.


----------



## Piers

Mike156 said:


> Meh, if it's a low consequence system where data corruption is a mild inconvenience then 12 hours in my experience will likely produce a system capable of running without any crashes on normal gaming loads.
> 
> If you are building a system that you rely on for your financial prosperity or important data and the speed actually matters, I'd consider buying a better chip and leaving it at stock settings.


That's missing the point of this forum.


----------



## Mike156

Overclocking for a hobby is missing the point of the forum?

Back to the topic at hand...
Is there an AMD white paper actually explaining exactly how PBO, PB, AutoOC, and PBO2 work?

I've been doing more testing and the idea that you "give your two best cores more voltage" with a less negative CO value seems to not match what actually happens at all. For the most part, the CO values don't affect voltage much, if any at all. It does affect the frequency used at a given voltage though.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Mike156 said:


> For the most part, the CO values don't affect voltage much, if any at all. It does affect the frequency used at a given voltage though.


It should reduce the voltage but it's "adaptive" so it's going to do it only if it's "computed" as a good idea.
There's no white paper that I know of.

But you can look for the very nicely colored power point slides:










As you can see each count should be 3-5mV less but he knows when to do it.
Sometimes going down doesn't reduce the VID and sometimes it can go even up a bit.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

And don't miss "official" tips & tricks guide:










Where they recommend Scalar at 10x, Boost Clock at 200 MHz and Motherboard PBO limits!
Why do you need white papers when you have such beautiful marketing slides?


----------



## PJVol

Mike156 said:


> It does affect the frequency used at a given voltage though.


...the way it should be.


----------



## Piers

There's a 45 minute video from 2018/2019 of Robert Hallock (AMD's director of technical marketing - an engineer) explaining various features of Zen and what they mean in the UEFI (it's not aimed at the public - it's filmed in a tiny room at AMD with him using a whiteboard and projector). Just took a quick look and can't find the video - should have added it to favourites. Will try when have more time.

Usually when I mention Hallock's name, people become irrational and I've never understood why. He's made all the slides and explained to journalists and reviewers how Zen works and what various features mean in terms of stability.


----------



## Piers

ManniX-ITA said:


> Why do you need white papers when you have such beautiful marketing slides?


Slides are useful for a quick overview and are made by someone who understands the architecture (not just a marketing team), but a white paper goes into far more detail. Even Intel is more generous when it comes to providing detailed information about features on supported by its products.


----------



## Piers

Mike156 said:


> Overclocking for a hobby is missing the point of the forum?


Don't be silly 🤦‍♂️ My comment was aimed at your second paragraph.


----------



## DeadSec

Piers said:


> SoC voltage at 1.145V? I've never seen mine (or those with 5950X) go above ~1.10V unless they specifically enter a high value to stabilise an overclock. Under a 100% load with all cores at 4.40 GHz, my SoC voltage is at 1.087V. At idle, it goes to 1.11V MAX. I'd try manually setting your SoC to 1.10V and see how it goes.


I put the VSoC down to 1,1 V and had no problems.
Y-cruncher makes the system shut down after 30 seconds no matter if I set 2x or 1x, even all cores - 6.


----------



## Piers

DeadSec said:


> I put the VSoC down to 1,1 V and had no problems.


You could probably get away with 1.05V, but 1.10V is perfectly fine. I found higher values increased instability, but others have found the opposite. 



DeadSec said:


> Y-cruncher makes the system shut down after 30 seconds no matter if I set 2x or 1x, even all cores - 6.


Then it's not stable, or you're triggering one of the protection features. There are two things to try, if you want to.

Can you try running it again with the same settings, but take a HWiNFO screenshot before it shuts down?
Can you try running it at stock, with only XMP enabled and again take a screenshot? Ideally, let this run for one or two hours.
I can run it for over 20 hours at stock and with PBO2. It gets very toasty and clocks drop to below base, but it works.


----------



## Mike156

ManniX-ITA said:


> It should reduce the voltage but it's "adaptive" so it's going to do it only if it's "computed" as a good idea.
> There's no white paper that I know of.
> 
> But you can look for the very nicely colored power point slides:
> 
> As you can see each count should be 3-5mV less but he knows when to do it.
> Sometimes going down doesn't reduce the VID and sometimes it can go even up a bit.


You know, I should probably be more careful with what I said there as it is to some degree affecting voltage, just not in the situation I was referring to. I am specifically talking about single core, single thread voltage while running core cycler. The way it looks to me, VID Effective stays right around 1.5V for every core. That seems to be the hard limit on voltage. On my system, that correlates to ~1.475 Vcore as reported in the mother board section. In contrast, on all core loads where you aren't up against that hard limit, the frequency is (roughly) fixed and at that point, it would be VID that is changing to reach that frequency as you change CO settings. That's when the 3-5mV per CO increment would make sense.

Each core will report it's VID and this is where I see very little change as you change the CO value. The only thing that really changes is the frequency as you change the CO value. I'm guessing the difference between Vcore and VID is then basically the voltage drop from the LDO regulator for that core? However, there was one setting (all core CO = 0) where I did actually see pretty noticeable differences in voltage, although not all cores or all higher. However, it still had the lowest frequencies as I only tested negative CO values. Still trying to understand what's the cause and if it's something that can be used to gain higher frequencies.

I charted out the measurements I took. It's kind of a lot going on, but it shows peak frequency (left axis) and peak VID (right axis). I tested 4 different CO settings. One is per core setting that I've been using for a couple months now and seems to be stable (C1 = -20, C5 = -18, all others -28). The other three are all core CO Settings. Best core is reported as core 1 and #2 is core 5.


----------



## 050

Piers said:


> You can leave it on all defaults. Time how long it takes to complete one iteration (6m != 360s with every core). Once you have that figure, you can calculate how many iterations to run for the recommended 192 hours of total testing. If you'd prefer to spend less time, but enough that it should produce a good result, use 48-64 hours instead.
> 
> Edit: Are you running Prime95 standalone, or CoreCycler?


I am running Core Cycler
I have run (so far) one iteration of "all" fft size, auto time (so it takes however long it takes for each core to hit all of the fft sizes 4k-32768k.








So far it is looking good, took roughly 15 hours for the first Iteration to complete, second is running now. It is Interesting that on the second iteration the runs (thus far) generally take longer. I think that the config file for core cycler mentioned that may be the case. "Speed" as a stat is calculated very roughly for each core as (average completion time/core completion time) for that iteration. This was on a system that has and OS and other applications open so that may mess with the load/completion time on cores a bit but hopefully overall has a negligible impact.

Based on these numbers, ~10-12 iterations should hit that ~192 hour mark. 


Spoiler: hwinfo64


----------



## PJVol

Mike156 said:


> all core loads where you aren't up against that hard limit, the frequency is (roughly) fixed and at that point


Frequency "fixed" often means that you've reached some infrastructure limit, and the FIT one turned out to be less restrictive. This is how CO affects allcore frequency being driven mostly by FIT, similar to what your per-core tests showed:
CB R23 MT "very conservative" preset vs. daily


----------



## Piers

Mike156 said:


> VID Effective stays right around 1.5V for every core. That seems to be the hard limit on voltage.


AMD's official position is that a VID of up to 1.55000V is within specification. That's contested by quite a lot of people. 


Mike156 said:


> On my system, that correlates to ~1.475 Vcore as reported in the mother board section.


What's reported under the SVI2 TFN Vcore reading? It's best to completely ignore the motherboard CPU voltage values. 


Mike156 said:


> I charted out the measurements I took. It's kind of a lot going on, but it shows peak frequency (left axis) and peak VID (right axis). I tested 4 different CO settings. One is per core setting that I've been using for a couple months now and seems to be stable (C1 = -20, C5 = -18, all others -28).


Good data. 


Mike156 said:


> The other three are all core CO Settings. Best core is reported as core 1 and #2 is core 5.


Have you given thought to trying to optimise the two 'best' cores on CCD1 as well? That's generally how AMD looks at it - two best per CCD, with Ryzen Master reporting accurately, HWiNFO occasionally incorrect with the CCD1 ordering. 


050 said:


> I have run (so far) one iteration of "all" fft size, auto time (so it takes however long it takes for each core to hit all of the fft sizes 4k-32768k.


Did you run CoreCycler with its default configuration first? In my opinion there's no point using a different preset as the default one offers a good balance of speed and accuracy. 


050 said:


> So far it is looking good, took roughly 15 hours for the first Iteration to complete,


If you've not tried the default, I'd stop the existing test, move (or rename) the config file, then open CoreCycler which will generate a new config. After ~20 hours of testing, should be on iteration 17-22.


----------



## Mike156

Piers said:


> AMD's official position is that a VID of up to 1.55000V is within specification. That's contested by quite a lot of people.
> What's reported under the SVI2 TFN Vcore reading? It's best to completely ignore the motherboard CPU voltage values.
> Have you given thought to trying to optimise the two 'best' cores on CCD1 as well? That's generally how AMD looks at it - two best per CCD, with Ryzen Master reporting accurately, HWiNFO occasionally incorrect with the CCD1 ordering.


I'll have to look at SV12 voltages. I reference the motherboard voltages just for the sake of saying it seems to correlate pretty closely with the VID Effective voltage.

Not sure what you mean to optimize the two best cores on CCD1 as all of CCD1 are at -28. When I went to -30, like 7 of the cores crashed within 2-3 iterations of CC so I backed it back off to -28. I could spend more time on it, but best case it's going to be -30 and will only raise peak frequency like 5-10 MHz.


----------



## 050

Piers said:


> Did you run CoreCycler with its default configuration first? In my opinion there's no point using a different preset as the default one offers a good balance of speed and accuracy.


I have in the past, not yet with this specific set of settings.


Piers said:


> I always find it odd that people want to skip or shorten stability testing. Why? It's overnight and work/university testing for for about two weeks, but it provides you with certainty (as much as possible), the overclock/undervolt is stable and you don't need to touch it for years.


In the spirit of your earlier note, I figured while it takes longer I would sweep a wider set of FFT sizes to see if that's stable since while it takes a long(er) time, it could reveal instability that the shorter default and smaller default fft size range may not show. Perhaps that's unnecessary or even just downright wrong/a misunderstanding but so far I am curious to see the data that it gives me.

After a few cycles of the long run are complete I will run the default again to ensure that doesn't show any trouble.


----------



## Piers

Mike156 said:


> Not sure what you mean to optimize the two best cores on CCD1 as all of CCD1 are at -28.


AMD lists the two 'best' cores per CCD. You may find increasing the potential voltage/VF curve increases performance on the second CCD.


----------



## DeadSec

ASUS has released a new BIOS 4006.
I'm going to check it out today.
Does anyone have a "how to" for the core cycler? I"ll try this as well.


----------



## 1devomer

Piers said:


> AMD's official position is that a VID of up to 1.55000V is within specification. That's contested by quite a lot of people.
> What's reported under the SVI2 TFN Vcore reading? It's best to completely ignore the motherboard CPU voltage values.
> Good data.
> Have you given thought to trying to optimise the two 'best' cores on CCD1 as well? That's generally how AMD looks at it - two best per CCD, with Ryzen Master reporting accurately, HWiNFO occasionally incorrect with the CCD1 ordering.
> Did you run CoreCycler with its default configuration first? In my opinion there's no point using a different preset as the default one offers a good balance of speed and accuracy.
> If you've not tried the default, I'd stop the existing test, move (or rename) the config file, then open CoreCycler which will generate a new config. After ~20 hours of testing, should be on iteration 17-22.


There is no AMD official position regarding the cpu voltage.

The AMD official position you are citing, is based of a thread that you opened, alongside @The Stilt, with information coming from Reddit.
To push for the narrative, that now, 1.55v is in fact part of AMD specs, instead of 1.5v, previously being the maximum voltage allowed.

Truth is, there is no AMD document that report such information, has it have been pointed out multiples times.
AMD did not disclose the specs of its cpu, hence all the information out there, are only an approximation of what the real specs are.
Which show, once again, the lack of transparency when it comes to publish specification and standards of AMD products.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Mike156 said:


> Each core will report it's VID and this is where I see very little change as you change the CO value. The only thing that really changes is the frequency as you change the CO value. I'm guessing the difference between Vcore and VID is then basically the voltage drop from the LDO regulator for that core?


Yes the delta from vCore *VID* (the vCore without VID is what the board is feeding) is what the dLDO injector is dropping.
You can see the VID dropping on the bad cores on 2nd CCD.

The point is that it's adaptive so if it the clock that can be achieved, from FIT data, doesn't need a higher VID it will be dropped. Otherwise not.
On my previous 5950X one of the average Core could do the same clock as the best ones but with 50mV less.

In the very first drops count to 300 and 80 were allowed.
At that time the drop per count was very linear with some hard ceilings up and down.
More freedom but also worse boosting, it was too much conservative.


----------



## Piers

DeadSec said:


> ASUS has released a new BIOS 4004.
> I'm going to check it out today.
> Does anyone have a "how to" for the core cycler? I"ll try this as well.


You just download it and run it. The default configuration is sufficient.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

DeadSec said:


> Does anyone have a "how to" for the core cycler? I"ll try this as well.


Made a video about CO tuning with the 5800X.
Some info it's not relevant for a dual CCD.
Especially the parts about CoreCycler, how to use it, can be used for 5900X/5950X.


----------



## Mike156

Piers said:


> AMD lists the two 'best' cores per CCD. You may find increasing the potential voltage/VF curve increases performance on the second CCD.


It doesn't. Highest speeds it gets is when it's as negative as it will go.. Same on CCD0. If I use more negative CO on the two cores that are at -20/-18, it crashes but they reach higher clocks. Going less negative slows them down.


----------



## Piers

Mike156 said:


> It doesn't. Highest speeds it gets is when it's as negative as it will go.. Same on CCD0. If I use more negative CO on the two cores that are at -20/-18, it crashes but they reach higher clocks. Going less negative slows them down.


On my chip it's different, setting cores 7 and 9 to the same as cores 0 and 5 (-8) result in a higher overall boost. Edit: And that's tested to 120 hours.


----------



## 050

Piers said:


> On my chip it's different, setting cores 7 and 9 to the same as cores 0 and 5 (-8) result in a higher overall boost. Edit: And that's tested to 120 hours.


To clarify, you're saying a more negative CO on your cores 7 and 9 (stability unclear) such as -10 or -12 results in _lower_ boost clocks than setting those cores at -8, where you have confirmed stability?

That is odd, I may have a completely wrong understanding of the PBO and the CO setting but a -10 instead of -8 should shift the V/F curve "down" - Resulting in a given voltage corresponding to a higher frequency (if the shift is enough to touch that next frequency bin in the pre-defined V/F curve for that core). Is it possible that your system is shifting the V/F curve, then upon trying to run that (higher boost) frequency at the reduced voltage, sees it as borderline/unstable and backs off to a lower frequency that _is_ stable? That could explain the reduced boost behavior, perhaps.

Edit:









Here is a quick diagram to illustrate what I suspect may be happening, based on your post. If so I will have to think on this, I am not sure how best to achieve the highest clocks/performance short of testing _each_ CO value. Hm.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Mike156 said:


> If I use more negative CO on the two cores that are at -20/-18, it crashes but they reach higher clocks. Going less negative slows them down.


Yes that's expected but the Core VID could stay the same or even get higher instead of lower.
It will try to adapt it considering what knows from FIT data and how it's running.
But if going down with the count will push the Core to a clock that it can't hold it'll crash.
Sometimes it can detect something is wrong and you get a lower clock going down with the count (this happens mostly with bad cores).
Others going down doesn't change anything, like there are hard limits.

Every sample has its own behavior and it changes depending on the AGESA version.
This dynamic adaptation that sometimes raise the VID instead of lowering it wasn't there pre-1.2.0.1


----------



## Piers

050 said:


> To clarify, you're saying a more negative CO on your cores 7 and 9 (stability unclear) such as -10 or -12 results in _lower_ boost clocks than setting those cores at -8, where you have confirmed stability?
> 
> That is odd, I may have a completely wrong understanding of the PBO and the CO setting but a -10 instead of -8 should shift the V/F curve "down" - Resulting in a given voltage corresponding to a higher frequency (if the shift is enough to touch that next frequency bin in the pre-defined V/F curve for that core). Is it possible that your system is shifting the V/F curve, then upon trying to run that (higher boost) frequency at the reduced voltage, sees it as borderline/unstable and backs off to a lower frequency that _is_ stable? That could explain the reduced boost behavior, perhaps.


I'm saying that based on Ryzen Master's core order for each CCD, setting the 'best' cores on CCD0 and CCD1 the same (on my chip that's -8 for best, up to -20 for worst), results in higher *sustained* performance. Peak clocks are lower, but *sustained *clocks are higher. All testing is based on at least 22+ iterations of CoreCycler and 4 hours of y-cruncher (my stability testing combination).


----------



## 050

I put a quick diagram together to illustrate my understanding of what may be happening with those reduced clocks


Spoiler: V/F Curve Adjustment















Is this a reasonable interpretation of what is happening? I would love to be able to see the stock V/F curves for every core in the cpu, is there any known way to dump those? I suspect they're buried in the processor firmware and not something that could be looked at outside of just testing and documenting.

As for the higher _sustained_ clocks, that does seem preferable in many cases. Interesting.


----------



## PJVol

@ManniX-ITA
It's unfortunate to suddenly realize there are "deliberately blind" people around you )


----------



## ManniX-ITA

PJVol said:


> It's unfortunate to suddenly realize there are "deliberately blind" people around you.


Not sure I'm catching it... but it sounds right


----------



## Owterspace

This is my 5900X, and daily settings. It has run TM5, Linpack, Super Pi, Cinebench, 3dmark, games, time, life.. she's good. I think the last time I ran core cycler or one of those programs it was failing at stock or pretty darn close to it so I don't use it. I don't have crashes, weirdness, WHEA's, nothing but smooth sailing.


----------



## 050

As long as you're happy with the stability for your daily use as you say that's totally understandable - gotta draw the line somewhere!
That said, I would be curious to know what is going on with:


Owterspace said:


> I think the last time I ran core cycler or one of those programs it was failing at stock or pretty darn close to it so I don't use it.


It shouldn't be failing/throwing errors at stock settings but "stock" can vary a fair amount motherboard to motherboard so it's hard to say. If that's a thread that you aren't interested in pulling on I can understand that.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Owterspace said:


> I don't have crashes, weirdness, WHEA's, nothing but smooth sailing.


Well, if you are happy and it's stable... 
But CoreCycler failing, uhm....
As said by @050 it depends what you/your board mean for "stock".

Did you check with BoostTester?

It's a bit weird the screenshot that you posted. 
Maybe you don't have AMD Snapshot enabled in HWInfo?

The max core clocks are very high and the max effective clocks very low. Like Core 3 to 5.
Could be the snapshot setting but also that something is off.

Also the max Core VID is 1.531V.
Which is higher than the CPU vCore and CPU VID by a good margin.
This is another sign that something is wrong.


----------



## Mike156

ManniX-ITA said:


> Yes that's expected but the Core VID could stay the same or even get higher instead of lower.
> ...
> Every sample has its own behavior and it changes depending on the AGESA version.
> This dynamic adaptation that sometimes raise the VID instead of lowering it wasn't there pre-1.2.0.1


Yeah, I retested and there is definitely some weirdness going on, although it performed as I said it did in terms of frequency.

Core 8 (best core on CCD1) core 9 #2
Using 30 seconds of CC on HeavyShort
Using "optimized" settings (#1 -20, #5 -18, all others -28)
Core 8 - 4904MHz/1.362 VID
Core 9 - 4898MHz/1.357 VID

Using same settings but Core 8/9 set to -20
Core 8 - 4878MHz/1.394 VID
Core 9 - 4865MHz/1.395 VID

Using same settings but Core 8/9 set to -10
Core 8 - 4812MHz/1.422 VID
Core 9 - 4778MHz/1.389 VID

As I showed in the chart before, VID did change (went up) but clock speed went down as CO went less negative. This kind of surprises me that VID went up though. I'm kind of curious if VID is based on maybe average CO or maybe a ratio to best/worst? Seemed like VID changed less when I moved all the cores together. Could be run to run variance as well?



PJVol said:


> @ManniX-ITA
> It's unfortunate to suddenly realize there are "deliberately blind" people around you )


If this is directed at me, I'm curious what I'm being "deliberately blind" to?


----------



## Piers

Owterspace said:


> I think the last time I ran core cycler or one of those programs it was failing at stock or pretty darn close to it


If at stock, then it's faulty. If "pretty darn close", then unstable overclock. CoreCycler is a script that runs an optimised Prime95 session (or Aida64 or y-cruncher). At stock, every CPU from Intel and AMD should be able to pass an unlimited number of iterations. Overclocked, every CPU from Intel and AMD should able to do the same. If not, it's unstable.


----------



## DeadSec

Yo guys, 
I loaded the 4006 BIOS. 
The core cycler is running at the moment. How many iterations will the tool run? 
I will take some screenshots when the iterations are done.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Mike156 said:


> As I showed in the chart before, VID did change (went up) but clock speed went down as CO went less negative. This kind of surprises me that VID went up though. I'm kind of curious if VID is based on maybe average CO or maybe a ratio to best/worst?


I'm not sure why you are surprised 
At -28 you have lowest VIDs and higher clock.
That's how it's supposed to work.

The CO count 0 is what was tested in the final stage of mass production as 100% working and safe.
Ideally, if you are lucky...

Now if the Core can do better than that is thru a lower VID voltage.
AMD doesn't want you to run it at higher voltage and higher clock.
It will get too hot and raise the risk of degradation.
Boosting single core gets the core very close to the 1.5V limit with light workloads.
That's why a higher clock is linked with a lower voltage.
Lower the count, more negative, will push down the VID voltage and higher the clock bin.

Going up with the count will push up the VID but also push down the clock to avoid overheating.

Of course the average and bad cores often needs more voltage to push the clock higher.
In that case you are stuck with the lowest negative count it can hold.


----------



## Piers

DeadSec said:


> Yo guys,
> I loaded the 4006 BIOS.
> The core cycler is running at the moment. How many iterations will the tool run?
> I will take some screenshots when the iterations are done.


It will keep going until you stop it. However, I'd recommend at least 20 iterations.


----------



## DeadSec

If I stop the tool after the second iteration, what is to do then?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

DeadSec said:


> If I stop the tool after the second iteration, what is to do then?


Did you watch the video I have posted?
Depends how are you testing.


----------



## DeadSec

What do you mean, it depends how I am testing? 
I just startet the core cycler bat and the iterations began.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

DeadSec said:


> What do you mean, it depends how I am testing?
> I just startet the core cycler bat and the iterations began.


I'd recommend to check the video.
You are testing probably 6 minutes Heavy in SSE.
You need to modify the config.ini and test with different settings.


----------



## 050

DeadSec said:


> What do you mean, it depends how I am testing?
> I just startet the core cycler bat and the iterations began.


So, the program will by default run for ~1000 iterations (effectively unlimited) which would take a Looooong time. You want to let it run for "long enough" to see if things hit an error - if it's very unstable that will happen right away but if it's only sorta unstable it takes longer since a certain amount is random chance. If it runs for ~24-48 hours with no errors you're likely perfectly fine. By around 200 hours, almost certainly completely stable. You can start with 10-20 iterations and if there's no errors, it's probably "good enough" but that's up to you. If you are running a system that _must not_ have any instability, test longer!


----------



## Mike156

ManniX-ITA said:


> I'm not sure why you are surprised
> At -28 you have lowest VIDs and higher clock.
> That's how it's supposed to work.


Yeah, I meant to add in there that I was surprised by "how much" it changed. In the chart I showed it wasn't across the board less negative = more voltage. Some cores went down in voltage as CO went less negative. Where here, it showed less negative = more voltage.

This is where it would be helpful to have a white paper. I can really see this working several different ways and none of them really line up with actual behavior.

1. You have fixed V/F curve(s) and changing CO moves the frequency operational point around on that curve.

2. Curve stays the same but the requested voltage changes. Similar to #1 in behavior but instead of frequency going up, the VID goes down to keep the same frequency.

3. It shifts the curve up and down, similar to how Nvidia GPUs work.

4. Something more complex, maybe power based as power goes up with voltage and frequency?

Then of course, on top of this you likely have feedback on temperature, power, clock stretching, current that also impacts it.

Either way though, it seems there is a pretty wide opinion on here that "I used a less negative value in my to best cores to give them more voltage to boost up higher" yet everything I've been able to measure had shown that more negative = mo'betta.


----------



## DeadSec

The first iteration is well done.
How am I supposed the change the config.ini
There is a *default* and just a config.ini in the folder.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Mike156 said:


> In the chart I showed it wasn't across the board less negative = more voltage. Some cores went down in voltage as CO went less negative. Where here, it showed less negative = more voltage.


Ah now I get it.
Yes it's the adaptive algorithm.
It's trying to bring the clock up and if it sees it fit it will keep the same VID or even raise it.
But it never raises it much higher than the count at 0, there's a bit of slack but it's limited.



Mike156 said:


> Either way though, it seems there is a pretty wide opinion on here that "I used a less negative value in my to best cores to give them more voltage to boost up higher" yet everything I've been able to measure had shown that more egative = mo'betta.


It can happen as well but same as per VID and it's even more rare.
Usually the clock goes down with a less negative count.



DeadSec said:


> How am I supposed the change the config.ini
> There is a *default* and just a config.ini in the folder.


With a text editor like notepad or notepad++.
Change the config.ini without default.


----------



## DeadSec

In CCX 1 the best core is C4, the second C1
In CCX 2 the best core is C14, second C 12.
How are the values I should set in the curve optimizer in the BIOS?
Edit: The best ones got each - 6, all the others got - 12.
The Cinebench scores raised. But I'm afraid y-cruncher will shut the system down


----------



## 050

DeadSec said:


> In CCX 1 the best core is C4, the second C1
> In CCX 2 the best core is C14, second C 12.
> How are the values I should set in the curve optimizer in the BIOS?


You will want to determine the lowest (most negative) CO values that you can run stable for each core. There are many strategies - you could lower all of them by 2 (so go from 0 to -2) on each core then re-test, any that don't fail lower by another 2, any that fail raise by 1-2. Repeat. That will take a while for sure! Otherwise you can start in rough steps - Set all of them to -15, test, if any fail raise them by 2 and if they don't throw an error keep reducing. You can go by whatever step size you want (1, 2, 5, etc). Ultimately you'll end up with some stable set of values like -6, -10, -25, -4, -8, -3, -15 ... , -20. One value for each core. Remember, if you get a failure in core cycler, don't keep lowering that core, bump it up to a less negative (or even positive) number and retest until the whole set passes 20+ iterations in core cycler with no errors. It certainly takes time so while tuning in rough values you can let it go for just 5 iterations or so to confirm that it's "roughly ok" as you keep adjusting COs up and down.

If you adjust things like the "maximum boost clock override", LLC, or vcore offset, this can/will influence the stability of CO values so you'll have to re-test and re-tune them to be sure they're still stable.


----------



## PJVol

ManniX-ITA said:


> It's trying to bring the clock up and if it sees it fit it will keep the same VID or even raise it.


I think it may help if we consider core VID not "raising", rather not going down as low as its count value suggests.


Mike156 said:


> As I showed in the chart before, VID did change (went up) but clock speed went down as CO went less negative. This kind of surprises me that VID went up though. I'm kind of curious if VID is based on maybe average CO or maybe a ratio to best/worst? Seemed like VID changed less when I moved all the cores together. Could be run to run variance as well?


Something like this is happening indeed, though I see the VID's just ceased to raise at some point as the core count increased.
To make collected data reliable, we have to absolutely exclude any occasional load spikes
Also, only V/F data is not enough. At the bare minimum, we should add core temps, or better accompanied with a core FIT values and package FIT value.
May be this diagram could answer some questions as well:
(the assumed meaning of terms below
VID - VID requested from VRM (hwinfo CPU core VID effective)
Target VDD - core VID suggested by CO count.
RVDD(Real VDD) - hwinfo SVI2 Vcore
VDD - actual core VID (HWInfo Core VID)
)
















SINGH et al.: ENERGY-EFFICIENT HIGH-PERFORMANCE ×86 CORE
108 IEEE JOURNAL OF SOLID-STATE CIRCUITS, VOL. 53, NO. 1, JANUARY 2018

That's only VID regulation, but there's another part - clock stretcher inside DFS, so I'm afraid watching for only clocks isn't enough either. We need to monitor core UOPS per second values to judge the impact CO has on performance.


----------



## Mike156

So playing with VDD offset, should we look at SVI2 Vcore to be the limiting voltage? I want to say 1.50 VID Effective would end up right around 1.46V SVI2. Would running up to 1.5V on SVI2 be "safe?"

I'm thinking using like 37-50mV of offset voltage and then more negative CO. I've seen this does work already, just wondering how far to push it. I'm using the stock PBO limits which will keep all core in control, but is there anything that really keeps single core in control other than peak voltage?


----------



## Piers

DeadSec said:


> If I stop the tool after the second iteration, what is to do then?


Why would you stop the script? You are free to stop the script from running any time you want, but the longer you leave it running, the more likely it is to find errors. I *wouldn't *modify the configuration file to start with - the defaults are perfectly reasonable.


----------



## Piers

050 said:


> By around 200 hours, almost certainly completely stable. You can start with 10-20 iterations and if there's no errors, it's probably "good enough" but that's up to you. If you are running a system that _must not_ have any instability, test longer!


6 hours per core is the recommended time, but agree with you. I would add that when testing one Curve, there were no errors for 20 iterations, and then an error on the 21st iteration. I have it set to test cores if they fault, and it found another error on the 29th iteration. That told me that cores was ever so slightly unstable and needed its Curve adjusting by 2.


----------



## Piers

ManniX-ITA said:


> Usually the clock goes down with a less negative count.


Do you mean a higher negative value, or lower negative value? What about its sustained clocks? That's far more important than a core boosting to 5050 MHz for 1 second and then dropping down to 4450. I prefer to see clocks going to 4900 and then staying at 4800 under load.


DeadSec said:


> In CCX 1 the best core is C4, the second C1
> In CCX 2 the best core is C14, second C 12.


Are you getting that data from Ryzen Master or HWiNFO? IIRC, Ryzen Master uses cores 1-16, whereas the motherboard, HWiNFO, and most sensible applications/software report cores 0-15. Make sure you account for that. For example, if Ryzen Master says core 4 is the 'best', that translates to core 3 in the BIOS, etc.


DeadSec said:


> How are the values I should set in the curve optimizer in the BIOS?
> Edit: The best ones got each - 6, all the others got - 12.


Personally, I start with -8 for the best cores, and -16 or -18 for the rest. That's a reasonable mid point. I've yet to see a Curve at all -28/-30 and it pass CoreCycler's default test for 6 hours per thread. You may even find some cores need positive values (e.g. +3), although that's less common, but it can be beneficial if you have thermal headroom.


DeadSec said:


> The Cinebench scores raised. But I'm afraid y-cruncher will shut the system down


Firstly, you should download y-cruncher separately (y-cruncher - A Multi-Threaded Pi Program) and not use the version included with CoreCycler.

Secondly, your CPU, PSU, and motherboard have built-in safety mechanisms. If the PC shuts down from running y-cruncher, one or more of those mechanisms will have kicked in to protect your hardware. HOWEVER, if your PC shuts down from running y-cruncher, that implies something is wrong with the configuration, hardware, or overclock. With normal household conditions, it shouldn't shut down.

My PC in a somewhat hot room kept on going after 22 hours of running an extreme torture test with y-cruncher. Thermals were up at 90°C and clocks were at 3.650-3.675 GHz (below base). y-cruncher is designed to be incredibly intensive, but if it passes that for 10 hours, your PC should be solid under heavy loads.


----------



## Piers

Mike156 said:


> So playing with VDD offset, should we look at SVI2 Vcore to be the limiting voltage? I want to say 1.50 VID Effective would end up right around 1.46V SVI2. Would running up to 1.5V on SVI2 be "safe?"


What is your motherboard allowing the CPU to use in terms of voltage? And what is your CPU requesting?


Mike156 said:


> I'm thinking using like 37-50mV of offset voltage and then more negative CO. I've seen this does work already, just wondering how far to push it. I'm using the stock PBO limits which will keep all core in control, but is there anything that really keeps single core in control other than peak voltage?


So that's a Vcore offset and optimised Curve (e.g. a limit to 1.450V and then a Curve on top of that)? That can work, but you're more likely to achieve better performance (sustained clocks) from just using the Curve Optimiser, leaving Vcore at 'auto', and setting LLC to something not too aggressive (in the middle).


----------



## ManniX-ITA

PJVol said:


> I think it may help if we consider core VID not "raising", rather not going down as low as its count value suggests.


Yes you are right of course, it was for easier communication 



PJVol said:


> That's only VID regulation, but there's another part - clock stretcher inside DFS, so I'm afraid watching for only clocks isn't enough either. We need to monitor core UOPS per second values to judge the impact CO has on performance.


Yes sometimes the scores with CPU-z gets lower or unstable.

There's also the problem on how the VID is affected by the other cores count.
I've tried yesterday to change the counts of the other cores and see how the best left at the same count is affected.
Couldn't really find a pattern...
From a starting VID about 1.225V on CB23 load it went down to 1.21V and up to 1.255V.

Plus there's the all-core performances.
Going down with the count maybe doesn't improve the performances of a single core but it does improve the all-core.
Not sure how to balance this.


----------



## Mike156

Piers said:


> What is your motherboard allowing the CPU to use in terms of voltage? And what is your CPU requesting?
> So that's a Vcore offset and optimised Curve (e.g. a limit to 1.450V and then a Curve on top of that)? That can work, but you're more likely to achieve better performance (sustained clocks) from just using the Curve Optimiser, leaving Vcore at 'auto', and setting LLC to something not too aggressive (in the middle).


VID effective is just under 1.5. SVI2 core voltage I believe was right around 1.46 (matched Vcore of mother board). I'm currently using AUTO and LLC auto, which is the same as LLC 8, the least aggressive LLC.

I have already used a +25mV offset and then decreased the CO values to be more negative and it raised peak frequency as well as single core scores in CBR23 and CPU-Z. It was able to raise the clocks a decent amount, around 100MHz. It also raised multi core scores as well. I already know it works and it works better, just wondering how far it can be pushed.


----------



## DeadSec

Piers said:


> Are you getting that data from Ryzen Master or HWiNFO? IIRC, Ryzen Master uses cores 1-16, whereas the motherboard, HWiNFO, and most sensible applications/software report cores 0-15. Make sure you account for that. For example, if Ryzen Master says core 4 is the 'best', that translates to core 3 in the BIOS, etc.
> Personally, I start with -8 for the best cores, and -16 or -18 for the rest. That's a reasonable mid point. I've yet to see a Curve at all -28/-30 and it pass CoreCycler's default test for 6 hours per core. You may even find some cores need positive values (e.g. +3), although that's less common, but it can be beneficial if you have thermal headroom.
> Secondly, your CPU, PSU, and motherboard have built-in safety mechanisms. If the PC shuts down from running y-cruncher, one or more of those mechanisms will have kicked in to protect your hardware. HOWEVER, if your PC shuts down from running y-cruncher, that implies something is wrong with the configuration, hardware, or overclock. With normal household conditions, it shouldn't shut down.


I took the data of the best cores from Ryzen Master and saw by the first view that I'll have to reduce the numbers of the cores -1 to set it right in the BIOS.

The "shut-downs" of the system I told about were related running y-cruncher out of the core cycler. The shut downs are like black screen, no response to the keyboard, LED Q-Code of the mainboard shows up "00". It is like the systems is still running but there is no way to get into it.


----------



## Luggage

Piers said:


> Do you mean a higher negative value, or lower negative value? What about it's sustained clocks? That's far more important than a core boosting to 5050 MHz for 1 second and then dropping down to 4450. I prefer to see clocks going to 4900 and then staying at 4800 under load.


Boost dropping for sustained loads are (at least on my 5800x) almost totally a thermal issue.

The FIT calibration of boost vs workload is really fast so for a stable workload the boost freq over shooting is hard to catch, if you see freq drop it’s mainly from thermals. And that you combat with cooling and PBO limits mainly.

I’m still not sure if the boost override limit is shifting the vf curve or just setting a top limit, though.


----------



## Imprezzion

Luggage said:


> Boost dropping for sustained loads are (at least on my 5800x) almost totally a thermal issue.
> 
> The FIT calibration of boost vs workload is really fast so for a stable workload the boost freq over shooting is hard to catch, if you see freq drop it’s mainly from thermals. And that you combat with cooling and PBO limits mainly.
> 
> I’m still not sure if the boost override limit is shifting the vf curve or just setting a top limit, though.


As far as I can test, just a top limit. My sustained boost under all core loads is exactly the same voltage and clocks at +0 vs +150 only at +0 it spikes to 4950 and at +150 it spikes to 5100 (which isn't stable on -25 CO). 

I can't really put an offset on my VID to be honest. I have plenty of thermal headroom, it barely touches 72c even in the hardest of stress tests, but SVI2 is too high already to allow for + offsets imho. I already see between 1.470v to 1.496v @ 4875-4925Mhz in light sustained loads like light games and single thread is up to 1.500v @ 5Ghz.


----------



## Piers

Mike156 said:


> I have already used a +25mV offset and then decreased the CO values to be more negative and it raised peak frequency as well as single core scores in CBR23 and CPU-Z. It was able to raise the clocks a decent amount, around 100MHz. It also raised multi core scores as well. I already know it works and it works better, just wondering how far it can be pushed.


But is it stable, and are those clocks sustained for 30m in CB R23? 

What scores are you getting in R23?


----------



## Piers

DeadSec said:


> I took the data of the best cores from Ryzen Master and saw by the first view that I'll have to reduce the numbers of the cores -1 to set it right in the BIOS.
> 
> The "shut-downs" of the system I told about were related running y-cruncher out of the core cycler. The shut downs are like black screen, no response to the keyboard, LED Q-Code of the mainboard shows up "00". It is like the systems is still running but there is no way to get into it.


Can you run the y-cruncher test again, but at stock (with only XMP enabled)? There's no point in continuing to overclock without first sorting that issue out.


----------



## Piers

Luggage said:


> Boost dropping for sustained loads are (at least on my 5800x) almost totally a thermal issue.


I've seen it occur at under 65°C, with VRM at 45°C, and chipset at 40°C. The reduction in clocks I see directly relates to how it's pushed - if too far, then large reduction. If not much, then maybe 50 MHz. I'm talking about 1-3C loads.


----------



## Luggage

Piers said:


> I've seen it occur at under 65°C, with VRM at 45°C, and chipset at 40°C. The reduction in clocks I see directly relates to how it's pushed - if too far, then large reduction. If not much, then maybe 50 MHz. I'm talking about 1-3C loads.


Is the stable/sustained freq lower (much, >25/50) for you with a higher boost limit than with a low one, at the same limits and thermals?


----------



## Piers

Luggage said:


> Is the stable/sustained freq lower (much, >25/50) for you with a higher boost limit than with a low one, at the same limits and thermals?


Higher boost limit in terms of?


----------



## Luggage

Piers said:


> Higher boost limit in terms of?


Max boost override? Or whatever you call it on ASUS. 0 to +200.


----------



## Piers

Luggage said:


> Max boost override? Or whatever you call it on ASUS. 0 to +200.


Ah. Yes, higher clocks are sustained when that's set to 0. I've tested that with maximum power limits (e.g 1000W PPT), strict/optimised power limits (e.g 190W PPT), and stock (142W PPT). Temps stayed at ~68.


----------



## DeadSec

Okay guys,
the first 5 iterations are done. So the system seems to be roughly stable.
Should I set the values two steps done (f.e. -8 to -10) and cycle again?


----------



## Piers

DeadSec said:


> Okay guys,
> the first 5 iterations are done. So the system seems to be roughly stable.
> Should I set the values two steps done (f.e. -8 to -10) and cycle again?


5 iterations != stability. There's not really any point in stability testing if you're only going to perform 5 iterations. Borderline instability - the type that can cause an application to crash without a known reason - can still be found at iteration 20 and above using the defaults. Using the custom P95 configuration, that's iteration 18 and above.

Additionally, @DeadSec you've not resolved the "shut-downs" issue yet. That really needs to be investigated and resolved before overclocking or stability testing. 



> The "shut-downs" of the system I told about were related running y-cruncher out of the core cycler. The shut downs are like black screen, no response to the keyboard, LED Q-Code of the mainboard shows up "00". It is like the systems is still running but there is no way to get into it.


----------



## Luggage

Piers said:


> Ah. Yes, higher clocks are sustained when that's set to 0. I've tested that with maximum power limits (e.g 1000W PPT), strict/optimised power limits (e.g 190W PPT), and stock (142W PPT). Temps stayed at ~68.


Ok because my clocks are more dependent on workload, PBO and thermals, not the boost limit.

Did a quick test changing boost limit with PBO2 tuner and steady loads like r23, cpu-z, p95 small fft, occt cpu and memtest.

None cared about boost limit 4850-5050, much bigger variance just optimizing PBO limits for the current workload.
Occt memtest cares because it boosts up to around 5G with enough edc.

Now admittedly that’s without retuning the curve for every boost limit - because that’s too much work >_<

As for single core loads quite a few will go over 5G more or less sustained.


----------



## Piers

Luggage said:


> Ok because my clocks are more dependent on workload, PBO and thermals, not the boost limit.
> 
> Did a quick test changing boost limit with PBO2 tuner and steady loads like r23, cpu-z, p95 small fft, occt cpu and memtest.
> 
> None cared about boost limit 4850-5050, much bigger variance just optimizing PBO limits for the current workload.
> Occt memtest cares because it boosts up to around 5G with enough edc.
> 
> Now admittedly that’s without retuning the curve for every boost limit - because that’s too much work >_<
> 
> As for single core loads quite a few will go over 5G more or less sustained.


It seems your chip is better binned. For mine, adding 50, 100, 200 or any value between, results in clock stretching. I use a 30 minute file and encode it with x265 with 24 threads and a 2 minute video with 1 thread, then compare fps. 

That's the most reliable method to see if clock stretching is occurring as it heavily relies upon both threads and frequency. I can make most cores go over 5000 MHz, but that's when encoding fps remains the same, showing clock stretching.


----------



## PJVol

Mike156 said:


> but is there anything that really keeps single core in control other than peak voltage?


I was also curious about this at the beginning, since AMD didn't go into details on it.
Based on the info i managed to gather, single core boost is most of the time limited by its FIT value (silicon reliability), which is the function of both voltage and temperature. Or, consider current VID limit as a function of temperature.


Luggage said:


> I’m still not sure if the boost override limit is shifting the vf curve or just setting a top limit, though.


I believe it's the latter, i.e. just a frequency cap when calculating the global frequency.
Keep in mind though, what pbo2 tuner set is not the same value as the one set in BIOS.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Imprezzion said:


> As far as I can test, just a top limit. My sustained boost under all core loads is exactly the same voltage and clocks at +0 vs +150 only at +0 it spikes to 4950 and at +150 it spikes to 5100 (which isn't stable on -25 CO).


Yes but it doesn't mean running with a lower boost is better or same.
This because there are a few workloads that will load steady 100% all cores, mostly they don't.
Synthetic benchmarks and specialized workloads, eg. rendering, tend to have a 100% load but it's unusual.
Gaming and most of everything else doesn't; they compute something, wait for I/O, parse some data, start computing again etc.

As you said you need the right testing tools.

This is CPU-z at 0/100/200.

Obvious difference in single thread and almost arithmetic delta up with 2 and 4 cores.
But then at 6 threads with 100 and 200 the scores are identical.
At 8 threads are all very similar.

Boost 0 MHz































Boost 100 MHz































Boost 200 MHz






























CPU-z which is a very useful tool but it doesn't tell you much about real performances.

The Boost clock doesn't change only the *top frequency* *clock *but also the *velocity*.
This means that in a mixed workload, where the clock is gated to a ceiling, when the cores will go up & down depending on load they'll ramp up faster with a higher boost clock.
Which results in better performances, regardless if the highest clock they can reach is well below the base clock or base clock + boost.
They can also take advantage of the higher clock if the average load falls below threshold.

I've already told many times to observe how CPU-z score is progressing from start to end of the benchmark.
Especially in the EDC bug thread.
But I'm not sure many understood how much is important for PBO 

You can easily understand that something is wrong if CPU-z score starts too low, drops and goes up again, etc.
If the score jumps right where it should be and stays strong and steady the whole time then the boosting is working fine.
This means better real world performances.

You need all the right settings, VRM, voltages, all perfectly tuned.
Most of the times, like it was for my 5950X and it is for this 5800X, you need to calibrate for a specific boost clock.
Different tuning for +100 or +200; my 5950X needed a different tuning for +50 or +100.

Memory is important as well, if you don't have a good kit and also a good profile the boosting will be impacted.
One loose timing and the boost will become sketchy.

Here's a sneak preview of the tool I'm working on right now 
_(it's an old Alpha, the monitoring metrics, especially power, are not very accurate so don't focus on that)_

This is the monero miner in benchmark mode.
It's much more similar to a real workload than a synthetic benchmark.
The benchmark mode is real mining of a specific block so the load jumps up and down on the cores, it's not steady.
Here even when the average clock goes well below 4850 MHz you can see how important is single core boosting.
Even when all 16 threads are used.

Boost clock at +100 doesn't perform well over 2 threads but that's because I've tuned everything for +200.
For sure with a tedious and specific tuning I could get it working better than +0 overall but I'm not interested 

+200









+100










+0


----------



## Luggage

Piers said:


> It seems your chip is better binned. For mine, adding 50, 100, 200 or any value between, results in clock stretching. I use a 30 minute file and encode it with x265 with 24 threads and a 2 minute video with 1 thread, then compare fps.
> 
> That's the most reliable method to see if clock stretching is occurring as it heavily relies upon both threads and frequency. I can make most cores go over 5000 MHz, but that's when encoding fps remains the same, showing clock stretching.


Just means the constrained thread tops out around 4.9 with the fit limits the same way a corecycler p95 small fft wont care about 5G boost limit. So for your workload it's very true. *
If you run - say 3dmark cpu, super-pi, cpu-z sc and r23 sc they will keep scaling with higher boost.

Can't think of a light all core workload that give a meaningful output to compare - perhaps tm5 cycle time?

* tested this in your benchmark thread, needing 3 instances to load up the cpu.


http://imgur.com/3t9AF96


----------



## DeadSec

Piers said:


> Can you run the y-cruncher test again, but at stock (with only XMP enabled)? There's no point in continuing to overclock without first sorting that issue out.


Yes, the y-cruncher (Pi, multi core) is running through by using optimized defaults BIOS settings.


----------



## SaarN

I'm about to upgrade my 3600 to a 5900x and would love to get some advice from you guys on how to properly test the chip.
Not talking about full OC-ing, but testing its max FCLK tolerance would be nice (ram's rated at 4000MHz, would be nice if I get it to boot at XMP and 2000 FCLK), and general testing to see if it's working as intended at stock settings. All before my Amazon return window expires.
Got a B550-I Strix motherboard and a DR 32GB 4000C16 GSkill B die kit.
I know my Zen 2 settings (voltages) for stable 1900FCLK, but I'm not sure if Zen 3 works the same.


----------



## Owterspace

Piers said:


> If at stock, then it's faulty. If "pretty darn close", then unstable overclock. CoreCycler is a script that runs an optimised Prime95 session (or Aida64 or y-cruncher). At stock, every CPU from Intel and AMD should be able to pass an unlimited number of iterations. Overclocked, every CPU from Intel and AMD should able to do the same. If not, it's unstable.


I am playing with CC now, and can say with great certainty those settings were not CC stable in any way lol. Turns out my CPU isn't very good


----------



## Imprezzion

Has anyone ever played with the ASUS BIOS setting "performance bias"? I noticed a measurable and repeatable increase in scores in both CPU-Z and CBR23 scores when using "Geekbench/AIDA" vs "Auto". The difference is nothing to laugh about either. Auto is 10200 CPU-Z multicore and 23300 CBR23. Geekbench/AIDA is 10700 CPU-Z and 23800 CBR23 at the exact same CO and PBO2 settings. I have zero clue what it actually does but it does something...


----------



## DeadSec

Does anybody know the tool Hydra 1.0F?
It seems like there is no need anymore for testing hours, days and weeks to achieve a stable PBO2-setting which is like a pain in the neck:


----------



## ArchStanton

Imprezzion said:


> Has anyone ever played with the ASUS BIOS setting "performance bias"?


I too am curious, though I have never used the optional modes. Concern regarding telemetry shenanigans they might invoke has always stopped me from investigating to date.


----------



## Luggage

DeadSec said:


> Does anybody know the tool Hydra 1.0F?
> It seems like there is no need anymore for testing hours, days and weeks to achieve a stable PBO2-setting which is like a pain in the neck:
> View attachment 2551854


It will give you quite a good idea about co values - but they don't line fully up with heavy manual testing.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

DeadSec said:


> It seems like there is no need anymore for testing hours, days and weeks to achieve a stable PBO2-setting which is like a pain in the neck:


The CO counts are not suitable for PBO.
It's a feature planned for a future version.


----------



## 1devomer

DeadSec said:


> Does anybody know the tool Hydra 1.0F?
> It seems like there is no need anymore for testing hours, days and weeks to achieve a stable PBO2-setting which is like a pain in the neck:
> View attachment 2551854



Was wondering where the discussion would end to, guess i have my answer!


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> Has anyone ever played with the ASUS BIOS setting "performance bias"? I noticed a measurable and repeatable increase in scores in both CPU-Z and CBR23 scores when using "Geekbench/AIDA" vs "Auto". The difference is nothing to laugh about either. Auto is 10200 CPU-Z multicore and 23300 CBR23. Geekbench/AIDA is 10700 CPU-Z and 23800 CBR23 at the exact same CO and PBO2 settings. I have zero clue what it actually does but it does something...


I've often looked at that option and assumed it manipulated the scores. I too am interested if it changes performance. Could you do another AVX2 test (encoding) to see if performance increases in that? It's very hard to fake encoding performance.


----------



## Piers

DeadSec said:


> Does anybody know the tool Hydra 1.0F?
> It seems like there is no need anymore for testing hours, days and weeks to achieve a stable PBO2-setting which is like a pain in the neck:
> View attachment 2551854


As with the previous CTR tool, it remains a waste of time. I'd advise you don't overclock, and instead work on fixing the crash you get with high workloads (y-cruncher).


----------



## ManniX-ITA

This is the boosting behavior you should see with CPU-z on the best core.
When you are at this point it should be working fine.
It starts at the score where it should be or slightly less and stays there steady.
Core 0 is a bit more "difficult" as it runs always some load.


----------



## DeadSec

Piers said:


> As with the previous CTR tool, it remains a waste of time. I'd advise you don't overclock, and instead work on fixing the crash you get with high workloads (y-cruncher).


So what am I supposed to do?


----------



## Piers

DeadSec said:


> So what am I supposed to do?


You've already been given advice by multiple people.
1. Start by working out why your PC crashes during y-cruncher - test it at stock, as I've suggested.
2. Then move on to PBO2, with best cores at -8 to start, and the rest at -18. The above issue still needs resolving first.

Note: if you don't want to put in the time to overclock it using PBO2 and a Curve, that's fine - default performance is great for games and 'creator' applications. An alternative is fixed overclocking, where you set a voltage and multiplier. Then there's per CCD control, where you set a VID and multiplier.


----------



## DeadSec

Okay.
First of all I found out that the black screen issue running AIDA64 benchmark is related to the BIOS setting *FPO Fmax enhancer*. Enabled will instantly cause the black screen, Auto or disabled will let the benchmark run through.

Second, I tried to listen and _understand_ ManniX's video.
Well, I like the British English even the Scottish or Cockney English in the pubs of London isn't much of a challenge meanwhile for me but this accent gives me sometimes a hard time. Sorry for that.
What I understood is, determine the relations between the voltage and the boost under load of CoreCycler.
C0: 4.70 GHz = 1.419 V,
C1: 4.75 GHz = 1.413 V,
C2: 4.62 GHz = 1.413 V,
C3: 4.55 GHz = 1.400V,
C4: 4.70 GHz = 1.413 V,
C5: 4.65 GHz = 1.400 V,
C6: 4.60 GHz = 1.413 V,
C7: 4.57 GHz = 1.413 V,
C8: 4.50 GHz = 1.400 V,
C9: 4,47 GHz = 1.419 V,
C10: 4.5 GHz = 1.400 V,
C11: 4.5 GHz = 1.413 V,
C12: 4.5 GHz = 1.406 V,
C13: 4.47 GHz = 1.413 V,
C14: 4.47 GHz = 1.4000 V,
C15: 4.48 GHz = 1.400 V.

In the next step I changed the curve optimizer to the settings in the picture below:


----------



## 050

DeadSec said:


> In the next step I changed the curve optimizer to the settings in the picture below:


All of those look like reasonable numbers, now with that CO set you should run core cycler and/or other stress test programs to ensure that it is stable (how stable is up to you.) If you are content with the possibility of instability you can do without this but it could crash or be buggy at any time. If you test for a few hours of core cycler (10 iterations or so) then you can decide if you are happy with those settings and stability test longer, or if you want to try for a better value on some cores, decrease the CO values and re-test. 
I hit 21 cycles before getting an error on my core 5, so I increased the CO value for that core by 1, from -18 to -17. I have been re-testing and am currently at 38 iterations (~55 hours) of testing with no errors. If I get to ~100 iterations then it is almost certainly stable and if I reach 150 iterations with no errors, any instability is likely statistically insignificant.
This testing doesn't have to be all at once though, so fortunately you can run 10 cycles, then ten more, then ten more, with the same settings across multiple days. As long as you keep the settings the same for your overclock it should be fine to space out the testing.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

DeadSec said:


> Well, I like the British English even the Scottish or Cockney English in the pubs of London isn't much of a challenge meanwhile for me but this accent gives me sometimes a hard time. Sorry for that.


No offense taken, it's average Italian English 
Was also a bit sleepy, couldn't do better.

What about BoostTester?
Did you take screenshots as suggested?
Which FFT size did you run with CoreCycler when you took that screenshot?

FMax Enhancer can give problems. Keep it disabled, hard to make it work.

What are your PBO limits?
And which AGESA are you running?

Your VIDs are all too much very close with very different speeds, it's pretty uncommon.
Makes me think you are running with vCore VID capped.


----------



## DeadSec

ManniX-ITA said:


> No offense taken, it's average Italian English
> Was also a bit sleepy, couldn't do better.
> 
> What about BoostTester?
> Did you take screenshots as suggested?
> Which FFT size did you run with CoreCycler when you took that screenshot?
> 
> FMax Enhancer can give problems. Keep it disabled, hard to make it work.
> 
> What are your PBO limits?
> And which AGESA are you running?
> 
> Your VIDs are all too much very close with very different speeds, it's pretty uncommon.
> Makes me think you are running with vCore VID capped.


I ain't got the boost tester. Where can I get it?
I took some screenshot of the Bios settings.
FFT 8960
Testing the settings I ran the very small 4 -160. The cores got hot, 81° C, no error though.
PPT=270,
TDC=168,
EDC=220,

AGESA is V2 PI 1.2.0.6b.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

DeadSec said:


> AGESA is V2 PI 1.2.0.6b.


You have VID capping on with that AGESA running over 140A EDC.

Not sure it's worth spending time testing with CoreCycler.

It's better if you test like in the video, first 720-720 and later 16000-27000.
Then go for the lower FFTs.
You need to check if that +200 is stable or not.


----------



## rexbinary

New AMD chipset drivers on AMD's page. I haven't installed them yet. 4.03.03.431 3/14/22



https://www.amd.com/en/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am4/x570


----------



## ArchStanton

rexbinary said:


> New AMD chipset drivers on AMD's page.


The pessimist in me assumes they are only in preparation of the 5800ₓ3D's launch rather than improvements to existing products .


----------



## ManniX-ITA

ArchStanton said:


> The pessimist in me assumes they are only in preparation of the 5800ₓ3D's launch rather than improvements to existing products


I wouldn't upgrade.
"Fixed" PSP downgrade smells fishy and it's probably fishy


----------



## Piers

ArchStanton said:


> The pessimist in me assumes they are only in preparation of the 5800ₓ3D's launch rather than improvements to existing products .


The last versions were from motherboard vendors and included product-specific fixes.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

DeadSec said:


> I ain't got the boost tester. Where can I get it?


it's in the description of the Youtube video.

Which BIOS version are you using? 
4006 shouldn't have VID capping.


----------



## DeadSec

The 4006 is on. 

P. S. My words about your accent weren't meant to be rude. No offense at you.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

DeadSec said:


> The 4006 is on.
> 
> P. S. My words about your accent weren't meant to be rude. No offense at you.


Seems it's the FMax that is overriding the VID cap but also creating other issues...

No worries about the accent, it sucks


----------



## 050

ManniX-ITA said:


> Which BIOS version are you using?
> 4006 shouldn't have VID capping.


Oh was this fixed, is >140 EDC no longer limiting the VID to 1.425v? I have seen mine get to a VID of 1.456v and SVI2 of 1.45v at EDC = 160 but hadn't been able to determine any reason it was going over 1.425v when so many said that was the cap at >140 EDC.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

050 said:


> Oh was this fixed, is >140 EDC no longer limiting the VID to 1.425v? I have seen mine get to a VID of 1.456v and SVI2 of 1.45v at EDC = 160 but hadn't been able to determine any reason it was going over 1.425v when so many said that was the cap at >140 EDC.


Seems if the FMax is enabled the VID cap is bypassed but I'm not so sure.


----------



## iatacs19

I am currently in the middle of testing my 5950X and noticed that I have a rather large temperature delta between my CCD1 and CCD2. 

During full load testing I am getting up to 13C of difference between CCD1 and CCD2, with CCD1 being hotter. I have reapplied the thermal paste and re-seated the heatsink 3 times. I have seen some record of other people on the internet attributing this to silicon lottery which is likely, but I find the 13C difference quite large?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

iatacs19 said:


> During full load testing I am getting up to 13C of difference between CCD1 and CCD2, with CCD1 being hotter. I have reapplied the thermal paste and re-seated the heatsink 3 times. I have seen some record of other people on the internet attributing this to silicon lottery which is likely, but I find the 13C difference quite large?


It can happen, the B2 5950X that I got from RMA had this kind of delta.
The CCD2 with CO was overall better than CCD1.


----------



## Piers

iatacs19 said:


> I am currently in the middle of testing my 5950X and noticed that I have a rather large temperature delta between my CCD1 and CCD2.


That's normal, although if you see that delta at idle then I'd question mounting pressure again.


----------



## dk_mic

quick bench of the new chipset drivers (5950X, PBO, AMD default power limits, no boost override, CO -15 all core)










I would say no change in performance. (old driver was just the previous one from the AMD site iirc)


----------



## JohnnyFlash

050 said:


> Oh was this fixed, is >140 EDC no longer limiting the VID to 1.425v? I have seen mine get to a VID of 1.456v and SVI2 of 1.45v at EDC = 160 but hadn't been able to determine any reason it was going over 1.425v when so many said that was the cap at >140 EDC.


I would trade my book of Arby's coupons for a max PBO voltage setting in the BIOS. Their story on low-load only is horse, as a single thread of P95 sticks at 5.0 1.47v on mine for 20 min+.

If I could set a max of 1.325v for PBO, then I would use it with dynamic OC.


----------



## 050

JohnnyFlash said:


> I would trade my book of Arby's coupons for a max PBO voltage setting in the BIOS. Their story on low-load only is horse, as a single thread of P95 sticks at 5.0 1.47v on mine for 20 min+.
> 
> If I could set a max of 1.325v for PBO, then I would use it with dynamic OC.


I really wish this were an option - I know it's likely asking too much but imagine a world in which we could export/see the V/F curve (both stock and with CO applied) for each core and then also set a "max Vcore" (before droop, so a VID cap of sorts) either for the whole chip, for an individual ccd, or at the individual core level. That would be so sweet! Then PBO could boost as high as it wants/can within the bounds set.


----------



## JohnnyFlash

050 said:


> I really wish this were an option - I know it's likely asking too much but imagine a world in which we could export/see the V/F curve (both stock and with CO applied) for each core and then also set a "max Vcore" (before droop, so a VID cap of sorts) either for the whole chip, for an individual ccd, or at the individual core level. That would be so sweet! Then PBO could boost as high as it wants/can within the bounds set.


Agreed. Something like Afterburner would be perfect.


----------



## Mike156

Seems like some kind of single core EDC scalar would be a good option? Heavy loads like p95 run more current so being able to turn down the voltage on those loads and slow the core down would be good while still allowing high boost under lighter loads. Single core power limiting world do about the same thing as well.


----------



## tonynca

ManniX-ITA said:


> Seems it's the FMax that is overriding the VID cap but also creating other issues...
> 
> No worries about the accent, it sucks


What other issue is it creating? So far, I'm getting really good performance using Fmax enabled + >140 EDC! I'm getting a lot of boosting in Fortnite and Black Ops.

Edit: celebrated too soon. F max enhancer causes major clock stretching. Don’t use it. CB23 scores were drastically lower than with it disabled/auto.


----------



## 050

Well, I got to 60 iterations of core cycler (97 hours) and core 0 threw an error at iteration 61, dang. Added +1 to core 0 so now I'm running 24,25,30,18,30,17,30,30,30,30,30,30,30,30,30,30. Back to a fresh start on core cycler! At least if I hit another 60 iterations all of the other cores are basically set.


----------



## KedarWolf

050 said:


> Well, I got to 60 iterations of core cycler (97 hours) and core 0 threw an error at iteration 61, dang. Added +1 to core 0 so now I'm running 24,25,30,18,30,17,30,30,30,30,30,30,30,30,30,30. Back to a fresh start on core cycler! At least if I hit another 60 iterations all of the other cores are basically set.


Try 10 minutes runs per core of 720-720 FFTs, will find errors when nothing else will.


----------



## tonynca

KedarWolf said:


> Try 10 minutes runs per core of 720-720 FFTs, will find errors when nothing else will.


Why is it that 720k FFT would find errors but "Huge" default didn't detect any? I'm finding errors for the first time in CoreCycler using 720k. Had to add a bit more voltage to Core 0, 4. Still testing now.


----------



## KedarWolf

tonynca said:


> Why is it that 720k FFT would find errors but "Huge" default didn't detect any? I'm finding errors for the first time in CoreCycler using 720k. Had to add a bit more voltage to Core 0, 4. Still testing now.


Likely because it tests the same size FFT continuously for ten minutes, more prone to find errors. I had to adjust my curve drastically to get it 720-720 SSE stable. Huge and Large it would pass, but 720 it wouldn't.

Some people use a smaller FFT like 128-128 as well.

To make it quicker, try 3 minutes, then if it passes a few interactions of 3 minutes, try at least 3 interactions of 10 minutes at least overnight.

I let it run overnight and then all day while I'm at work, maybe 18 hours or so, about 6 interactions at 10 minutes.


----------



## 050

Interesting, yeah I am trying out the 720k-720k now and it pushed an error on core 0 again in the second iteration when that would likely have taken more than 60 iterations of huge. I will keep tweaking and tuning!


----------



## ManniX-ITA

050 said:


> Interesting, yeah I am trying out the 720k-720k now and it pushed an error on core 0 again in the second iteration when that would likely have taken more than 60 iterations of huge. I will keep tweaking and tuning!


Huge starts from FFT 8960K and repeating the same FFT seems to be very challenging and different than moving from one to another.
It also takes 20 minutes to complete.
Better to split it in more stripes and test first 16000-27000 that takes only 5 minutes.
You can test later with 8960-16000 and 27000-32768.


----------



## DeadSec

Do you recommend to disable AVX in prime95-testing?


----------



## Piers

DeadSec said:


> Do you recommend to disable AVX in prime95-testing?


If you are testing your Curve, SSE is used by default. If you are trying to test all-core, no, don't disable it. AVX is used in the overwhelming majority of new games and applications, the latter including most Adobe software and CAD.

If you are performing an all-core test, y-cruncher is much better.


----------



## KedarWolf

I tried enabling the L2N modes, lost 700 points in Cinebench R23.


----------



## Piers

KedarWolf said:


> I tried enabling the L2N modes, lost 700 points in Cinebench R23.


I asked AMD 2nd level support_ (when trying to fix the 1.5500V issue I had)_ what that actually does, and they said it was_ (apart from normal LN2 tweaks) _mainly on-die voltage scaling, and would allow higher voltages that wouldn't be considered safe for normal use. In reality, without LN2, it did nothing noticeable.

It seems AGESA 1.2.0.4 onwards has changed that behaviour.

PS: if not yet done, try the ECO mode. I sound in real-world tests (machine learning/training and video encoding), performance was awesome given the max all-core temp being 15°C lower but 1T remaining the same.

Of course, the BIOS lists the values so it would make more sense to use those power limits with PBO2 and with a Curve.


----------



## KedarWolf

Piers said:


> I asked AMD 2nd level support_ (when trying to fix the 1.5500V issue I had)_ what that actually does, and they said it was_ (apart from normal LN2 tweaks) _mainly on-die voltage scaling, and would allow higher voltages that wouldn't be considered safe for normal use. In reality, without LN2, it did nothing noticeable.
> 
> It seems AGESA 1.2.0.4 onwards has changed that behaviour.


I'm on AGESA 1.2.0.3c.

But I definitely lost that much in R23 with all the L2N options enabled and nothing else changed.

Let me test again before I go to bed. brb

Disabled. Rebooting.











Had an issue, Windows wouldn't boot disabling L2N, BIOS reset and loading the profile fixed it.

L2N Enabled. Oh, I restored my Macrium Windows image, lost the screenshot in my Pictures folder.

But L2N enabled was exactly 29000 in R23.


----------



## Imprezzion

KedarWolf said:


> I'm on AGESA 1.2.0.3c.
> 
> But I definitely lost that much in R23 with all the L2N options enabled and nothing else changed.
> 
> Let me test again before I go to bed. brb
> 
> Disabled. Rebooting.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2552246
> 
> 
> Had an issue, Windows wouldn't boot disabling L2N, BIOS reset and loading the profile fixed it.
> 
> L2N Enabled. Oh, I restored my Macrium Windows image, lost the screenshot in my Pictures folder.
> 
> But L2N enabled was exactly 29000 in R23.


Did you see a change in effective clocks (HWInfo64) with LN2 enabled vs disabled? With that much of a score drop I would expect so.


----------



## tonynca

KedarWolf said:


> Likely because it tests the same size FFT continuously for ten minutes, more prone to find errors. I had to adjust my curve drastically to get it 720-720 SSE stable. Huge and Large it would pass, but 720 it wouldn't.
> 
> Some people use a smaller FFT like 128-128 as well.
> 
> To make it quicker, try 3 minutes, then if it passes a few interactions of 3 minutes, try at least 3 interactions of 10 minutes at least overnight.
> 
> I let it run overnight and then all day while I'm at work, maybe 18 hours or so, about 6 interactions at 10 minutes.


I think I got my settings all settled. It passed overnight test of 720k and 128k. I'll continue to run it throughout PC downtime this week. Thanks for this! I didn't know my cores were erroring out.


----------



## Piers

tonynca said:


> I think I got my settings all settled. It passed overnight test of 720k and 128k.


When running 128-128 with stock power limits, clocks drop to ~3750 MHz and temps hit 90°C - 92°C instantly (😮) with a 360mm CLC with fans at ~2500 RPM.


----------



## Imprezzion

Piers said:


> When running 128-128 with stock power limits, clocks drop to ~3750 MHz and temps hit 90°C - 92°C instantly (😮) with a 360mm CLC with fans at ~2500 RPM.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2552404


Now you got me curious. When I get home from work I will run that at 170 EDC 155 TDC 300 PPT and see if my OP custom loop can somehow magically cool that and what clocks it will sustain. I sustain 4675Mhz all core in CB R23.


----------



## Piers

Imprezzion said:


> Now you got me curious. When I get home from work I will run that at 170 EDC 155 TDC 300 PPT and see if my OP custom loop can somehow magically cool that and what clocks it will sustain. I sustain 4675Mhz all core in CB R23.


Look forward to seeing your results. If possible, would you mind running the same 128k-128k test at stock? Interested to see your clocks.



Imprezzion said:


> I sustain 4675Mhz all core in CB R23.


At stock, but with correct telemetry, my chip sustains 4.325 GHz (~66°C). With my current test PBO profile (conservative curve, PPT: 220, EDC: 200, TDC: 190), that increases to 4.625 GHz (~74°C).


----------



## Imprezzion

Piers said:


> Look forward to seeing your results. If possible, would you mind running the same 128k-128k test at stock? Interested to see your clocks.
> 
> 
> At stock, but with correct telemetry, my chip sustains 4.325 GHz (~66°C). With my current test PBO profile (conservative curve, PPT: 220, EDC: 200, TDC: 190), that increases to 4.625 GHz (~74°C).


It tames it pretty well. Holds 4500 @ 1.212v around 74c tops. I do run lower EDC of 170 which is the limiting factor here as higher only lowers actual performance for me.


----------



## KedarWolf

Piers said:


> When running 128-128 with stock power limits, clocks drop to ~3750 MHz and temps hit 90°C - 92°C instantly (😮) with a 360mm CLC with fans at ~2500 RPM.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2552404


Yes, I was talking about using Core Cycler. 128-128 SSE single-core FFTs In Place I think it runs.


----------



## KedarWolf

Piers said:


> When running 128-128 with stock power limits, clocks drop to ~3750 MHz and temps hit 90°C - 92°C instantly (😮) with a 360mm CLC with fans at ~2500 RPM.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2552404


This is what I get 128-128 FFTs In Place.


----------



## Piers

KedarWolf said:


> This is what I get 128-128 FFTs In Place.
> 
> View attachment 2552433
> 
> 
> View attachment 2552434
> 
> 
> View attachment 2552435


I should have mentioned - *not* with in-place enabled.


----------



## KedarWolf

Piers said:


> I should have mentioned - *not* with in-place enabled.


----------



## Piers

KedarWolf said:


> View attachment 2552436
> 
> 
> View attachment 2552437


That's incredibly impressive
Not sure why I have such poor performance doing the same.


----------



## KedarWolf

Piers said:


> That's incredibly impressive
> Not sure why I have such poor performance doing the same.


I have an EKWB Predator 360 AIO I threw an Optimus Foundation water block on. But it's got a good pump even though it has a quick disconnect. It runs at 3000 RPM.


----------



## Piers

KedarWolf said:


> I have an EKWB Predator 360 AIO I threw an Optimus Foundation water block on. But it's got a good pump even though it has a quick disconnect. It runs at 3000 RPM.


I guess the (CoolIt-made) Corsair H150i isn't that great. Coolant was at 29°C and pump at 2,800 RPM. I'd expect better from a 360mm.

Edit: Which version of Prime95 are you running? Our screenshots are different - especially the thread setup.


----------



## tonynca

Piers said:


> When running 128-128 with stock power limits, clocks drop to ~3750 MHz and temps hit 90°C - 92°C instantly (😮) with a 360mm CLC with fans at ~2500 RPM.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2552404


Yeah mine drops to 3700mhz as well but I'm only hitting 75C on my custom loop.

By the way, we're talking about using CoreCycler for single core 128k FFT runs. I'm hitting around 80C doing that.


----------



## SaarN

I heard the QC of the 5900x isn't great, is that really the case or are people exaggerating?
The 5900x I ordered should arrive in a couple of days and I'm thinking of cancelling my order.
Initially, I thought it would be a safe purchase, because I have 10+ old CPUs that work as if they are brand new. So I ordered from Amazon, and I don't want to deal with AMD's warranty from overseas.
I had to replace both my CPU and motherboard when I first built my R3600 PC 2 years ago, and you can tell I'm still scarred from the the process of making 2 tech companies honor their warranty. And that time I had to deal with them locally..


----------



## SneakySloth

SaarN said:


> I heard the QC of the 5900x isn't great, is that really the case or are people exaggerating?
> The 5900x I ordered should arrive in a couple of days and I'm thinking of cancelling my order.
> Initially, I thought it would be a safe purchase, because I have 10+ old CPUs that work as if they are brand new. So I ordered from Amazon, and I don't want to deal with AMD's warranty from overseas.
> I had to replace both my CPU and motherboard when I first built my R3600 PC 2 years ago, and you can tell I'm still scarred from the the process of making 2 tech companies honor their warranty. And that time I had to deal with them locally..


I've tried two samples and both of them have been fine. They were from last year, week 43. I returned the first sample thinking that it was failing OCCT but that ended up being a bug with OCCT itself so not the CPU's fault.

The current one that I'm keeping does really well overall. I've tried using CO to optimize my clock speeds further but I barely get a significant enough increase to justify the amount of time spent on optimizing the curve.

So I don't think there is a general issue with 5900x cpus.


----------



## Piers

tonynca said:


> Yeah mine drops to 3700mhz as well but I'm only hitting 75C on my custom loop.


Ah, glad to know that's normal. Still concerned by the temps as even a 360mm CLC should offer better performance - will check mounting pressure.


tonynca said:


> By the way, we're talking about using CoreCycler for single core 128k FFT runs. I'm hitting around 80C doing that.


I'll run that specific test and see how it goes. I'm assuming the exact setting people are using in CoreCycler is changing the FFT size and time lines to "*FFTSize = 128-128*" and "*runtimePerCore = 10m*"


SaarN said:


> I heard the QC of the 5900x isn't great, is that really the case or are people exaggerating?


I've heard that the 5950X can be more problematic due to the need to have two highly-binned chiplets, but the 5900X shouldn't be as problematic as it uses two faulty/binned chiplets with 6C on each and CCD0 (chiplet 0) having higher performance. I've been using my 5900X for about 5 months and find the performance great. I'd certainly not cancel an order based on rumours.

There are some very helpful answers and links about degradation, reason for people returning CPUs, etc. in this thread.



SaarN said:


> The 5900x I ordered should arrive in a couple of days and I'm thinking of cancelling my order.
> Initially, I thought it would be a safe purchase, because I have 10+ old CPUs that work as if they are brand new. So I ordered from Amazon, and I don't want to deal with AMD's warranty from overseas.


Why cancel before trying it out? The first thing once it's set up is to run CoreCycler on it to make sure it works at stock (the only complaints I've seen are a small percentage of people finding that it's unstable), and if it passes that, it's likely to be fine.


SaarN said:


> I had to replace both my CPU and motherboard when I first built my R3600 PC 2 years ago, and you can tell I'm still scarred from the the process of making 2 tech companies honor their warranty. And that time I had to deal with them locally..


What happened to the R5 3600?


----------



## SaarN

Piers said:


> Ah, glad to know that's normal. Still concerned by the temps as even a 360mm CLC should offer better performance - will check mounting pressure.
> I'll run that specific test and see how it goes. I'm assuming the exact setting people are using in CoreCycler is changing the FFT size and time lines to "*FFTSize = 128-128*" and "*runtimePerCore = 10m*"
> I've heard that the 5950X can be more problematic due to the need to have two highly-binned chiplets, but the 5900X shouldn't be as problematic as it uses two faulty/binned chiplets with 6C on each and CCD0 (chiplet 0) having higher performance. I've been using my 5900X for about 5 months and find the performance great. I'd certainly not cancel an order based on rumours.
> 
> There are some very helpful answers and links about degradation, reason for people returning CPUs, etc. in this thread.
> 
> Why cancel before trying it out? The first thing once it's set up is to run CoreCycler on it to make sure it works at stock (the only complaints I've seen are a small percentage of people finding that it's unstable), and if it passes that, it's likely to be fine.
> What happened to the R5 3600?


FIrst 3600? WHEA BSODs triggered by both the CPU and a faulty NVMe slot. 
Hearing horror stories about Zen3 gave me some bad flashbacks. Took me 6 months to get the faulty parts replaced, and I'm still suffering from the notorious Intel wireless card.
Honestly, I'm not sure what to think about all the stories I hear, considering Zen 3 is the definition of mature - almost EOL.


----------



## Piers

SaarN said:


> FIrst 3600? WHEA BSODs triggered by both the CPU and a faulty NVMe slot.
> Hearing horror stories about Zen3 gave me some bad flashbacks. Took me 6 months to get the faulty parts replaced, and I'm still suffering from the notorious Intel wireless card.
> Honestly, I'm not sure what to think about all the stories I hear, considering Zen 3 is the definition of mature - almost EOL.


All I can really add, is that I came from over a decade of Intel to a 5900X. There were some oddities at the start - mainly as a result of AMD's incompetence in software development, as well as Asus giving up on QC - but after using the 5900X daily for months, including incredibly heavy workloads, I'm very impressed with its performance. 

If I were given the choice now over whether to get a 5900X/5950X or a 12700K/12900K, I'd still go with the AMD option (but not an Asus motherboard). 

The fact that in a room with an ambient of 28°C (heating was turned up to maximum by partner), the 5900X with a Corsair CLC cooler can work through complex AVX2 instructions and remain at ~70°C with all cores at 4.35 GHz is amazing. This is especially true when it's using roughly half the power of Intel's higher-end 12th Gen. chips. I'd also add that for gaming performance, my chip easily boosts to 4.775 GHz - 4.800 GHz and stays at that clock. For more demanding games, such as Cyberpunk, the sustained clock is ~4.65 GHz. 

Finally, I have family in Haifa and I'm sure you're aware of the heat Israel's summer brings, but whilst they have air conditioning, it doesn't cover the entire house due to its age. The 5800X my cousin has doesn't require anything more than a 240mm CLC to keep it under 65°C. To me, that's impressive.


----------



## SaarN

Piers said:


> All I can really add, is that I came from over a decade of Intel to a 5900X. There were some oddities at the start - mainly as a result of AMD's incompetence in software development, as well as Asus giving up on QC - but after using the 5900X daily for months, including incredibly heavy workloads, I'm very impressed with its performance.
> 
> If I were given the choice now over whether to get a 5900X/5950X or a 12700K/12900K, I'd still go with the AMD option (but not an Asus motherboard).
> 
> The fact that in a room with an ambient of 28°C (heating was turned up to maximum by partner), the 5900X with a Corsair CLC cooler can work through complex AVX2 instructions and remain at ~70°C with all cores at 4.35 GHz is amazing. This is especially true when it's using roughly half the power of Intel's higher-end 12th Gen. chips. I'd also add that for gaming performance, my chip easily boosts to 4.775 GHz - 4.800 GHz and stays at that clock. For more demanding games, such as Cyberpunk, the sustained clock is ~4.65 GHz.
> 
> Finally, I have family in Haifa and I'm sure you're aware of the heat Israel's summer brings, but whilst they have air conditioning, it doesn't cover the entire house due to its age. The 5800X my cousin has doesn't require anything more than a 240mm CLC to keep it under 65°C. To me, that's impressive.


The R3600 replaced my aging LGA 1366 rig, bought an I7-920 right at launch with an Asus P6T Deluxe board, and just swapped the cpu with a X5690 as soon as they flooded the market, once the big tech companies got rid of their EOL Xeons, heh. Had PCIe lanes for days. No NVMe? PCIe to NVMe adapter. No WIfi + BT? Another adapter to another PCIe slot with an Intel Wifi 6 module installed. Who knew triple SLI boards would become so handy later on.
I had a blast using that old thing, I even installed a 2080 in it for some time before I replaced the entire thing.
Moving from something that I found to be so reliable, despite the age, to the most sophisticated WHEA throwing machine.
I'm still having some mental issues with Ryzen \ AMD, not knowing if an "upgrade" would either them breaking a useful feature they shouldn't have messed with, or straight up make my PC unusable since I do enjoy overclocking occasionally. They looked promising at first, but nearly two generations after I purchased my 3600 - and they're still handling their business not so differently, if not weirder in some ways, then when they just started to gain recognition.
Felt like they were inexperienced back then and just needed some time to adjust to their new position in the market. And it feels the same - last chipset upgrade messed up my PC for 2 hours, so there's broken software, and I hear about defective CPUs as well. What's different is them not feeling the need to communicate with us anymore, they take their sweet time and maybe some day we'll see that they uploaded another half baked code with a description that says nothing but "improved stability".
Since Gigabyte's Z690I board is defective and needs to be recalled, I can't really switch to Intel even if I want to because all the ITX boards that support DDR4 are really really bad. ASRock's has the most potential but that thing has half the VRMs quality, which doesn't make any sense when you realize that it's supposed to support an unlocked Intel chip and allow you to overclock - how exactly? lol
Anyway, I'm too invested in AM4, I guess. At least I got the R3600 knowing that it's nothing but a placeholder.


----------



## DeadSec

Does anyone have a 5800X3D yet?


----------



## KedarWolf

DON'T install the latest chipset drivers that just came out. I lost 200 points in Cinbench R23 with them and trying to roll back to the previous chipset drivers never fixed it.

I did have a Macrium Reflect system image I rolled back to and now fixed.


----------



## Piers

KedarWolf said:


> DON'T install the latest chipset drivers that just came out. I lost 200 points in Cinbench R23 with them and trying to roll back to the previous chipset drivers never fixed it.
> 
> I did have a Macrium Reflect system image I rolled back to and now fixed.


That's why I only use the Asus chipset drivers, ever since it would appear all motherboard vendors did *something *which meant they needed to release a customised chipset package that AMD didn't acknowledge. Asus (et al.): 3.10.*22.706* / AMD: 3.10.*08.506*. I believe there was a vague reason, but it seemed odd when all vendors did it (at least for B550/X570). IF anyone is looking for the vendor-customised drivers, here's the Asus one (3.10.22.706).


----------



## KedarWolf

Piers said:


> That's why I only use the Asus chipset drivers, ever since it would appear all motherboard vendors did *something *which meant they needed to release a customised chipset package that AMD didn't acknowledge. Asus (et al.): 3.10.*22.706* / AMD: 3.10.*08.506*. I believe there was a vague reason, but it seemed odd when all vendors did it (at least for B550/X570). IF anyone is looking for the vendor-customised drivers, here's the Asus one (3.10.22.706).


I use Station Drivers.

They have a slightly newer version there.






Chipsets


Chipsets




www.station-drivers.com


----------



## Piers

KedarWolf said:


> I use Station Drivers.
> 
> They have a slightly newer version there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chipsets
> 
> 
> Chipsets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.station-drivers.com


There's no way to know if those are AMD-issued or vendor-issued (unless docs are included).


----------



## dk_mic

KedarWolf said:


> DON'T install the latest chipset drivers that just came out. I lost 200 points in Cinbench R23 with them and trying to roll back to the previous chipset drivers never fixed it.
> 
> I did have a Macrium Reflect system image I rolled back to and now fixed.



seriously 200 points CB23 are 0.7% and can just be run to run difference, some background process doing its thing or due to minor tempature differences. I have quickly benched these chipset drivers, they're fine


----------



## KedarWolf

dk_mic said:


> seriously 200 points CB23 are 0.7% and can just be run to run difference, some background process doing its thing or due to minor tempature differences. I have quickly benched these chipset drivers, they're fine


I'm going to do two Cinebench R23 runs with 3.11.17.521 and two runs with 4.03.03.431.

BBIAB


----------



## Piers

KedarWolf said:


> I'm going to do two Cinebench R23 runs with 3.11.17.521 and two runs with 4.03.03.431.
> 
> BBIAB


Any chance you could try 3.10.22.706? On mobile at the moment but did see an MSI release with the same version (not an official AMD release). Will try and remember to add a link when next at PC, assuming you've not found it and are willing to try.


----------



## KedarWolf

Piers said:


> Any chance you could try 3.10.22.706? On mobile at the moment but did see an MSI release with the same version (not an official AMD release). Will try and remember to add a link when next at PC, assuming you've not found it and are willing to try.


I can't even install those drivers from MSI, they just close trying to install them and don't install. 

I downloaded them twice too, from my motherboard support page.

I'm going to bed, I'll post my results tomorrow.


----------



## Mike156

KedarWolf said:


> I'm going to do two Cinebench R23 runs with 3.11.17.521 and two runs with 4.03.03.431.
> 
> BBIAB


Like mentioned, 200 points is easily within run to run variance. 

From what I've noticed, the best run usually happens like the third or fourth run in on back to back runs with the score getting better each time. That's not always the case though, but it happens that way more often then not. I'd compare the best run of like 4-5 runs, if nothing else you kind of see the variance it has.


----------



## Piers

KedarWolf said:


> I can't even install those drivers from MSI, they just close trying to install them and don't install.
> 
> I downloaded them twice too, from my motherboard support page.
> 
> I'm going to bed, I'll post my results tomorrow.


If the version number is the same, I can send you the extracted drivers if that's helpful. Can you install any of the drivers manually (AMD directory on C:/ - manually update drivers using C:\AMD\Chipset_Software\Binaries and C:\AMD\Chipset_Software\Packages\IODriver)


----------



## DeadSec

KedarWolf said:


> I can't even install those drivers from MSI, they just close trying to install them and don't install.
> 
> I downloaded them twice too, from my motherboard support page.
> 
> I'm going to bed, I'll post my results tomorrow.


Still waiting for your results


----------



## Piers

DeadSec said:


> Still waiting for your results


Calm down. It's only been 9 hours since he posted. 😛

On a thread-related note, I've continued to build three different overclocked profiles _(one with PBO2, one with a Vcore offset, and one decoupled with IF on 1900 so far) _with, and I finally managed to get 5.025 GHz stable on two cores without temps going over 80°C 🎈🥳🎈🥳🎈🥳🎈


----------



## FleischmannTV

When your maximum L3 clock was 4.509 MHz, wasn't your maximum effective core clock actually 4.509 MHz as well?


----------



## Piers

FleischmannTV said:


> When your maximum L3 clock was 4.509 MHz, wasn't your maximum effective core clock actually 4.509 MHz as well?


I don't have a field labelled maximum effective core clock. If you mean the averages, I found those of zero use in HWiNFO's default configuration, and only mildly useful/accurate with Snapshot CPU Polling enabled.


----------



## Luggage

Piers said:


> When running 128-128 with stock power limits, clocks drop to ~3750 MHz and temps hit 90°C - 92°C instantly (😮) with a 360mm CLC with fans at ~2500 RPM.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2552404


Had a cold night so I had to test - with enough cooling I could raise core clock with higher pbo limits 



http://imgur.com/a/CUxYn94


* yea I know I'm in the wrong thread with a 5800x


----------



## Piers

Luggage said:


> Had a cold night so I had to test - with enough cooling I could raise core clock with higher pbo limits
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/CUxYn94
> 
> 
> * yea I know I'm in the wrong thread with a 5800x


Thank you for testing. I remounted my cooler and tried running the exact same load with stock power limits to star with - expect this time temps stayed at 65°C with the same clocks (and PPT, EDC, TDC reporting max values). Will discuss more in depth with you another day if that's OK.


----------



## KedarWolf

this


KedarWolf said:


> I'm going to do two Cinebench R23 runs with 3.11.17.521 and two runs with 4.03.03.431.
> 
> BBIAB


Here are my results. All I did was install the newest chipset drivers and reboot.

Welp, I need to test again. I saved the screenshots to my Pictures folder, then reinstalled my Macrium backup and go back to 3.11.17.521 drivers and lost the screenshots.

But in two benches, the 4.03.03.431 were 150-200 points in R23 less.


----------



## dk_mic

dk_mic said:


> quick bench of the new chipset drivers (5950X, PBO, AMD default power limits, no boost override, CO -15 all core)
> 
> View attachment 2552104
> 
> 
> I would say no change in performance. (old driver was just the previous one from the AMD site iirc)


----------



## Kodo28

Piers said:


> That's why I only use the Asus chipset drivers, ever since it would appear all motherboard vendors did *something *which meant they needed to release a customised chipset package that AMD didn't acknowledge. Asus (et al.): 3.10.*22.706* / AMD: 3.10.*08.506*. I believe there was a vague reason, but it seemed odd when all vendors did it (at least for B550/X570). IF anyone is looking for the vendor-customised drivers, here's the Asus one (3.10.22.706).


Vendors customized chipset .706 was for following drivers fix.

- AMD MICROPEP v1.0.30.0 - Major changes to this driver package include:

Work around inaccurate HW DRIPS (lower than actual value) due to OS limitation when VBS/Hyper-V is enabled
Notify AMD PMF driver about S0i3 entry/exit
- AMD Processor Power Management Support / AMD Ryzen Power plan ver.7.0.4.4

New AMD .431 vs .706 vendor bring some driver updates over the vendor one.
Power plan has now same version
MicroPEP driver was updated to fix ACPI issues but not sure if the VBS fix from vendor driver, has been integrated with this new 1.0.33.0 release. 


AMD Ryzen Power Plan / AMD Processor Power Management Support7.0.4.4
7.0.4.4
Updated processor power management settings for performance and power improvementAMD PCI Device Driver1.0.0.871.0.0.87Stability improvementPT GPIO Driver3.0.0.03.0.0.0New program support addedAMD PSP Driver5.18.0.05.18.0.0New program support addedAMD SFH Driver1.0.0.3261.0.0.326Fixed proximity sensor related issues
Stability improvement on Ambient light sensor calibrationAMD MicroPEP Driver1.0.33.01.0.33.0Fixed ACPI related issues

I've been testing this new .431 release and didn't find any lost of numbers in Cinebench R23 on my side.


----------



## Piers

Kodo28 said:


> Vendors customized chipset .706 was for following drivers fix.
> 
> - AMD MICROPEP v1.0.30.0 - Major changes to this driver package include:
> 
> Work around inaccurate HW DRIPS (lower than actual value) due to OS limitation when VBS/Hyper-V is enabled
> Notify AMD PMF driver about S0i3 entry/exit
> - AMD Processor Power Management Support / AMD Ryzen Power plan ver.7.0.4.4


That's all they listed, but I generally don't trust them to be that helpful in terms of a changelog. I certainly found some instability when I tried the AMD version, and found the vendor one more stable, which is explained by the changes to DRIPS (if it was reporting higher than it's actual value) as Hyper-V support is enabled by default on Windows 11 (clean install).

Oh, and thank you for creating a table with the known changes listed - makes it much easier to follow.



Kodo28 said:


> Power plan has now same version


I was under the impression AMD made few, if any, changes to standard Windows Balanced power plan.



Kodo28 said:


> MicroPEP driver was updated to fix ACPI issues but not sure if the VBS fix from vendor driver, has been integrated with this new 1.0.33.0 release


Which ACPI issue?


----------



## Kodo28

Piers said:


> That's all they listed, but I generally don't trust them to be that helpful in terms of a changelog. I certainly found some instability when I tried the AMD version, and found the vendor one more stable, which is explained by the changes to DRIPS (if it was reporting higher than it's actual value) as Hyper-V support is enabled by default on Windows 11 (clean install).


This was what Gigabyte vendor did reported on the release note of their .706 version and when I compared it to AMD .506 change log only those were being updated.
Hyper-V support automatic enablement is done on W11 clean install only if CPU virtualization is enable on bios, if this is not the case, then even on clean windows installation it will be off by default.
On my case, virtualization (SVM) is disable by default on bios, so on clean W11 install HVCI and VBS are not enable and for people looking for performances, I would recommend to disable it.











Piers said:


> I was under the impression AMD made few, if any, changes to standard Windows Balanced power plan.


Not sure about it, AMD power plan is not installed on my system. I do use windows ultimate one.



Piers said:


> Which ACPI issue?


Still looking for that info 😆


----------



## DeadSec

Kodo28 said:


> Still looking for that info 😆


He just went to bed and will sleep for 9 hours. So calm down.


----------



## Piers

Kodo28 said:


> This was what Gigabyte vendor did reported on the release note of their .706 version and when I compared it to AMD .506 change log only those were being updated.


It's the hidden, or undocumented changes that I'm more interested in. It's like new AGESA revisions - "Improves Stability" is generally the only patch note/changelog that's provided, apart from the new AGESA version.



Kodo28 said:


> Hyper-V support automatic enablement is done on W11 clean install only if CPU virtualization is enable on bios, if this is not the case, then even on clean windows installation it will be off by default. On my case, virtualization (SVM) is disable by default on bios, so on clean W11 install HVCI and VBS are not enable and for people looking for performances, I would recommend to disable it.


That's not the case, or at least wasn't the case when I installed Windows 11. 

About a week after the operating system reached RTM status/official release, I installed Windows 11 Pro by using the Windows Media Creation Tool on an entirely new PC. Every single component of the PC was new - and I verified virtualisation was disabled during initial configuration of the BIOS. Despite that, Hyper-V was installed and enabled during the Windows 11 installation process.

Perhaps Microsoft's changed that behaviour, or perhaps it was unintentional and Windows only claimed Hyper-V was installed, rather than installing it with virtualisation disabled. I know that when I enabled virtualisation in the BIOS a few days ago, Windows uninstalled Hyper-V. Windows now shows this (image)












Kodo28 said:


> Not sure about it, AMD power plan is not installed on my system. I do use windows ultimate one.


Assuming you're referring to the (beautiful) system linked in your signature, what benefit do you find the Ultimate power plan offers on the 5900X? And what's your idle in Watts?



Kodo28 said:


> Still looking for that info


Thank you - look forward to reading your findings. I had a brief look and couldn't find anything specific.


----------



## tonynca

When I was using AMD's version of the chipset I had USB drops and crackling/pop noises on my DAC. With Asus' version, it went away. I don't trust AMD with ANY software.


----------



## JohnnyFlash

tonynca said:


> When I was using AMD's version of the chipset I had USB drops and crackling/pop noises on my DAC. With Asus' version, it went away. I don't trust AMD with ANY software.


I 100% fixed this on my system by changing the SOC LLC to level 3.


----------



## KedarWolf

dk_mic said:


> dk_mic said:
> quick bench of the new chipset drivers (5950X, PBO, AMD default power limits, no boost override, CO -15 all core)
> 
> View attachment 2552104
> 
> I would say no change in performance. (old driver was just the previous one from the AMD site iirc)


Looks like your running your CPU at stock settings. I have a highly refined Curve and a tight memory overclock.

That might be why my benches are different.


----------



## dk_mic

KedarWolf said:


> Looks like your running your CPU at stock settings. I have a highly refined Curve and a tight memory overclock.
> 
> That might be why my benches are different.


Yes, these are not my daily settings and it could indeed be that the difference only shows at higher powerlimits. The only thing stock are powerlimits though, I also run 3800 CL14 (dont see how that could possibly affect this).
However, I am sure you're just jumping to conclusions. 150-200 points out of 30-31k in CB23 can easily be run to run variance, background load, slightly high water temp and so on.
Unless you have a series of benchmarks, preferrable different types, under aboslutely fixed conditions, you shouldn't just generally advise everyone not to install the updated drivers.


----------



## Piers

dk_mic said:


> Yes, these are not my daily settings and it could indeed be that the difference only shows at higher powerlimits. The only thing stock are powerlimits though, I also run 3800 CL14 (dont see how that could possibly affect this).
> However, I am sure you're just jumping to conclusions. 150-200 points out of 30-31k in CB23 can easily be run to run variance, background load, slightly high water temp and so on.
> Unless you have a series of benchmarks, preferrable different types, under aboslutely fixed conditions, you shouldn't just generally advise everyone not to install the updated drivers.


That's why (dedicated) encoding benchmarks (x264, or preferably x265) are better when it comes to validating performance as the variance is much smaller. I wouldn't expect to see more than a 1fps change (assuming normal benchmark fps is 75) between passes. Obviously that includes similar test conditions.


----------



## HeadlessKnight

KedarWolf said:


> Try 10 minutes runs per core of 720-720 FFTs, will find errors when nothing else will.


This is brutal, I got rounding errors on Core 0 and 10 on my 48hrs+ stable Y-cruncher CO, both failed in less than 10 minutes. I let each core run for 30 minutes. Core 0 is unstable at anything but 0 offset. Core 10 had to reduce from -30 to -25. Core 0 is making the whole CO useless on that CPU and is a handicap for the whole thing.
I have doubts that Core 0 is even unstable at stock. I will probably make a 24hrs continuous session on it to see if it makes rounding errors at 0 offset.


----------



## tonynca

HeadlessKnight said:


> This is brutal, I got rounding errors on Core 0 and 10 on my 48hrs+ stable Y-cruncher CO, both failed in less than 10 minutes. I let each core run for 30 minutes. Core 0 is unstable at anything but 0 offset. Core 10 had to reduce from -30 to -25. Core 0 is making the whole CO useless on that CPU and is a handicap for the whole thing.
> I have doubts that Core 0 is even unstable at stock. I will probably make a 24hrs continuous session on it to see if it makes rounding errors at 0 offset.


Yup, that's why 720k is a good test. I was stable too until I ran 720k FFT and it showed errors. I had to add more voltage back to Core 0, 4, 9, 10.


----------



## ArchStanton

HeadlessKnight said:


> I have doubts that Core 0 is even unstable at stock. I will probably make a 24hrs continuous session on it to see if it makes rounding errors at 0 offset.


I have possessed 3 different 5950X's (2 B0 and 1 B2). 2 of them were 720k unstable at stock (no DOCP or PBO2). The third unit (B0), which I am currently using, requires +3 CO offset to be stable at +0 Mhz. So don't feel like you have lost the silicon lottery. I suspect there are a lot of unstable Zen3 CPUs out there that have never been thoroughly tested against CoreCycler 720k.


----------



## HeadlessKnight

ArchStanton said:


> I have possessed 3 different 5950X's (2 B0 and 1 B2). 2 of them were 720k unstable at stock (no DOCP or PBO2). The third unit (B0), which I am currently using, requires +3 CO offset to be stable at +0 Mhz. So don't feel like you have lost the silicon lottery. I suspect there are a lot of unstable Zen3 CPUs out there that have never been thoroughly tested against CoreCycler 720k.


Actually I was thinking about binning some chips, since I am disappoint in the capabilties of my 5900X, and 5950X price is making it too tempting to ignore. My 5900X is one of the earliest samples available at launch.


----------



## ArchStanton

HeadlessKnight said:


> Actually I was thinking about binning some chips


They are fun to play with for sure. Many different "knobs" to twist . I should have been more precise in my earlier reply. I have had 2 previous 5950X's that had _at least _one core (the "best" core(s) per AMD's rankings)) that were unstable at stock. They _were_ stable with a small + CO offset (felt odd to have to enable "overclocking" to improve stability).


----------



## Piers

HeadlessKnight said:


> I will probably make a 24hrs continuous session on it to see if it makes rounding errors at 0 offset.


I'd still disable PBO it its entirety before running a 24H test with 720-720 to test Core 0. With it enabled, you might still find your Curve impacts accuracy.

Oddly, my PC now runs at 67°C with 720-720 in Prime 95 at 3.775 GHz with all power limits (set at stock) maxed. Most unusual behaviour, but I suppose the load is so heavy it can't boost the clocks, or maybe it's doing something incorrectly.


----------



## Mike156

I gotta ask, is any of this at all representative of real world loads that are actually encountered on your system?

In car analogies, it seems like you're building a 1000HP race car that runs at 10,000 RPM then putting it on the Dyno and starting a pull at 1000 RPM in top gear with full load.


----------



## ArchStanton

Mike156 said:


> In car analogies, it seems like you're building a 1000HP race car that runs at 10,000 RPM then putting it on the Dyno and starting a pull at 1000 RPM in top gear with full load.


I, for one, am not qualified to answer that from a well-informed position. Could I run basically any benchmark I wanted with those "out of the box" instabilities? Yes. Would I have had trouble with random crashes in games? I suspect so, but I did not test to verify. Would I have possibly experienced data loss/corruption after prolonged use of a marginally unstable system? Again, I simply do not know. Did I enjoy the process of learning how to check for instabilities, how to mitigate them, and how to "tune" around them? Yes . Make no mistake, I still consider myself a newb. I am an equipment technician (agricultural) by trade. If I were to appraise my skill level from that perspective, then I would classify myself as a "PC mechanic that knows just enough to be dangerous" rather than a skilled "master".


----------



## KedarWolf

*So, I ran a series of benchmarks with mixed results using the two chipset drivers. In all the pictures the newer chipset drivers first.

4K x265 (HEVC) Benchmark v0.1.2 the older drivers are better in that benchmark that much difference is a lot.*



















*Y-Cruncher newer did better.*



















*AIDA64 older did better.




















Geekbench 5 older had better single-thread, worse multi-threaded.








*












*But my go-to CPU benchmark these days is the x265 one, and it was significantly better with the older chipset.*


----------



## Absolutacid

@kendarwolf hey bro it wont let me private message you but do you still have the modded bios for the Z390 wifi pro with hpet disabled. Can you help a gamer out


----------



## KedarWolf

Absolutacid said:


> @kendarwolf hey bro it wont let me private message you but do you still have the modded bios for the Z390 wifi pro with hpet disabled. Can you help a gamer out


I never had one with HPET disabled.


----------



## Absolutacid

KedarWolf said:


> I never had one with HPET disabled.


Is it possible to mod one to have hpet disabled?


----------



## 050

Well, having now tested, tweaked, re-tested, re-tweaked and tuned my CO values using corecycler 720k-720k 10 min intervals, it does seem like that absolutely slams the stability. I had to back a couple cores off but now have passed a continuous 22 iterations of 720-720 10 min and think that's probably grounds to call it a pretty good and stable CO. 

I am now running these CO values, 220 PPT, 160/160 EDC and TDC, Auto scalar and +50 Max Boost Clock Override:

CoreOffset0(*)​-20​1​-22​2​-30​3​-15​4​-30​5(*)​-16​6​-30​7​-30​8​-30​9​-30​10​-30​11​-26​12​-30​13​-30​14​-30​15​-30​

I certainly could keep testing for another 200+ hours but given the stability requirements of a daily driver gaming system 58 hours of CC 720-720 seems like a reasonable start point.
This is using a Crosshair VIII Formula, 5950x (stepping 0), 64gb of ram at 3600mhz 16-16-16-32, CPU Load line calibration is set to "Level 3" (Side note, is a higher number a more agressive or less aggressive LLC on asus boards? Haven't really gotten a straight answer on that. Is LLC Level 1 the highest voltage as I suspect or is it the most Vdroop?).

I did set CPU core current Telemetry to manual, -2000 mA (It only goes in 1000 steps) to try to promote slightly higher/more sustained boosting behavior. It has seemingly had no adverse impact on thermals overall, and the CO testing was done with that setting in place. 

CPU Core Voltage is "Auto", no offset. With the VID limited to 1.425v on EDC>140 I was a little surprised to see that the cpu core voltage (SVI2 TFN) in hwinfo64 can still go a bit above 1.425v, as does the "Cpu Core VID (Effective)" - I have seen the cpu core voltage read by the SVI2 get as high as 1.469v and the VID effective got to 1.488v. This seems largely ideal, as I don't care to have it constantly spiking to 1.5v or higher as it was doing with the lower EDC. Eventually an ideal solution would just be the ability to set a "CPU Core Voltage cap" that the boost was allowed to go up to but otherwise behave like auto.


Spoiler: Core Cycler


----------



## ManniX-ITA

050 said:


> now have passed a continuous 22 iterations of 720-720 10 min and think that's probably grounds to call it a pretty good and stable CO.


You should focus on other FFTs now 
Especially 16000-27000 and 128.



050 said:


> (Side note, is a higher number a more agressive or less aggressive LLC on asus boards? Haven't really gotten a straight answer on that. Is LLC Level 1 the highest voltage as I suspect or is it the most Vdroop?).


I think ASUS is higher number more aggressive. Level 1 is the lowest with the most vdroop.



050 said:


> I have seen the cpu core voltage read by the SVI2 get as high as 1.469v and the VID effective got to 1.488v.


That's probably the telemetry altering it, try without.


----------



## 050

ManniX-ITA said:


> You should focus on other FFTs now
> Especially 16000-27000 and 128.
> 
> That's probably the telemetry altering it, try without.


I may spin up some tests for other ffts, yeah.

Sorry to be unclear, I was seeing that behavior of the voltage prior to setting the telemetry setting. (It does that with telemetry set to Auto).


----------



## ManniX-ITA

050 said:


> Sorry to be unclear, I was seeing that behavior of the voltage prior to setting the telemetry setting. (It does that with telemetry set to Auto).


Well, it's better if it's not limited to 1.425V 
In general the SVI2 TFN is hard limited to 1.425 and the Effective a bit higher.
Maybe something else is altering it.
Do you have the Fmax Enhancer enabled?


----------



## 050

I do not have Fmax Enhancer enabled, which is why I was curious that the SVI2 TFN is actually going above 1.425v - the Core VIDs reported at the top of HWINFO64 are all below 1.25v for example, but the VID effective and the SVI2 TFN voltage have gone up to 1.45v. Curious - Not bad, as it exactly the behavior I want, but odd. I don't know why it's lowering the voltage compared to EDC <+140 but not as "hard stop at 1.425v" as I would have expected


Spoiler: HWINFO Screenshot


----------



## techlogik

Is it normal when setting PBOs manually that on a single core test (gaming) it will just override that and go full tilt 85c+ and 1.4v on the 5900x? Multi core it honors the settings. I disabled other overclock features on the Asus MOBO and just manually have been testing PBO settings to drop the PPT/TDC/EDC etc... But as soon as it hits a single core operation, it goes full 4700hz, 85c and it doesn't care what the PBO settings are. That is the only thing I have set. I've tried for hours testing negative per core values. Core 0/1/2 are so sensitive and anything over 0, even a -5 will often cause hard reboots of Windows. So I gave up and now can only set a thermal limit on the MOBO of 72c, it clock itself around 4.2ghz and volts around 1.05 to 1.1, peaks upwards with it auto adjusting curves. It does a great job.

But since games are my issues with temps/heat/fan noise, and single core hammering those, I'm wondering why the PBO doesn't work on them?

I don't know any other way to get this thing to run cooler and under volt/underclock manually on my X570-I mobo except set a thermal limit. Nothing else works reliable or at all. Don't even know where to start with that hot mess and complex AMD master software. My head hurts when I open it..haha.

Thanks


----------



## FleischmannTV

A single core load cannot reach your PPT/TDC/EDC limits. I think a single core can pull about 15W, give or take.


----------



## techlogik

FleischmannTV said:


> A single core load cannot reach your PPT/TDC/EDC limits. I think a single core can pull about 15W, give or take.


So PBO doesn't work on single core operations I guess is the answer then.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

techlogik said:


> But as soon as it hits a single core operation, it goes full 4700hz, 85c and it doesn't care what the PBO settings are.


What and how are you testing exactly?
And what are the PBO settings?

You probably also need to check the voltages, post a Zentimings and Ryzen Master screenshot.



techlogik said:


> But since games are my issues with temps/heat/fan noise, and single core hammering those, I'm wondering why the PBO doesn't work on them?


What is you expectation about PBO with games?
Are you sure the cooling is adequate and properly mounted?
85c seems a lot for single core operations but I'm not sure if you really mean single core or gaming.


----------



## ArchStanton

FleischmannTV said:


> A single core load cannot reach your PPT/TDC/EDC limits. I think a single core can pull about 15W, give or take.


TDC/EDC limits still have a significant effect on both ST and MT performance. Sadly, to the best of my knowledge, one cannot tune PBO2 for both maximum ST and MT performance. We must pick one to maximize or find a "happy medium" (this is intended for techlogik more so than FleischmannTV)



techlogik said:


> So PBO doesn't work on single core operations I guess is the answer then.


Some additional resources for you:

ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking & Discussion Thread | Page 547 | Overclock.net 

(1) [Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread | Page 911 | Overclock.net

(1) CoreCycler - tool for testing Curve Optimizer settings | Page 37 | Overclock.net


----------



## techlogik

ManniX-ITA said:


> What and how are you testing exactly?
> And what are the PBO settings?
> 
> You probably also need to check the voltages, post a Zentimings and Ryzen Master screenshot.
> 
> 
> 
> What is you expectation about PBO with games?
> Are you sure the cooling is adequate and properly mounted?
> 85c seems a lot for single core operations but I'm not sure if you really mean single core or gaming.


Using CPU-Z or OCCT and run a benchmark. As soon as it hits the Single core operation, it tilts/maxes out on the Core 0 or Core 2 typically at full 4700mhz and voltage.

When I run COD Vanguard, it will ramp up the same cores and run upwards of 85c. This completely normal on all default settings with COD Vanguard, and 100% GPU.

So, to control fan noise I use custom curves, and set GPU undervolt to 850mv and 1800mhz, then set the CPU to a thermal limit of 72c on the MOBO.

But, was trying to control all of this through PBO and even negative individual core settings. But the individual core settings are difficult to reliably set and really haven't accomplished the goal of getting it to run cooler so I can set my fans lowers. I have an NR200P and Mugen 5 with a 120mm fan and a 92mm on the back for a push/pull. I have 5 other fans on the case for airflow. It can easily cool it, but the issue is the noise is like a jet engine taking off to keep it in the 70s with completely stock settings for the CPYU and GPU...so I set currently a thermal MOBO temp of 72c and the GPU throttle, and set custom fan curves to it never goes over 50-55% speed. Games run completely fine, clock upwards of 220-240fps and really smooth on COD Vanguard, 190fps with DLSS enabled as set above on a 240hz monitor.

Simply what I'm trying to do is get temps down, fans quieter and get optimal performance because some have said using a thermal limit on the MOBO isn't idea or best way to approach it, but I can't make it run reliably with any other method.

Will post the Ryzen screenshot later and test Zentimings as well. Thx.


----------



## techlogik

ArchStanton said:


> TDC/EDC limits still have a significant effect on both ST and MT performance. Sadly, to the best of my knowledge, one cannot tune PBO2 for both maximum ST and MT performance. We must pick one to maximize or find a "happy medium" (this is intended for techlogik more so than FleischmannTV)
> 
> 
> 
> Some additional resources for you:
> 
> ASUS ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Overclocking & Discussion Thread | Page 547 | Overclock.net
> 
> (1) [Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread | Page 911 | Overclock.net
> 
> (1) CoreCycler - tool for testing Curve Optimizer settings | Page 37 | Overclock.net



Thanks will look these over. Seems like a PBO and going back to single core testing/settings is the only way to do this?

Otherwise, I just set a thermal limit, and AMD seems to know more than me with their settings, and ASUS, and it undervolts/underclocks to meet the thermal settings of 72c I set. I can then throttle my fans on GPU/CPU/Case and it runs fairly quiet while gaming with great performance. Everything works fine as I mentioned in my post above. Seems like a thermal limits does it all for my purposes automatically. But wasn't sure if this is the best method for performance and cooling to accomplish the goal.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

techlogik said:


> so I set currently a thermal MOBO temp of 72c


Is this the thermal limit of PBO or something from the mainboard?


----------



## techlogik

ManniX-ITA said:


> Is this the thermal limit of PBO or something from the mainboard?


On the Asus X570-I under the AI and Advanced settings both areas you can enable advanced and set a Thermal temp manually in the field. Nothing else is set except I disable PBO so it defaults to the processor limit set in the cpu.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

techlogik said:


> On the Asus X570-I under the AI and Advanced settings both areas you can enable advanced and set a Thermal temp manually in the field. Nothing else is set except I disable PBO so it defaults to the processor limit set in the cpu.


You can set a PBO Thermal throttle and it's probably better than the board limit.
Try setting manual PBO limits PPT/TDC/EDC 160/90/140 and 75c on PBO with Scalar 1x.
Then you can try boost clock to 100 MHz and should get better clocks in gaming.

But if you had issues with the CO counts it's better you post the screenshots.
You can also take screenshots from the BIOS with F12.
One wrong setting with ASUS and nothing works.

If you have the patience you can also check my video:


Spoiler: CO Tuning











The software you need is in the description on Youtube.


----------



## techlogik

Thanks will do more testing and report back.


----------



## Piers

Mike156 said:


> I gotta ask, is any of this at all representative of real world loads that are actually encountered on your system?


Generally, no. However, it's still remains a good all-core stability test. For other AVX2 testing, I find running two or three simultaneous x265 instances with threads set to 24 allows the CPU to be fully saturated and is more realistic of what people might see. For that test, clocks average 4.30 on all threads (at stock power limits, accurate telemetry).


----------



## techlogik

ManniX-ITA said:


> You can set a PBO Thermal throttle and it's probably better than the board limit.
> Try setting manual PBO limits PPT/TDC/EDC 160/90/140 and 75c on PBO with Scalar 1x.
> Then you can try boost clock to 100 MHz and should get better clocks in gaming.
> 
> But if you had issues with the CO counts it's better you post the screenshots.
> You can also take screenshots from the BIOS with F12.
> One wrong setting with ASUS and nothing works.
> 
> If you have the patience you can also check my video:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: CO Tuning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The software you need is in the description on Youtube.


After much more testing and wrangling, this is probably the best advice for my situation and works very well.

First, during multi-core, this processor is so overpowered along with the GPU, throttling them down is ideal so I can tune the fans and keep the system quiet.

Setting the above PBO limits AND Thermal level with a 1x scale is the best situation. It keeps the multi-core under control and undervolts/underclocks as needed and performance is still incredible for daily stuff.

While playing games, any single core stresses that are put onto the system allow the core to ramp up to 4700-4900mhz and voltages to near normal levels, when it hits the temp limit, it will throttle it, but I don't get hosed on the entire thermal limit issues with single core.

So best of both Worlds I'm finding your recommendation.

I gave up on the single core undervolting, it doesn't do enough to limit heat based on my fan rpm/sound requirement and makes the system unstable after not much testing and reducing negative values per core. 

Thanks for the help and info. I'm going to stick with the above....now if I can just get my power plan in Windows to drop the voltage/clocks even more that would be nice. Sitting at 50c most of the time and 3600mhz seems silly.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

techlogik said:


> So best of both Worlds I'm finding your recommendation.


Perfect 



techlogik said:


> I gave up on the single core undervolting, it doesn't do enough to limit heat based on my fan rpm/sound requirement and makes the system unstable after not much testing and reducing negative values per core.


I'm preparing something that will make easier to find stable CO counts.
But it's a very long testing process, it takes time.
Once done properly it's for sure reducing heat, even if in some cases not much, and will improve the clocks.



techlogik said:


> Thanks for the help and info. I'm going to stick with the above....now if I can just get my power plan in Windows to drop the voltage/clocks even more that would be nice. Sitting at 50c most of the time and 3600mhz seems silly.


You're welcome 
Check my custom power plans in the signature, the Balanced LowPower v8 could be the right one for you.
Clocks at 3600 MHz doesn't matter.
It will reduce the temperatures without too many performance sacrifices.


----------



## techlogik

ManniX-ITA said:


> Perfect
> 
> 
> 
> I'm preparing something that will make easier to find stable CO counts.
> But it's a very long testing process, it takes time.
> Once done properly it's for sure reducing heat, even if in some cases not much, and will improve the clocks.
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome
> Check my custom power plans in the signature, the Balanced LowPower v8 could be the right one for you.
> Clocks at 3600 MHz doesn't matter.
> It will reduce the temperatures without too many performance sacrifices.


Yes, I'm testing the v8 right now and posted in the thread where my volts/clocks and temps sit with it. The windows balanced is best, slightly, for lowering voltage. Temps won't go down, so didn't know if there was something I was missing in the BIOS.

Power save default will drop it much further down including clock to like 1700mhz. Power usage on all the others never goes down on any of them. Thx


----------



## ManniX-ITA

I have released a first Alpha of BenchMaestro, enjoy 









BenchMaestro - CPU & GPU benchmarking and Tools Utility


Here's my very own benching and tools utility, hope you enjoy! Will be a constant Work in Progress of course :p https://github.com/mann1x/BenchMaestro Since it's made by someone that runs lots of benchmarks, there are some neat features: ConfigTag: name your configuration, will be part of the...




www.overclock.net


----------



## 050

ManniX-ITA said:


> I have released a first Alpha of BenchMaestro, enjoy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BenchMaestro - CPU & GPU benchmarking and Tools Utility
> 
> 
> Here's my very own benching and tools utility, hope you enjoy! Will be a constant Work in Progress of course :p https://github.com/mann1x/BenchMaestro Since it's made by someone that runs lots of benchmarks, there are some neat features: ConfigTag: name your configuration, will be part of the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


Looks interesting at first glance - the automation of repeated testing is a nice idea, along with ways to tie results to thermal/clock speed logs. The ability to push/test maximum boost clocks on each cpu core individually is nice if it works well. Will have to take a deeper look at this as you continue to develop it!


----------



## tcclaviger

CTR/Hydra etc are terrible at grading CPUs, honestly.

My "bronze" according to CTR 5950x does 4725ccd1/4625ccd2 prime 95 smallest stable in SSE, AVX, and AVX2 at 1.16 get voltage. PBO at 300/170/210 set the same load to 40.5 @ 1.12 get voltage, so I'm barely over fuse limit on voltage.

1.337get voltage is 4950/4800. +200mhz offset is stable with gentler CO curve and Scalar 2x.

For my daily setup I use DOS to set the 1.16 get voltage at 4725/4625 with enabled point at 80 Amps. Typically it allows the CPU to freely PBO boost up to 8 or 10 threads, load dependant.

Core cycler stable in all 3 loads, SSE, AVX, AVX2 with tailored CO per core to crash point then reduced offset by 2.

From memory, CO is something like (all negative):
23-25-28-6-14-2-18-28-22-23-18-21-16-30-13-23
Scalar: Auto
MHZ Offset +125
Voltage Offset + 0.01825
CPU LLC Auto
SOC LLC 2
Stock PPT, EDC, TDC because DOS takes over before it hits limits except in edge case workloads, and in those the load is so low it typically throws the CPU to all core 4.9ish, like TM5.

This low voltage daily setup nets:

1710 R23 1t / 31600 nt
718 cpuz 1t / 13700 nt
1029 3dmark CPU 1t / 15300 max thread
~1830 GB5 1t / 19250 nt

A "bronze" sample in CTR...lol.

New stuff is happening to try and get delta T down a bit more. Look how uneven the IHS was lmao.




















Post install: Lapping CPU was worth 3.25c Tctl/Tdie reduction at 240 watts once the Optimus tension oring was removed to decrease the block convexity to match the now flat CPU.


----------



## tcclaviger

Where I ended up as daily config, vdimm at 1.575 set, 1.552 get.


----------



## ArchStanton

tcclaviger said:


> Where I ended up as daily config, vdimm at 1.575 set, 1.552 get.


You expect these "old man" eyes to read the tiny low-resolution details in that picture Tcc? You sir are an optimist. 😂


----------



## tcclaviger

Yeah didn't realize it had fubared the quality when I saved it.

After looking at someones timings I had an epiphany on why I was hitting a wall with 1t cmd rate, so revalidation with 1t now grr.


----------



## papatsonis

Hi also in this thread.

Finally i think i finished tweaking my 5950x

Decided -on purpose- to stay on an "ECO *65w* TDP" (PPT 87W, EDC 90A, TDC 60A) profile for the time being, as the Maelstrom 240T doesn't convince me entirelly.. that could cope with the Greek Summer ahead.., seeking for the best possible efficiency /watt.

Rest of settings are :

Ram B-die 3200 16-15-14-36 1.19v
Vcore offset -0.1v
LLC lvl 5 (most relaxed on Taichi)
Scalar 1x
Boost +25

"According to HYDRA", is a Platinum efficiency chip



> Diagnostic VID: 1375mV
> 
> Final ranking of cores:
> by AMD (CPPC) | by real frequency
> C05 216 4900MHz | C05 4900MHz
> C02 216 4875MHz | C08 4875MHz
> C03 211 4850MHz | C07 4875MHz
> C01 207 4850MHz | C06 4875MHz
> C04 202 4875MHz | C04 4875MHz
> C06 198 4875MHz | C02 4875MHz
> C08 193 4875MHz | C03 4850MHz
> C07 188 4875MHz | C01 4850MHz
> C15 184 4825MHz | C15 4825MHz
> C12 179 4825MHz | C12 4825MHz
> C09 175 4825MHz | C11 4825MHz
> C10 170 4800MHz | C09 4825MHz
> C14 166 4800MHz | C16 4800MHz
> C16 161 4800MHz | C14 4800MHz
> C11 156 4825MHz | C13 4800MHz
> C13 152 4800MHz | C10 4800MHz
> 
> Results CCD testing
> CORE#1 CO: 26 CORE#9 CO: 40
> CORE#2 CO: 20 CORE#10 CO: 38
> CORE#3 CO: 21 CORE#11 CO: 45
> CORE#4 CO: 28 CORE#12 CO: 36
> CORE#5 CO: 17 CORE#13 CO: 44
> CORE#6 CO: 36 CORE#14 CO: 40
> CORE#7 CO: 38 CORE#15 CO: 32
> CORE#8 CO: 36 CORE#16 CO: 40
> Energy Efficiency CCD#1 4.18 | PLATINUM sample
> Energy Efficiency CCD#2 4.18 | PLATINUM sample


CO Offsets from HYDRA almost confirmed what had discovered with corecycler 720k-720k and WHEA18 logger

C01 - C05 : -26, -9, -26, -28, -18 , all rest cores -30

GeekBench 5 : 1660/15362 @ ~85w

What amazed me was the effect of ambient (and consequently Core Temps) on the boost/final scores.

e.g. yesterday 23418 @ ~73.1w => ~320,3 points/watt











compared to the cold nights on 3 weeks ago, at the ~same power envelope , 23670 @ 71,5w => ~331 points/watt











The very same night had run @ 100w PPT, with relatively -similar- results (much worse efficiency of course ~276 point/watt), but the +10C is deterrent reason to leave it at this setting...












Thinking to upgrade to Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280/360 but still haven't found a back2back comparison against the Maelstrom to evaluate the cost-benefit


----------



## KedarWolf

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08164VTWH/?tag=6890-20 5900x $399.99 USD. 

Might want to wait for a 5800X3D for gaming though.

Under $535 USD for a 5950x.



Amazon.com


----------



## ArchStanton

KedarWolf said:


> Under $535 USD for a 5950x.


Amazon itself is listed seller, interesting.


----------



## KedarWolf

ArchStanton said:


> Amazon itself is listed seller, interesting.


The 5900x price is the same but the 5950x went up to $549. :/

Edit: They'll likely even go lower when they start selling the 5800X3D.


----------



## Chito

Hello, I dropped in a 5900x into my GB Aorus Xtreme (rev 1.0) about a year ago (replaced an overclocked 3900x), but held off on any real OC beyond just turning PBO on due to the fact that hardware was hard to get at the time and I didn't want to risk anything.

Now that things are easing, I want to OC this chip. My RAM is good to 1900 MHz, I ran the 3900x there stable for a long time.

Is there a concise OC guide/process? Tons of videos out there and whatnot, but also a lot of undated/old info. Back when I did the 3900x I used Ryzen DRAM calc + tester, and TM5 etc. for memory and CB20/15 for CPU clocks.

Is CPU first -> RAM still recommended (I'll start at 1900 MHz assuming the chip can do it)?

I'm on F34 bios and don't plan to upgrade based on what I'm reading about newer revisions.

Also, any recommendations for OC without putting my windows install at risk during it? SFC /scannow is my friend after crashes I assume. 

I'm not going for records, just want to squeeze a bit more out of this thing for a daily driver.

Thanks!


----------



## ArchStanton

@Chito what Agesa are you running currently? Many of us here stopped or backdated to whatever BIOS had Agesa 1.2.0.3 patch C for our motherboard. As we wanted access to the higher voltages available through those older Agesas if EDC is set above 140A.

I found this very helpful when I was beginning the process: (4) Clav's method for Zen 3 OC | Overclock.net

Also the "crazy old man" has some really helpful stuff: Zen 3 Curve Optimizer Tuning with PJVol's PBO Tuner, BoostTester, HWInfo, CoreCycler - YouTube

He (@ManniX-ITA ) also has a couple new threads for his "utility" (5) BenchMaestro - CPU & GPU benchmarking and Tools Utility | Overclock.net 

(5) BenchMaestro - Post your results | Overclock.net


----------



## Chito

Thanks for the reply, I'll start looking through those. I'm on Agesa 1.2.0.3 B, with bios rev F34 for my motherboard, next revision (F35) jumps to 1.2.0.5.


----------



## KedarWolf

Deleted.


----------



## KedarWolf

My new CL14 3600 Royal Elite is an excellent bin, second kit, first kit sucked, I sent back to Newegg for a same replacement kit.

Might help I have a two DIMM slot MSI X570S Unify-X Max motherboard. RAM at 1.5v, VTTs at .730v.

But this is TM5 stable. This is 1000% 1 cycle 1usmus_v3 TM5. I've never had it pass this then fail 25 cycles default 1usmus_v3. And it takes less than an hour to run.


----------



## KedarWolf

New Window 10 Bench ISO Link, much improved with new instructions.






Win10BenchISO.zip







drive.google.com


----------



## rexbinary

New AMD Ryzen Master 2.9.0.2093 on Majorgeeks. (and maybe on AMD site? I haven't tried it.)








Download AMD Ryzen Master - MajorGeeks


AMD Ryzen Master allows you to personalize and overclock your factory multiplier-unlocked AMD Ryzen chipset. Systems based on the AMD Ryzen processor may be tuned to deliver added system performance. The AMD Ryzen family of processors offer an impressive amount of performance tuning options...



www.majorgeeks.com





BUT, the big thing I noticed is it has a Curve Optimizer in it now.


----------



## KedarWolf

rexbinary said:


> New AMD Ryzen Master 2.9.0.2093 on Majorgeeks. (and maybe on AMD site? I haven't tried it.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Download AMD Ryzen Master - MajorGeeks
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen Master allows you to personalize and overclock your factory multiplier-unlocked AMD Ryzen chipset. Systems based on the AMD Ryzen processor may be tuned to deliver added system performance. The AMD Ryzen family of processors offer an impressive amount of performance tuning options...
> 
> 
> 
> www.majorgeeks.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BUT, the big thing I noticed is it has a Curve Optimizer in it now.
> View attachment 2556421


Same version on AMD website as well.


----------



## dk_mic

ryzen master auto curve optimizer values are pretty useless, maybe as a baseline for further refinement


----------



## ovnis31

Hi, 

I use B550 AORUS PRO V2 and 5950X, and sometimes, when windows wakes up from hibernation, there is no more processor boost. Do you know why?

Other thing, I can't use CTR 2.1 RC5. Bug!









 NEW! ClockTuner for Ryzen (CTR) 2.1 RC5


Just found out, accidentally, that CTR has been replaced by Project Hydra. It's very weird that this has never been advertised, especially since the project is commercial (there is a paid version through Patreon). And Hydra seems to support the new stepping. Yes, there is a "Project Hydra" and...




www.overclock.net





Thx


----------



## tonynca

After 1.5 months of testing and testing and testing. I finally found CoreCycler + OCCT stable CO values for my CPU.

I started with -30 for most of the cores then took off -3 when CoreCycler failed that particular core and then -2 for every time it failed after that.

Ryzen Master now includes CO values in the latest update. This should save some of you guys some typing. CoreCycler ran for 3 days 6 hrs without a hitch.

I was using 128k-720k FFT for CoreCycler screenshot below after mainly getting the CO stable values using 720k FFT before.


----------



## Phlereous

I have been using Clav's guide to OC my 5950x. I set curve optimizer and started testing. For some reason I couldn't get sp00n's cycler to work so I use blu3dragon's. I ran it a few times with bigger MinTortureFFT as well, since some people suggested they found crashes like that. I also use OCCT to stress test as Clav suggests and the CPU passes everything I throw at it so far. Yet I got two random reboots since I changed CO, EDC, TDC and PPT. One was while gaming (not a heavy load on the CPU) and the other was on idle PC with just browser and hwinfo open. How can I understand what is causing the reboots? I can't make sense of the errors in EventViewer, do they have information about what caused the restart? Anything else I can test with to find the problem?
Thanks


----------



## ArchStanton

Phlereous said:


> I have been using Clav's guide to OC my 5950x.


Just checking, did you do as Clav suggested below?


tcclaviger said:


> *2: *This step is stop crashes at idle from voltage under swing while CPU cores are sleeping. It may not be necessary, and you can leave them enabled until after CO is tuned to see if you have idle crashes. Disable DF and enable power supply typical as below:


----------



## Phlereous

ArchStanton said:


> Just checking, did you do as Clav suggested below?


Yes, I am on MSI not asus as in pics but I followed that step and changed those settings.


----------



## SaarN

I gave 1933 fclk a try again this morning, adjusting various voltages like CCD\IO\VDD18 etc, and I couldn't get it to stay stable, yet it was "more stable" than before. I usually mem test before booting to the OS and I can tell if something is wrong by the initial bandwidth values.
I tried 2v vdd18, .9-.95 vddp, 1.105-IO, CCD - couldn't really tell if it did anything useful or impacted performance.
Oh and I bumped vSOC from 1.15 to 1.2 in gradual incremenets, but it didn't seem to be doing anything useful.
Evey voltage increment changed the behaviour of the fclk dramatically.
Does anyone have a chart of save voltage values + what's required for over 1900 fclk?
Last time I gave it a try, my bandwidth was cut in half, and now it seems like it's in certain parts faster than 1900 and in other aspects it's somewhat sluggish, until the pc hard crashes and restarts.
I'm wondering if it's possible to make it happen or to forget about it.


----------



## ArchStanton

Phlereous said:


> I can't make sense of the errors in EventViewer, do they have information about what caused the restart? Anything else I can test with to find the problem?


Sadly, I lack the expertise to answer these questions. There are several regulars here in this thread that can though. Hopefully one of them will be along shortly.


----------



## Phlereous

ArchStanton said:


> Sadly, I lack the expertise to answer these questions. There are several regulars here in this thread that can though. Hopefully one of them will be along shortly.


Thanks for the attention anyway, appreciated. This should be the settings in question in BIOS. No idea how to go about finding the reason for these random reboots still


----------



## GRABibus

Phlereous said:


> I have been using Clav's guide to OC my 5950x. I set curve optimizer and started testing. For some reason I couldn't get sp00n's cycler to work so I use blu3dragon's. I ran it a few times with bigger MinTortureFFT as well, since some people suggested they found crashes like that. I also use OCCT to stress test as Clav suggests and the CPU passes everything I throw at it so far. Yet I got two random reboots since I changed CO, EDC, TDC and PPT. One was while gaming (not a heavy load on the CPU) and the other was on idle PC with just browser and hwinfo open. How can I understand what is causing the reboots? I can't make sense of the errors in EventViewer, do they have information about what caused the restart? Anything else I can test with to find the problem?
> Thanks


go into eventviewer and check Whea 18 errors (with Red Cross warning) at « system » folder.
Here, there is a APIC ID number for the error.
Which number is it ?


----------



## PJVol

Phlereous said:


> finding the reason


What EDC limit was set to when reboots happened?
And post your CO values as well.


----------



## Gegu

Hi, I have an unusual problem with my 5950X

The CPU on stock settings is rock stable, the fun starts when I have PBO and Curve Optimizer + boost enabled.

Well I have my own power limits, CO set per core + boost 100mhz. I set each offset for cpu cores by testing it in Prime95 powershell script for Ryzen 5000, CoreCycler, CoreCycler 720-720, AIDA64 Extreme stress test and each OCCT test for CPU (each OCCT test took about an hour).
Curve Optimizer is set so that each of the above tests = zero errors.

But when I turn on Cinebench23 the computer sometimes shuts down, without warning, as if the power was cut off. I have no idea why this happens - event viewer except kernel power 41 and kernel-event does not show any WHEA. 

What could be the reason for this?

My PC:

5950X
Crosshair VIII Extreme Agesa 1.2.0.3
Win 10 up to date


----------



## GRABibus

deleted


----------



## ArchStanton

Gegu said:


> Hi, I have an unusual problem with my 5950X


Would you be willing to use HWiNFO64 to try and get a peak at what's taking place when you fire up CBR23? I'm assuming we are speaking of a multi-thread run. If your EDC/TDC/PPT are set pretty high, is there any chance we are tripping a "protection" circuit in your PSU? Does the "crash" occur if you use the stock power limits?


----------



## Gegu

ArchStanton said:


> Would you be willing to use HWiNFO64 to try and get a peak at what's taking place when you fire up CBR23? I'm assuming we are speaking of a multi-thread run. If your EDC/TDC/PPT are set pretty high, is there any chance we are tripping a "protection" circuit in your PSU? Does the "crash" occur if you use the stock power limits?



But does HWINFO64 leave any logs to be able to check this after such a rapid shutdown?
My power limits are not so high: PPT 270 / TDC 160 / EDC 200

Rest of CPU parameters:

CPU Core - Auto (1.44V)
VSOC - 1.1250V
VDDG both - 1.05V
VDDP - 0.925V


----------



## dk_mic

Gegu said:


> But does HWINFO64 leave any logs to be able to check this after such a rapid shutdown?
> My power limits are not so high: PPT 270 / TDC 160 / EDC 200
> 
> Rest of CPU parameters:
> 
> CPU Core - Auto (1.44V)
> VSOC - 1.1250V
> VDDG both - 1.05V
> VDDP - 0.925V


There is a button in hwinfo where you can start logging to a csv file.
Whats your PSU and what IF are you running?
I would try to relax over current protection in BIOS for a start.


----------



## TheBlasterMaster

I have a MSI X470 GAMING PRO CARBON AM4 MOBO (newest BIOS) and an AMD 9 5900x.
I turned on OC on in the BIOS and immediately got hot. I want it turned off.
I turned off Game boost in the BIOS. Saved and restarted. I am running NZXT CAM measuring CPU/GPU speeds and temps.
After attempting to turn off OC in the BIOS, NZXT CAM is showing my CPU speed from 3700-4800 MHz. Default for this CPU is 3700. Is that normal or is my OC'ing not being turned off?
I even set the BIOS to default which have turned OC off, right? Is my OC still on is NZXT CAM showing my CPU speed from 3700-4800 MHz normal? Thanks.


----------



## Gegu

dk_mic said:


> There is a button in hwinfo where you can start logging to a csv file.
> Whats your PSU and what IF are you running?
> I would try to relax over current protection in BIOS for a start.


Thanks, I'll try to replicate this shutdown with HWINFO enabled then

My PSU is Bequiet Dark Power Pro 12 1500W, IF 1900mhz - rock stable with tightened timings


----------



## Gegu

dk_mic said:


> I would try to relax over current protection in BIOS for a start.


What options are responsible for this in BIOS?


----------



## dk_mic

I think 'cpu current capability' in the digi+ menu. You can also try to disable c-states, but I'd recommend to leave them on in general.

Also make sure youre on AGESA 1.2.0.3c or latest. 1.2.0.4 was bugged


----------



## Phlereous

GRABibus said:


> go into eventviewer and check Whea 18 errors (with Red Cross warning) at « system » folder.
> Here, there is a APIC ID number for the error.
> Which number is it ?



















I have two from each of those.



PJVol said:


> What EDC limit was set to when reboots happened?
> And post your CO values as well.


As per the guide - EDC 221 TDC 110 and TDP 300
I started with CO -15 all cores and tested with OCCT as Clav suggests. It passed so I kept increasing. I passed with CO -30 all cores so I tried blu3dragon's cycler. Passed that too. And then randomly rebooted a few times when CPU wasn't stressed. I have since lowered CO to -25 all cores and haven't had a reboot so far.


----------



## GRABibus

Phlereous said:


> I have two from each of those.
> 
> 
> 
> As per the guide - EDC 221 TDC 110 and TDP 300
> I started with CO -15 all cores and tested with OCCT as Clav suggests. It passed so I kept increasing. I passed with CO -30 all cores so I tried blu3dragon's cycler. Passed that too. And then randomly rebooted a few times when CPU wasn't stressed. I have since lowered CO to -25 all cores and haven't had a reboot so far.


Your Whea error on screenshot shows that Core0 had a too low voltage (APIC ID 0 signs the Core0).
You should look at your Whea APIC ID numbers in the history of event viewer to see if you have other APIC ID numbers than 0, which could show that other cores had too low voltage through CO.

what you can try is -25 on Core0 and -30 on Remaining cores.
If you get new idle reboots, please post here all APIC ID numbers of the Whea.

what is your Max CPU Boost Clock Override ?


----------



## Phlereous

GRABibus said:


> Your Whea error on screenshot shows that Core0 had a too low voltage (APIC ID 0 signs the Core0).
> You should look at your Whea APIC ID numbers in the history of event viewer to see if you have other APIC ID numbers than 0, which could show that other cores had too low voltage through CO.
> 
> what you can try is -25 on Core0 and -30 on Remaining cores.
> If you get new idle reboots, please post here all APIC ID numbers of the Whea.
> 
> what is your Max CPU Boost Clock Override ?


Max CPU boost override is 0. 









I found this as well, so Core 10 is having the same problem as well, right? It has been 5 days since I lowered CO to -25 all cores and no random reboots. Btw cores 0 and 10 are the best cores of each CCD. I will set the rest of the cores to -30 again and see what happens.










I have these after every reboot too. Do I care about them?


----------



## GRABibus

Phlereous said:


> Max CPU boost override is 0.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I found this as well, so Core 10 is having the same problem as well, right? It has been 5 days since I lowered CO to -25 all cores and no random reboots. Btw cores 0 and 10 are the best cores of each CCD. I will set the rest of the cores to -30 again and see what happens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have these after every reboot too. Do I care about them?


No, don't take care abourt Kernel error here.

APIC ID 0 and APIC ID 1 => Core0
APIC ID 2 and APIC ID 3 ==> Core1
APIC ID 4 and APIC ID 5 => Core2
Etc.....

*So APIC ID 10 is Core5.*

so now, put -25 on Core0 and -25 on Core5 and -30 all remaining cores.

Report back.


----------



## Phlereous

GRABibus said:


> No, don't take care abourt Kernel error here.
> 
> APIC ID 0 and APIC ID 1 => Core0
> APIC ID 2 and APIC ID 3 ==> Core1
> APIC ID 4 and APIC ID 5 => Core2
> Etc.....
> 
> *So APIC ID 10 is Core5.*
> 
> so now, put -25 on Core0 and -25 on Core5 and -30 all remaining cores.
> 
> Report back.


I just had two reboots and was wondering what is going on. I will put Core 5 on -25, thanks a lot!


----------



## GRABibus

Phlereous said:


> I just had two reboots and was wondering what is going on. I will put Core 5 on -25, thanks a lot!


Report back 😊
Finding this idle stability requires patience and method.


----------



## Phlereous

GRABibus said:


> Report back 😊
> Finding this idle stability requires patience and method.


4 hours so far without issues. If it hasn't rebooted when I wake up, I would consider it resolved  You have been a great help!
If I passed stability testing @-30 all cores, how likely is it that I won't pass when two cores are -25 and the rest -30? I would imagine it's virtually guaranteed to be stable.


----------



## KedarWolf

Phlereous said:


> 4 hours so far without issues. If it hasn't rebooted when I wake up, I would consider it resolved  You have been a great help!
> If I passed stability testing @-30 all cores, how likely is it that I won't pass when two cores are -25 and the rest -30? I would imagine it's virtually guaranteed to be stable.


Did you test Core Cycler 720-720 FFTs SSE?

That will find errors quicker than anything.


----------



## ArchStanton

KedarWolf said:


> That will find errors quicker than anything.


A large portion of the community agrees on this, but I don't remember anyone offering an explanation of why 720K seems so effective at exposing too aggressive undervolting 🤷‍♂️.


----------



## Phlereous

KedarWolf said:


> Did you test Core Cycler 720-720 FFTs SSE?
> 
> That will find errors quicker than anything.


I will try it out. When using blu3dragon's, I just open the prime.txt and set FFTs to 720? I tried 128 and original values and it passed. For some reason I can't get the other cycler to work.

I get this when I try 720:

Cannot initialize FFT code, errcode=1010
Unknown gwnum error code: 1010
Cannot initialize FFT code, errcode=1010
Unknown gwnum error code: 1010
Cannot initialize FFT code, errcode=1010
Cannot initialize FFT code, errcode=1010
Unknown gwnum error code: 1010
Cannot initialize FFT code, errcode=1010
Unknown gwnum error code: 1010
Cannot initialize FFT code, errcode=1010
Unknown gwnum error code: 1010
Cannot initialize FFT code, errcode=1010
Unknown gwnum error code: 1010
Cannot initialize FFT code, errcode=1010
Unknown gwnum error code: 1010
Cannot initialize FFT code, errcode=1010
Unknown gwnum error code: 1010
Cannot initialize FFT code, errcode=1010
Unknown gwnum error code: 1010
Cannot initialize FFT code, errcode=1010
Unknown gwnum error code: 1010
Unknown gwnum error code: 1010
Cannot initialize FFT code, errcode=1010
Unknown gwnum error code: 1010

When I change back to 128 it passes as before. What is this.


----------



## Corhone

Phlereous said:


> I will try it out. When using blu3dragon's, I just open the prime.txt and set FFTs to 720? I tried 128 and original values and it passed. For some reason I can't get the other cycler to work.
> 
> I get this when I try 720:
> ...
> 
> When I change back to 128 it passes as before. What is this.


Download https://www.mersenne.org/ftp_root/gimps/p95v306b4.win64.zip
and change $p95path="p95v307b9.win64.zip" to $p95path="p95v306b4.win64.zip" at p95_core_cycle.ps1.
Delete existing p95 folder.


----------



## Phlereous

Corhone said:


> Download https://www.mersenne.org/ftp_root/gimps/p95v306b4.win64.zip
> and change $p95path="p95v307b9.win64.zip" to $p95path="p95v306b4.win64.zip" at p95_core_cycle.ps1.
> Delete existing p95 folder.


Thank you, that worked.
Passed testing with FFT 720, what else can I throw at it? At this point I am willing to count the CO as stable.


----------



## dk_mic

y-cruncher with corecycler and mode = 19-ZN2 ~ Kagari
you can change the script-corecycler.ps1, so it runs only the N32/N64 test of y-cruncher which I found very hard to pass:

like this:


Code:


#    $configEntries = @(
#        '{'
#        '    Action : "StressTest"'
#        '    StressTest : {'
#        '        AllocateLocally : "true"'
#        $coresLine
#        $memoryLine
#        '        SecondsPerTest : 60'
#        '        SecondsTotal : 0'
#        '        StopOnError : "true"'
#        '        Tests : ['
#        '            "BKT"'
#        '            "BBP"'
#        '            "SFT"'
#        '            "FFT"'
#        '            "N32"'
#        '            "N64"'
#        '            "HNT"'
#        '            "VST"'
#        '        ]'
#        '    }'
#        '}'
#    )

    $configEntries = @(
        '{'
        '    Action : "StressTest"'
        '    StressTest : {'
        '        AllocateLocally : "true"'
        $coresLine
        $memoryLine
        '        SecondsPerTest : 60'
        '        SecondsTotal : 0'
        '        StopOnError : "true"'
        '        Tests : ['
        '             "N32"'
        '             "N64"'
        '        ]'
        '    }'
        '}'
    )


----------



## Corhone

Phlereous said:


> Thank you, that worked.
> Passed testing with FFT 720, what else can I throw at it? At this point I am willing to count the CO as stable.


Edit p95_core_cycle.ps1
$cycle_time=600;
$use_smt=$false;


----------



## Phlereous

dk_mic said:


> y-cruncher with corecycler and mode = 19-ZN2 ~ Kagari
> you can change the script-corecycler.ps1, so it runs only the N32/N64 test of y-cruncher which I found very hard to pass:
> 
> like this:
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> #    $configEntries = @(
> #        '{'
> #        '    Action : "StressTest"'
> #        '    StressTest : {'
> #        '        AllocateLocally : "true"'
> #        $coresLine
> #        $memoryLine
> #        '        SecondsPerTest : 60'
> #        '        SecondsTotal : 0'
> #        '        StopOnError : "true"'
> #        '        Tests : ['
> #        '            "BKT"'
> #        '            "BBP"'
> #        '            "SFT"'
> #        '            "FFT"'
> #        '            "N32"'
> #        '            "N64"'
> #        '            "HNT"'
> #        '            "VST"'
> #        '        ]'
> #        '    }'
> #        '}'
> #    )
> 
> $configEntries = @(
> '{'
> '    Action : "StressTest"'
> '    StressTest : {'
> '        AllocateLocally : "true"'
> $coresLine
> $memoryLine
> '        SecondsPerTest : 60'
> '        SecondsTotal : 0'
> '        StopOnError : "true"'
> '        Tests : ['
> '             "N32"'
> '             "N64"'
> '        ]'
> '    }'
> '}'
> )


This is either the core cycler I can't get to work or some other that I am not aware of. I am using blu3dragon's.



Corhone said:


> Edit p95_core_cycle.ps1
> $cycle_time=600;
> $use_smt=$false;


Passed with FFT=720 and these new parameters. I am satisfied. I could try to get the two -25 cores to -27/8 but I guess it will be a negligible improvement so I don't think I will bother with it.


----------



## Phlereous

I got those two cores to crash while benching with C23. I increased TDC to 190(110 before) and each crashed while CPU was at full load during testing. Not sure if they would have crashed while idling. I decreased their offset by 2 and will test here to see if stable. 
I am wondering, is it possible that other cores aren't stable either but don't get to show it as these two always crash before them?


----------



## GRABibus

I have never cons


Phlereous said:


> I got those two cores to crash while benching with C23. I increased TDC to 190(110 before) and each crashed while CPU was at full load during testing. Not sure if they would have crashed while idling. I decreased their offset by 2 and will test here to see if stable.
> I am wondering, is it possible that other cores aren't stable either but don't get to show it as these two always crash before them?


You have 2 solutions :

test each core with Corecycler, etc….
Or consider that you test idle and low load states by only using your computer daily and let it idle when you don’t use it.

this is what I do (second solution).
If an idle reboot occur, then I add CO voltage on the coresponding core and then wait for some days, etc,…
If after 3weeks or one month I don’t have any idle or low load reboots, then I consider it stable for my 24/7 use, even if I know that it will not pass Corecycler because Corecycler is of courser tougher to pass that browsing or idling 😊


----------



## GRABibus

Phlereous said:


> I got those two cores to crash while benching with C23. I increased TDC to 190(110 before) and each crashed while CPU was at full load during testing. Not sure if they would have crashed while idling. I decreased their offset by 2 and will test here to see if stable.
> I am wondering, is it possible that other cores aren't stable either but don't get to show it as these two always crash before them?


Did you had reboot or CB23 crash only ?
Was it during Multicore or Singlecore test ?


----------



## Phlereous

GRABibus said:


> Did you had reboot or CB23 crash only ?
> Was it during Multicore or Singlecore test ?


Multicore test and it was a reboot. Whea 18 says it's the same cores that were crashing on idle before. I didn't get idle crashes for 6 days after I set those two to a lower(higher) offset. They also passed core cyclers multiple times. And then they crashed on multicore benchmark.


----------



## GRABibus

Phlereous said:


> Multicore test and it was a reboot. Whea 18 says it's the same cores that were crashing on idle before. I didn't get idle crashes for 6 days after I set those two to a lower(higher) offset. They also passed core cyclers multiple times. And then they crashed on multicore benchmark.


If you were at -25 on this core, Then try -20.

what is your CPU load line calibration level ?


----------



## Phlereous

GRABibus said:


> If you were at -25 on this core, Then try -20.
> 
> what is your CPU load line calibration level ?


Yup, I already changed offset for that core. 
I don't know what CPU load line calibration level is. Where do I check that?


----------



## GRABibus

Phlereous said:


> Yup, I already changed offset for that core.
> I don't know what CPU load line calibration level is. Where do I check that?


On digi+ Options on tweaker menu


----------



## KedarWolf

Phlereous said:


> Multicore test and it was a reboot. Whea 18 says it's the same cores that were crashing on idle before. I didn't get idle crashes for 6 days after I set those two to a lower(higher) offset. They also passed core cyclers multiple times. And then they crashed on multicore benchmark.


Try y-cruncher stress test FFT, it found core errors even Core Cycler 720 FFTs missed. 

Have adequate cooling though, it runs hot.


----------



## Phlereous

GRABibus said:


> On digi+ Options on tweaker menu


I will check it out now.
Btw, I see you have Max CPU boost clock Override = +200Mhz. How much is the difference in performance compared to 0MHz?
Also TDC/EDC = 140 seems to be a common sweet spot for 5950x but mine does better at 180. What cooling and mobo are you using?


----------



## Phlereous

KedarWolf said:


> Try y-cruncher stress test FFT, it found core errors even Core Cycler 720 FFTs missed.
> 
> Have adequate cooling though, it runs hot.


I am cooling with Arctic LF2 360. Will give it a try.


----------



## GRABibus

Phlereous said:


> I will check it out now.
> Btw, I see you have Max CPU boost clock Override = +200Mhz. How much is the difference in performance compared to 0MHz?
> Also TDC/EDC = 140 seems to be a common sweet spot for 5950x but mine does better at 180. What cooling and mobo are you using?





Phlereous said:


> I will check it out now.
> Btw, I see you have Max CPU boost clock Override = +200Mhz. How much is the difference in performance compared to 0MHz?
> Also TDC/EDC = 140 seems to be a common sweet spot for 5950x but mine does better at 180. What cooling and mobo are you using?


with EDC=140, you get full Vid range up to 1,5V.
With EDC =180, you get max Vid=1,425V, then lower boost clock theorically.

you have to test which combination is best.

I have Corsair H115i RGB Platinum 280mm AIO. I get incredible low temps with 220/140/140 and my best CBR20 scores

At 23degrees :
651 best single core boost
11775 best multi core boost
Max CPU temp=70degrees.

in games ,max 72 degrees.

main settings in signature.


----------



## GRABibus

Phlereous said:


> I will check it out now.
> Btw, I see you have Max CPU boost clock Override = +200Mhz. How much is the difference in performance compared to 0MHz?
> Also TDC/EDC = 140 seems to be a common sweet spot for 5950x but mine does better at 180. What cooling and mobo are you using?


with +200MHz I get much more better boost than with 0


----------



## Phlereous

GRABibus said:


> with EDC=140, you get full Vid range up to 1,5V.
> With EDC =180, you get max Vid=1,425V, then lower boost clock theorically.
> 
> you have to test which combination is best.
> 
> I have Corsair H115i RGB Platinum 280mm AIO. I get incredible low temps with 220/140/140 and my best CBR20 scores
> 
> At 23degrees :
> 651 best single core boost
> 11775 best multi core boost
> Max CPU temp=70degrees.
> 
> in games ,max 72 degrees.
> 
> main settings in signature.


Thanks for the explanation. I will test what works best for sure. 
I haven't tried R20, only R23 so not sure how good those results are. I am guessing it's pretty solid.

So Load Line Calibration and everything else in that menu is on Auto. How do I want them? And where can I educate myself on what they mean and do? I've no idea.


----------



## Phlereous

GRABibus said:


> with +200MHz I get much more better boost than with 0


I am thermally limited with the high EDC it seems. Max boost doesn't do anything pretty much. All scores are within margin of error.


----------



## KedarWolf

On my board, I get better R20, R23 and CPU-Z multicore scores with Boost 0 and Scaler 0. Like in R23 about 100 points.


----------



## Phlereous

KedarWolf said:


> On my board, I get better R20, R23 and CPU-Z multicore scores with Boost 0 and Scaler 0. Like in R23 about 100 points.


R23 works exactly like that for me too - 0 and 200 is 100 points difference and then 100, 50, 25 proportionally in between. Everything tested just once so might not be true but seems logical.
CPU-Z actually tested best with +25Mhz + 40 points. All others were virtually the same.
Scalar is another setting I don't understand and haven't touched. What does it do?


----------



## tommyd2k

It is supposed to change how "safe" PBO+ behaves. By letting the chip run hotter or faster for longer maybe. It doesn't change anything that I can see, in practice.


----------



## tommyd2k

Gegu said:


> Hi, I have an unusual problem with my 5950X
> 
> The CPU on stock settings is rock stable, the fun starts when I have PBO and Curve Optimizer + boost enabled.
> 
> Well I have my own power limits, CO set per core + boost 100mhz. I set each offset for cpu cores by testing it in Prime95 powershell script for Ryzen 5000, CoreCycler, CoreCycler 720-720, AIDA64 Extreme stress test and each OCCT test for CPU (each OCCT test took about an hour).
> Curve Optimizer is set so that each of the above tests = zero errors.
> 
> But when I turn on Cinebench23 the computer sometimes shuts down, without warning, as if the power was cut off. I have no idea why this happens - event viewer except kernel power 41 and kernel-event does not show any WHEA.
> 
> What could be the reason for this?
> 
> My PC:
> 
> 5950X
> Crosshair VIII Extreme Agesa 1.2.0.3
> Win 10 up to date


Check your cables. That started happening to me randomly on both of my systems. It turned out to be the color extension cables I used. I needed 2 sets because I needed 3 GPU cables. So of course the extra 24 pin and 4x4 pin set went on my other system. They would work fine for a while, then out of nowhere I'd get a bunch of reboots. It didn't help that I was always in the cases messing with something trying to figure out what was wrong. It was like that for at least a month till I noticed my 12v 5v and 3.3v were a reading a little low. The cables were losing contact from the slightest movement. I took every extension off and no more reboots.


----------



## Audioboxer

Anyone tested AGESA 1.2.0.7? I'm going to guess over 140 EDC still = voltage cap.

After all my fun benchmarking my 5950x and pushing CB23 scores, I think boring old me is just settling on 162/100/140 now and calling it a day. Seems to perform the best with gaming and I guess unless more games really start pushing multicore loads, PBO tipping in favour of single core or just a few cores will reign supreme for gaming.

Nod to AMD again though for how power efficient their chips are. 142w max, let alone just that wee bump to 162w, and its still impressive today what these chips can do.


----------



## Milamber

I will also try this Ryzen Master application, does it test for stability too?


----------



## ArchStanton

Audioboxer said:


> Anyone tested AGESA 1.2.0.7


I have not tested it myself, but per numerous other posters here your fears are confirmed.


----------



## BIaze

is the Ryzen Master auto CO optimized for 1.2.0.5/1.2.0.6/1.2.0.7 AGESAs or is it just bad? Currently on 1.2.0.3 and I ended up reverting to stock for the time being due to how unstable the CO values it actually gave


----------



## GRABibus

Test @ 23.5°C :


----------



## Kodo28

BIaze said:


> is the Ryzen Master auto CO optimized for 1.2.0.5/1.2.0.6/1.2.0.7 AGESAs or is it just bad? Currently on 1.2.0.3 and I ended up reverting to stock for the time being due to how unstable the CO values it actually gave


Ryzen Master auto CO, is totally crap stuff, if u want to CO better do it manually. It will take time on tests but u will get stability.


----------



## GRABibus

Some fresh air this morning : test at 19°C


----------



## Milamber

How do we view the images, so the text is visible? The screenshots are too tiny.


----------



## GRABibus

Milamber said:


> How do we view the images, so the text is visible? The screenshots are too tiny.


This is a full image posting.
On my iPhone I can zoom them.

1669 pts SC
30143 pts MC


----------



## Kodo28

Milamber said:


> How do we view the images, so the text is visible? The screenshots are too tiny.


You can use the zoom function from your web browser. For some reason pictures are not readable with 100% page.
Or you can right click on image and select open image in new tab.


----------



## Milamber

So my system is stable with a -29 curve, but the actual Cinebench score is less than when it runs at stock! Has anyone seen this before? It's really strange - or perhaps its normal!


----------



## GRABibus

Milamber said:


> So my system is stable with a -29 curve, but the actual Cinebench score is less than when it runs at stock! Has anyone seen this before? It's really strange - or perhaps its normal!


Post all your settings.
Cooling ? Ambient temperature ?


----------



## GRABibus

Deleted


----------



## Milamber

GRABibus said:


> Post all your settings.
> Cooling ? Ambient temperature ?


Temps are 68 degrees on the CPU and I am using Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360.
Setup is pictured below - so three front fans and one rear.


----------



## SaarN

Looks like ASUS doesn't plan on updating my B550-I Strix board, and the latest BIOS (1.2.0.6) used to give me WHEA errors when I tried it with my previous CPU (R3600), so I don't feel like trying that one again.
Although I'm using a Noctua NH-D15, my airflow is pretty limited because It's a SFF case, so I'm pretty fed up with doing lots of tweaking for negligible gains.
Does my CB23 score look okay? MyTimeSpy results seems fine as well (will look for them later), my PC is super responsive, passed core cycler for plenty of hours with all the different profiles \ stress tests, including this really long FFT test that varies from 720 to 16k.
I might switch to a different case with better airflow than what I currently have and then try tweaking it a bit further, but I'm somewhat thermally limited atm and I don't like being "on the edge".


----------



## GRABibus

Milamber said:


> Temps are 68 degrees on the CPU and I am using Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360.
> Setup is pictured below - so three front fans and one rear.
> 
> View attachment 2559603


Maybe if you post your Bios settings (In .txt file), some people can help.


----------



## Milamber

GRABibus said:


> Maybe if you post your Bios settings (In .txt file), some people can help.


Ok, thanks. How would I do that?


----------



## The Sandman

Milamber said:


> Ok, thanks. How would I do that?


Format flash drive FAT32
Under OC Profiles at bottom, save text file to flash drive hit Ctrl + F2




SaarN said:


> Does my CB23 score look okay? MyTimeSpy results seems fine as well (will look for them later), my PC is super responsive, passed core cycler for plenty of hours with all the different profiles \ stress tests, including this really long FFT test that varies from 720 to 16k.


Looks good to me. here's a comparison


----------



## Milamber

The Sandman said:


> Format flash drive FAT32
> Under OC Profiles at bottom, save text file to flash drive hit Ctrl + F2


Huh? In BIOs or Ryzen Master? I don't see this option in either.


----------



## The Sandman

Milamber said:


> Huh? In BIOs or Ryzen Master? I don't see this option in either.


My bad, sorry
Just noticed your rig sig, I thought you were on an Asus mobo


----------



## BIaze

Kodo28 said:


> Ryzen Master auto CO, is totally crap stuff, if u want to CO better do it manually. It will take time on tests but u will get stability.


gotcha, thanks


----------



## SaarN

Does BCLK OCing affect NVMe PCIe drives? Does it matter if the drive is PCIe gen 3 or gen 4?
Last time I BCLK OCed I fried a SATA NVMe, but is there a difference between sata and pcie? Any risk of frying \ corruption?


----------



## Medizinmann

SaarN said:


> Does BCLK OCing affect NVMe PCIe drives? Does it matter if the drive is PCIe gen 3 or gen 4?
> Last time I BCLK OCed I fried a SATA NVMe, but is there a difference between sata and pcie? Any risk of frying \ corruption?


AFAIK BCLK-OC with Ryzen doesn't affect NVME drives (PCIe 3 or 4 doesn't matter) - read some articles(AFAIR Toms Hardware) that went up to 140 Mhz for BCLK-OC with Ryzen without any adverse effects - I personally tested only up to 106 Mhz – using a 3900X and a Gigabyte Aorus Xtreme x570 - I actually ran a mild OC (102,5 MHz) for quite some time without any trouble using both PCIe gen 3 and 4 drives.

Best regards,
Medizinmann


----------



## GRABibus

My best scores ever until now with my 24/7 settings (in sig), my little "220 PPT" and my lovely H115i RGB Platinum. L1 + L2 HW Prefetcher disabled.

test @ 21°C - 22°C :


----------



## KedarWolf

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X CPU: possible 24C/48T, up to huge 5.4GHz CPU clocks


AMD's next-gen Zen 4-based Ryzen 7000 series CPUs could have flagship 24-core, 48-thread monster at 5.4GHz with Ryzen 9 7950X.




www.tweaktown.com


----------



## tonynca

Does CO values get affected by PBO limits? I just got a B2 stepping RMA replacement 5950X and the CO values are horrendous. My B0 stepping was able to do -30 on the majority of the 16 cores.


----------



## Luggage

tonynca said:


> Does CO values get affected by PBO limits? I just got a B2 stepping RMA replacement 5950X and the CO values are horrendous. My B0 stepping was able to do -30 on the majority of the 16 cores.
> 
> View attachment 2560792


If your pbo limits are ”bad” you won’t boost as high, if you don’t boost as high you will be more stable, can run larger co values.
Same with thermals.


----------



## tonynca

Anyone here running TDC 140 EDC 140? I'm running these settings because I want the CPU to be able to boost more often without the restriction of 1.425v for >140 EDC. I noticed that the effective vcore is sometimes spiking to 1.50v+. I'm a bit worried about this as I had one chip die on me already. Not sure if that's the cause. 1.5v can't be good even if it's for a short burst...

Dark Hero 4201 BIOS with a 5950X


----------



## tommyd2k

The 1.5v VID you see is normal. At 140 EDC don't worry about hurting anything.


----------



## tonynca

tommyd2k said:


> The 1.5v VID you see is normal. At 140 EDC don't worry about hurting anything.


Look at my effective VID... it's 1.55v at one point. I don't think that's normal....


----------



## tommyd2k

tonynca said:


> Look at my effective VID... it's 1.55v at one point. I don't think that's normal....


It is normal. They do that, it's not the per core VID anyhow. Take a look at other peoples screenshots and you'll see that that is not unusual at all. They do that a lot while at rest actually. Tons of people ask that same question when they see that for the first time. Trust me, it is A OK. You aren't gonna damage your CPU from any single threaded load, maybe if you had some extremely crazy settings for LLC and some hard core stress test. You'd have to be trying hard. Multi thread loads at crazy TDP-PPT-EDC are more likely to cause some entropy after a while. But you aren't running careless settings or doing anything you gotta worry about. A CPU dying outright is a pretty rare occurrence. Since you already had it happen once then I doubt it'll ever happen to you again. I doubt it was from something you were doing or you would prob know it. 
If that 1.55v is really stressing you out you can try a diff windows power plan maybe.








So I just fired up HWinfo and it shows 1.50V on mine. It can be higher sometimes, not a problem. I'd worry if it was stuck at like 1.4 or something.


----------



## tonynca

tommyd2k said:


> It is normal. They do that, it's not the per core VID anyhow. Take a look at other peoples screenshots and you'll see that that is not unusual at all. They do that a lot while at rest actually. Tons of people ask that same question when they see that for the first time. Trust me, it is A OK. You aren't gonna damage your CPU from any single threaded load, maybe if you had some extremely crazy settings for LLC and some hard core stress test. You'd have to be trying hard. Multi thread loads at crazy TDP-PPT-EDC are more likely to cause some entropy after a while. But you aren't running careless settings or doing anything you gotta worry about. A CPU dying outright is a pretty rare occurrence. Since you already had it happen once then I doubt it'll ever happen to you again. I doubt it was from something you were doing or you would prob know it.
> If that 1.55v is really stressing you out you can try a diff windows power plan maybe.
> View attachment 2561432
> 
> So I just fired up HWinfo and it shows 1.50V on mine. It can be higher sometimes, not a problem. I'd worry if it was stuck at like 1.4 or something.


my cpu died while idling with a few apps open. I came back to a frozen screen. I was running 250/140/140 with curveoptimizer. I was not abusing it and it was being kept cool with a full custom EK loop. Temp wasn’t an issue. Ok you convinced me. I’ll run the same settings again since I do need single core boost for what I do more than multi core.


----------



## tommyd2k

tonynca said:


> my cpu died while idling with a few apps open. I came back to a frozen screen. I was running 250/140/140 with curveoptimizer. I was not abusing it and it was being kept cool with a full custom EK loop. Temp wasn’t an issue. Ok you convinced me. I’ll run the same settings again since I do need single core boost for what I do more than multi core.


If I have Hydra turned on the VID stays below 1.375 or whatever you set the top profile to run. If you haven't checked it out yet, go for it. It should give you higher boost than PBO+ too.


----------



## tonynca

Hydra = crap.

Will not use that ever. It is not stable. Modern CPU boost algo are too complicated for some single application to be able to manage all on its own for all sorts of computing situations.


----------



## heptilion

KedarWolf said:


> Try y-cruncher stress test FFT, it found core errors even Core Cycler 720 FFTs missed.
> 
> Have adequate cooling though, it runs hot.


Is this through core cycler or y cruncher? Can you please post a screenshot.


----------



## dansi

KedarWolf said:


> Try y-cruncher stress test FFT, it found core errors even Core Cycler 720 FFTs missed.
> 
> Have adequate cooling though, it runs hot.


Does core cycler use aida64 latency tests?

I have found aida64 latency test, it quickly throws out a bsod if your CO is too aggressive. That prime or y-crunchy cannot because these 2 test high sustain load use while aida64 for transient boosting

Just keep hitting to repeat the latency test for a time.

It defaults to your cppc core, so you can turn off cppc in bios to randomly test cores or you can manually assign which cores to test from task manager but this step needs a bit mouse dexterity to switch core after hitting the run button.

I wonder if core cycler can help automate it


----------



## heptilion

I believe it's this one but it doesn't seem to run hot for me. 

Temps are like 57 degrees on aio.


----------



## tonynca

KedarWolf said:


> Try y-cruncher stress test FFT, it found core errors even Core Cycler 720 FFTs missed.
> 
> Have adequate cooling though, it runs hot.


which settings of ycruncher? I wanna try as well


----------



## heptilion

tonynca said:


> which settings of ycruncher? I wanna try as well


i think it might be the SFT setting. That one runs hot!


----------



## dansi

tonynca said:


> which settings of ycruncher? I wanna try as well


Try aida64 latency test too.
It is light transient load that allows cores to boost higher than ycruncher and will get out the last bit of instability


----------



## tommyd2k

tonynca said:


> Hydra = crap.
> 
> Will not use that ever. It is not stable. Modern CPU boost algo are too complicated for some single application to be able to manage all on its own for all sorts of computing situations.


You think Hydra is crap? When was the last time you used it? It's never going to make you run unstable settings. If a setting is unstable you fix it. It's an overclockers wet dream, a sandbox basically. 

It's come a long way from CTR 2.1. If PBO+ is your thing it has full PBO+ control on the fly. With Hydra everything is optional.


----------



## tommyd2k

tommyd2k said:


> You think Hydra is crap? When was the last time you used it? It's never going to make you run unstable settings. If a setting is unstable you fix it. It's an overclockers wet dream, a sandbox basically.
> 
> It's come a long way from CTR 2.1. If PBO+ is your thing it has full PBO+ control on the fly. With Hydra everything is optional.


BTW check out these voltage highs I just noticed. I run the Dark hero bios at default settings for everything except ram timings, VDDP and VDDG voltages, SAM and +200 PBO+ max.


----------



## tommyd2k

dansi said:


> Does core cycler use aida64 latency tests?
> 
> I have found aida64 latency test, it quickly throws out a bsod if your CO is too aggressive. That prime or y-crunchy cannot because these 2 test high sustain load use while aida64 for transient boosting
> 
> Just keep hitting to repeat the latency test for a time.
> 
> It defaults to your cppc core, so you can turn off cppc in bios to randomly test cores or you can manually assign which cores to test from task manager but this step needs a bit mouse dexterity to switch core after hitting the run button.
> 
> I wonder if core cycler can help automate it


+1 on AIDA64 latency test. I use this to change the core it uses








I'll test each core that way AIDA64 and CPU-Z, they both can cause a reboot that FFT's miss.


----------



## Audioboxer

Hydra is undoubtedly an impressive piece of software and has come a long way, but any time I go to try and use it I find myself just going back to a manual BIOS curve, +100mhz and using telemetry to push single core clocks higher on my 5950x.










I tend to find this results in games pushing the single core/few cores they use high and as I don't really do any competitive benchmarking, I really don't find much use for trying to get apps to push scores (not mocking anyone who does, I find the benchmarking scene interesting and use benchmarking myself to test performance).

If the MSI board didn't have telemetry I'd probably use Hydra, I guess. As things stand, with AMD crippling EDC, I've even gone back to near default PBO for daily use. 162/100/140.

Only thing you need to watch with using telemetry is the underreporting of voltage/power readings.

Still, I like to follow the development of Hydra!


----------



## AmateurRanger

Just got my 5900x. Preferred core won't budge at all for Curve Optimizer, 1900FCLK hole. Can't lose the lottery harder I guess lol


----------



## tonynca

AmateurRanger said:


> Just got my 5900x. Preferred core won't budge at all for Curve Optimizer, 1900FCLK hole. Can't lose the lottery harder I guess lol


Honestly, not like you would notice the difference between bronze and gold anyways. Unless you're rendering 24/7.


----------



## AmateurRanger

tonynca said:


> Honestly, not like you would notice the difference between bronze and gold anyways. Unless you're rendering 24/7.


I assume no one on this forum is really bothered by the actual daily performance difference of 4950 vs 5050 or 3733mhz vs 3800mhz, just bit silly fun for me at least lol


----------



## tonynca

AmateurRanger said:


> I assume no one on this forum is really bothered by the actual daily performance difference of 4950 vs 5050 or 3733mhz vs 3800mhz, just bit silly fun for me at least lol


I know we're all pushing the limits here for giggles and benchies. I just got a replacement 5950X that's a turd in terms of CO values. But honestly, I cannot feel the difference between this bronze (B2 stepping) and my prior gold (B0 stepping) in day to day work loads. I actually like the B2 stepping more for the lower temps. It's like 8-10C cooler! That's a big difference.


----------



## Gegu

Hi

I've replicated my shutdown during C23 with HWINFO64 turned on. I'm attaching the CSV file.
If anyone can check this file to see if there is anything there to suggest this shutdown, I would appreciate it.









Ryzen test 2


MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.



www.mediafire.com


----------



## CubanB

I've just finished building a 5950X system with 2 X 32GB 3200mhz Micron Rev B. I haven't got an OS installed yet. But I loaded XMP and it worked first try. Then I changed freq to 3800mhz and it booted instantly. Stock voltage (1.356) and XMP timings. Is this a good sign that I will be able to run 3800mhz 24/7 if I increase voltage to 1.40V and manually tweak the timings?

In my previous experiences with 4 sticks of Micron Rev E with CH VI, booting into the BIOS was always the hardest part when upping the frequency past 3600mhz. From there, it was just a matter of tweaking and running memory benchmarks.

I know I need to test this once the OS is installed, I just wanted to ask if it's a regular thing to be able to boot 3200mhz at 3800mhz at stock voltages, or does it seem this could be some good sticks (or a good CPU memory controller).

edit - 4000mhz boots also at 1.356V but locked up while in BIOS.


----------



## rexbinary

CubanB said:


> I've just finished building a 5950X system with 2 X 32GB 3200mhz Micron Rev B. I haven't got an OS installed yet. But I loaded XMP and it worked first try. Then I changed freq to 3800mhz and it booted instantly. Stock voltage (1.356) and XMP timings. Is this a good sign that I will be able to run 3800mhz 24/7 if I increase voltage to 1.40V and manually tweak the timings?
> 
> In my previous experiences with 4 sticks of Micron Rev E with CH VI, booting into the BIOS was always the hardest part when upping the frequency past 3600mhz. From there, it was just a matter of tweaking and running memory benchmarks.
> 
> I know I need to test this once the OS is installed, I just wanted to ask if it's a regular thing to be able to boot 3200mhz at 3800mhz at stock voltages, or does it seem this could be some good sticks (or a good CPU memory controller).
> 
> edit - 4000mhz boots also at 1.356V but locked up while in BIOS.


Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe booting into the bios is a good stability test?


----------



## CubanB

rexbinary said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe booting into the bios is a good stability test?


It's not a stability test at all, but it proves that the RAM can POST at that frequency. This is with stock voltages, and XMP timings (which are nowhere near as good as tweaked manual timings). Without any increase in motherboard voltages (IO die etc). It's posting at 600-800mhz higher than is written on the box, without changing anything else.

I was surprised and took it as a good sign, that either the sticks are decent or that the memory controller on the CPU seems to be pretty good. It doesn't mean it can run these settings 24/7, I just wondered if anyone had any thoughts.. because I have limited experience with memory overclocking and Ryzen. For example, most of my experience is with 3700X, and it seems 5950X (B2 stepping), things could be a lot easier this time. Things have come a long way with Ryzen in terms of how much easier it is these days, compared to the past where I would be happy to get to 3600 (even with higher voltages I couldn't get to 3800).


----------



## Gegu

I ended my adventure in testing PBO shutdown (in every possible configuration) by filling out a warranty form on AMD's website. I'm waiting for their decision on whether my 5950X with a non-functioning PBO is eligible for replacement. If they agree, I hope to get a B2 sample


----------



## KedarWolf

5950x $548 USD.









AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 16-core, 32-Thread Unlocked Desktop Processor : Electronics


Buy AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 16-core, 32-Thread Unlocked Desktop Processor: CPU Processors - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases



www.amazon.com


----------



## Medizinmann

KedarWolf said:


> 5950x $548 USD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 16-core, 32-Thread Unlocked Desktop Processor : Electronics
> 
> 
> Buy AMD Ryzen 9 5950X 16-core, 32-Thread Unlocked Desktop Processor: CPU Processors - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases
> 
> 
> 
> www.amazon.com


A few days ago 5950X was 499€=535USD (right now 530€) in Germany* including VAT and shipping!*

Best regards,
Medizinmann


----------



## Neoony

Netherlands



http://imgur.com/ByRBg6n




http://imgur.com/iNTxLEW


No change in past few days
Bought it for 579 euros at 25-May
I think Amazon was tiny bit cheaper at that time, but I prefer to buy from a good shop.


----------



## Phlereous

I don't know how people do it and at this point I am too afraid to ask, but...
how do you get better results on benchmarks (R23) with lower EDC - 140? I read that it allows the CPU to sustain higher voltage but it doesn't seem so for me. I always get best scores with EDC as high as possible on my 5950x.


----------



## KedarWolf

Alphacool Unveils Apex 17 W/mK Thermal Paste


Alphacool introduces the new Apex thermal paste. With a thermal conductivity of 17 W/mK, it enters the circle of the most powerful thermal pastes on the market. The main objective during development was, of course, to increase the thermal conductivity. However, points such as viscosity and...




www.techpowerup.com


----------



## Sir Beregond

This is a big thread to read. I just got my 5900X system up and running and am completely new to AMD/Ryzen overclocking. Can anyone point to a sort of "start here" guide? So far I've enabled DOCP and PBO2.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Sir Beregond said:


> This is a big thread to read. I just got my 5900X system up and running and am completely new to AMD/Ryzen overclocking. Can anyone point to a sort of "start here" guide? So far I've enabled DOCP and PBO2.


----------



## Kodo28

Sir Beregond said:


> This is a big thread to read. I just got my 5900X system up and running and am completely new to AMD/Ryzen overclocking. Can anyone point to a sort of "start here" guide? So far I've enabled DOCP and PBO2.


This one is also good to check how to start with PPT/TDC/EDC tune.


----------



## Sir Beregond

Thank you very much, will check these out.


----------



## heptilion

Anyone know how to reduce the clock stretching on my 2nd CCD? I have tried increasing and decreasing CO bu the lowest I can get is this.


----------



## Kodo28

drkCrix said:


> Good day all,
> 
> Just received my 5950x and I am looking to maximize the chip as best I can.
> 
> When looking at PBO I noticed some odd behavior.
> 
> If I left the PBO settings at stock, both CCXs would boost the same (effective clock)
> 
> If I changed the EDC value I would see that CCX0 would boost up but CCX1 would lag behind by a few hundred Mhz. The CCX effective clock would sync back up if I put the EDC to 200
> 
> Is this know behavior or is there something strange going on?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris


Just upgraded to a 5950x B2 and facing the same behavior on GB Aorus Xtreme board.
Playing with EDC value, I can get the higher clock on CCX1 while the CCX2 in a lower range of 1-100mhz lower depending on how much I do apply on EDC.
So I need to keep EDC value lower so both CCX are kept at same frequency but then not taking full perf of CCX1.

Did you found the root cause of this ?


----------



## Audioboxer

Anyone who owns Assassins Creed Origins, am I right to say this game hammers the CPU? My 5950x is reaching into the 70s, 75.3 peak so far. Did a bit of reading and apparently I'm correct that it's a very CPU heavy game.

I do have PBO on and I am using telemetry to push the chip even harder for light core loads.

Just cleaned out my loop and switched from Gelid Extreme to Kryonaut so second guessing myself haha. First time I've tried an AC game on PC, so it's likely just normal operating for a 5950x. Other games I'm used to mid to high 60s.

I know it's within spec and not throttling or anything.

Water temps are around 30 degrees, so GPU is as happy as can be, just the CPU running hot with this game.

edit -










One toasty game, but it's performing well. I actually had to go and change default PBO values from 142/90/140 to 162/100/140. It's sucking down that extra PPT and resulting in more frames on Ultra settings at 3440x1440.

With telemetry I guess I might even be under-reporting a bit.


----------



## rexbinary

Audioboxer said:


> Anyone who owns Assassins Creed Origins, am I right to say this game hammers the CPU? My 5950x is reaching into the 70s, 75.3 peak so far. Did a bit of reading and apparently I'm correct that it's a very CPU heavy game.












This is with my character just standing in the game. 1440p, 3600 CL16 DOCP + stock PBO


----------



## Audioboxer

rexbinary said:


> View attachment 2564598
> 
> 
> This is with my character just standing in the game. 1440p, 3600 CL16 DOCP + stock PBO


I'll try replicating your settings and see.

My performance is great, so I can't complain (I capped it at 100FPS with in-game settings and it's usually bang on that all the time). I also noticed that the game often consistently uses 30%+ of the CPU, one of the higher CPU usage in gaming.

Biggest differences from you possibly contributing to more heat for me will be using telemetry to force higher clocks and my IF is running at 1900mhz. Because I presume you're running everything on Ultra as well? I'm 3440x1440, so, ultrawide. That's also more pixels.

PBO I've actually increased to 162/100/140 because the game was actually power limited on stock PBO.... lol.


----------



## KedarWolf

Ryzen 7000 series CPUs due in September.



https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-7000-leak-release#:~:text=AMD%20Ryzen%207000%20CPUs%20Allegedly%20Arrive%20September%2015%20According%20to%20Leak,-By%20Mark%20Tyson&text=Purported%20photo%20from%20AMD%20presentation%20in%20China%20names%20the%20date.&text=About%20a%20month%20ago%2C%20AMD,performance%20stats%20during%20Computex%202022


.

*AMD Zen 4 Ryzen 7000 Series at a Glance*

Up to 16 cores and 32 threads on TSMC 5nm process (N5 used for compute die)
(up to) >5.5 GHz boost
6nm I/O die, DDR5 memory controllers, PCIe 5.0 interface
DDR5 only (no DDR4 support)
RDNA 2 integrated GPU
Zen 4 architecture has 8 to 10% performance gain
>15% gain in single-threaded work, >35% overall performance gain (multi-threaded workloads), >25% performance-per-watt gains
AM5 Socket LGA 1718, backward compatible with AM4 coolers
600-Series Chipset: X670E Extreme, X670, and B650 Motherboards
up to 170W TDP, 230W peak power
up to 125% more memory bandwidth per core
Support for AVX-512
3D V-Cache Zen 4 models will come to market


----------



## Audioboxer

KedarWolf said:


> Ryzen 7000 series CPUs due in September.
> 
> 
> DDR5 only (no DDR4 support)


Sounds great, but I'm not quite down for that yet. Would really have been interesting if they managed a 5950X3D on AM4.

I'll probably jump on board later in 2023 after the first revision and when DDR5 has had a bit longer in the oven.


----------



## Audioboxer

In comparison to my AC Origins findings, it's clear that game is more CPU bound. Unsurprisingly, FF7, with the UW mod, rendering resolution bumped up to a locked 117% (no dynamic crap) and 120FPS set, the game, especially during cutscenes, hits the GPU harder. While that reads 327.5w above, I'm currently using an MSI BIOS on my 3080 FTW3 Ultra in order to cause it to draw more than 400w of power. So the power reading is broken. Reading above is more like 450w+ (possibly near 500w), and when my temps get to around 44, my current curve drops from 2100 to 2085mhz.

CPU on the other hand jumps around 60~70 degrees depending on what is going on.

I guess this is why 3D cache for the 5950x, let alone 5900x, never happened. Trying to get the temps under control, especially light threading. Will be interesting to see what's going to be happening with the 7000 series and getting heat off the chips.

With Nvidia going mental on the 4xxx series, to the extent power supply makers are even worried, the next few years could be pretty crazy for power draw potential in OCed machines.


----------



## intelfx

heptilion said:


> View attachment 2564365
> 
> Anyone know how to reduce the clock stretching on my 2nd CCD? I have tried increasing and decreasing CO bu the lowest I can get is this.


Sorry — what is this tool?


----------



## Luggage

intelfx said:


> Sorry — what is this tool?











BenchMaestro - CPU & GPU benchmarking and Tools Utility


Here's my very own benching and tools utility, hope you enjoy! Will be a constant Work in Progress of course :p https://github.com/mann1x/BenchMaestro Since it's made by someone that runs lots of benchmarks, there are some neat features: ConfigTag: name your configuration, will be part of the...




www.overclock.net




?


----------



## GRABibus

KedarWolf said:


> Ryzen 7000 series CPUs due in September.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-ryzen-7000-leak-release#:~:text=AMD%20Ryzen%207000%20CPUs%20Allegedly%20Arrive%20September%2015%20According%20to%20Leak,-By%20Mark%20Tyson&text=Purported%20photo%20from%20AMD%20presentation%20in%20China%20names%20the%20date.&text=About%20a%20month%20ago%2C%20AMD,performance%20stats%20during%20Computex%202022
> 
> 
> .
> 
> *AMD Zen 4 Ryzen 7000 Series at a Glance*
> 
> Up to 16 cores and 32 threads on TSMC 5nm process (N5 used for compute die)
> (up to) >5.5 GHz boost
> 6nm I/O die, DDR5 memory controllers, PCIe 5.0 interface
> DDR5 only (no DDR4 support)
> RDNA 2 integrated GPU
> Zen 4 architecture has 8 to 10% performance gain
> >15% gain in single-threaded work, >35% overall performance gain (multi-threaded workloads), >25% performance-per-watt gains
> AM5 Socket LGA 1718, backward compatible with AM4 coolers
> 600-Series Chipset: X670E Extreme, X670, and B650 Motherboards
> up to 170W TDP, 230W peak power
> up to 125% more memory bandwidth per core
> Support for AVX-512
> 3D V-Cache Zen 4 models will come to market


Wait for Q1 2023. There will 3Dcache versions of Zen4.


----------



## KedarWolf

Was messing with memory addressing.

This is best in both AIDA64 and y-cruncher.

You need an MSI CBS unlocked BIOS though to access these settings.


----------



## constructorx

Ok, yes, I am very late to the party, but that 5950X was such a good price that I thought it about time I upgraded from my trusty old 2700X (which ran like a dream). So a couple of days ago I bought it.

I have spend a few hours reading and optimising over the past few days and would simply like any other 5950X owners opinion (or reassurance) that I am running good, since I am not fully familiar with expectations yet. Still finding my feet.

I am running on air using a Noctua NHD15-SE-AM4.

Memory, F4-3200C14D-32GTZ clocked at 3600 with timings 14-15-14-28-42-1 giving 56.9 ns latency.

*CPU-Z Validator*: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @ 4523.95 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR
Single-Thread - 696
Multi-Thread (32T) - 13260

*Cinebench R23*: CPU Multi - 29462 | CPU Single 1645









*Geekbench 5*:
Single-Core Score - 1767
Multi-Core Score - 18832
Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. MS-7B77 - Geekbench Browser

I have reduced my package power and manually set voltage curve. 
Multiple Cinebench runs currently give max temps of 72°C and gaming around 68°C to 72°C, depending on the game. Max core clocks are 5,025 MHz and minimum 4.750 MHz. 
Max voltage 1.413V, minimum 0.200V with both being consistent on all cores. This is when gaming.









I have not done anything as far as static OC yet, but may give it a go in time just out of interest. I am happy for PBO to work for me day-to-day. 
I may look at different memory timings to see if that makes any difference, but to be honest, I am not sure how far I can push things or what the best way to go is.


----------



## KedarWolf

ComboAM4v2 1.2.0.7 - Google Drive







drive.google.com





CBS and PBS menus unlocked MSI X570S, X570 and B550 BIOS's.


----------



## Denvys5

KedarWolf said:


> ComboAM4v2 1.2.0.7 - Google Drive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CBS and PBS menus unlocked MSI X570S, X570 and B550 BIOS's.


No B550 Unify? 😭


----------



## intelfx

Hi.
I'm doing another round of tuning on my 5950X and I couldn't help but notice that the benchmark scores I'm getting are consistently lower than typical 5950X results posted here.

I've got a very unorthodox (or you might say stupid) build so I guess that's sort of expected but still I'd like to know the exact reason and if it's possible to do anything with it. Specs:

CPU: 5950X, 240mm AIO
Mobo: ASRock X570M-Pro4
RAM: Crucial Ballistix 3600CL16 4x32GB (128GB total)
CPU is set for PBO at MB limits (PPT=250W, TDC=160W, EDC=170W), +0MHz, CO -30: CPU-Z
RAM is set at XMP ratings (16-18-18-38-84-CR1): AIDA64, ZenTimings

Benchmarks:

CPU-Z 17.01.64: 691/13274 (best of several runs)
CineBench R23: 1596/28449 (10min run, best of several runs)
So, on one hand, this build can do some strange things like run with CO -30 on all cores (this is what Ryzen Master gave me, and yes, it is stable). On the other hand, even given this massive undervolt, the benchmark scores I'm getting are very underwhelming.

I realize that my multi-core scores are probably going to be bad simply because of the motherboard VRM limits. However, the single-core scores are also not as high as I'd expect. Why?


----------



## KedarWolf

intelfx said:


> Hi.
> I'm doing another round of tuning on my 5950X and I couldn't help but notice that the benchmark scores I'm getting are consistently lower than typical 5950X results posted here.
> 
> I've got a very unorthodox (or you might say stupid) build so I guess that's sort of expected but still I'd like to know the exact reason and if it's possible to do anything with it. Specs:
> 
> CPU: 5950X, 240mm AIO
> Mobo: ASRock X570M-Pro4
> RAM: Crucial Ballistix 3600CL16 4x32GB (128GB total)
> CPU is set for PBO at MB limits (PPT=250W, TDC=160W, EDC=170W), +0MHz, CO -30: CPU-Z
> RAM is set at XMP ratings (16-18-18-38-84-CR1): AIDA64, ZenTimings
> 
> Benchmarks:
> 
> CPU-Z 17.01.64: 691/13274 (best of several runs)
> CineBench R23: 1596/28449 (10min run, best of several runs)
> So, on one hand, this build can do some strange things like run with CO -30 on all cores (this is what Ryzen Master gave me, and yes, it is stable). On the other hand, even given this massive undervolt, the benchmark scores I'm getting are very underwhelming.
> 
> I realize that my multi-core scores are probably going to be bad simply because of the motherboard VRM limits. However, the single-core scores are also not as high as I'd expect. Why?


See here. I get decent benchmarks and posed all my BIOS settings in screenshots. Some though you need access to the CBS and PBS menus, and if your BIOS doesn't have them, you need someone to mod and unlock your BIOS.

Benchmarks there as well.









MSI MEG X570S Unify-X MAX [OC & Discussion]


Hello nighthog I need some help in my build please I saw your work with the unify x max and i want to learn from your experience Am not an overclocker I just have a build in my mind and i want to know if its gonna work as my daily stable build I will use 5800x3d with kingston ddr4 5333mhz...




www.overclock.net


----------



## intelfx

KedarWolf said:


> See here. I get decent benchmarks and posed all my BIOS settings in screenshots. Some though you need access to the CBS and PBS menus, and if your BIOS doesn't have them, you need someone to mod and unlock your BIOS.
> 
> Benchmarks there as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MSI MEG X570S Unify-X MAX [OC & Discussion]
> 
> 
> Hello nighthog I need some help in my build please I saw your work with the unify x max and i want to learn from your experience Am not an overclocker I just have a build in my mind and i want to know if its gonna work as my daily stable build I will use 5800x3d with kingston ddr4 5333mhz...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


I do have access to the most of the menus, but anything specific you'd like to point out from your configuration? Your specs differ significantly enough from mine so that it won't make any sense to copy everything.


----------



## KedarWolf

intelfx said:


> I do have access to the most of the menus, but anything specific you'd like to point out from your configuration? Your specs differ significantly enough from mine so that it won't make any sense to copy everything.


The prefetcher settings, the memory addressing settings, try the 155/60 offset I use. My EDT etc. settings are maxed for multicore but single core will suffer likely. Things like SRIS disabled and in the CBS menu the DF C-States I think it's called disabled and the rest of those settings in the menu the same.

I'm on the bus going home from work right now, would have to look at my post, see what else, but it sucks doing all that on my phone.

Edit: The things in the memory settings might help your memory overclock like the 7/3/6 and the other settings other than the timings. After you dial in those settings you might be able to do 3733 or even 3800, but with looser timings as you have four DIMMs I think. See my Zen Timings and the other stuff in memory in the BIOS screenshots.


----------



## XPEHOPE3

1) What's the current status of WHEA 19 vs AGESA versions vs "EDC > 140 limits voltage"? Is there an AGESA version ideal for both getting rid of WHEAs and not limited voltage?

2) I had a 5600X working fine with 3866-16 4*16GB memory at 1.2.0.3C AGESA but switched to 5950X (B2). Of course PC routinely rebooted with WHEA 18 as long as PBO was enabled. Then I updated to 1.2.0.7 AGESA and I had no WHEAs (18 or 19) with 5950X + stock PBO limits + XMP (3200-14). I can "crunch y's" all day w/o WHEAs. But if I use my 5600X's RAM settings I start getting WHEA 19 although TM5 tests are fine (still on stock PBO limits):








(with 5600X I ran VDGG CCD 880mV but it wasn't TM5 stable with 5950X)

What's the usual approach to fix WHEA 19 errors on 5950X and high enough RAM clocks? (I know about MannixITA's solution to hide them) How is it AGESA version dependent?


----------



## KedarWolf

Overclocker teases Ryzen 7000 series CPU with DDR5-6400 CL32 memory


Can Ryzen 700 handle fast DDR5 memory? Yes, allegedly...




www.overclock3d.net


----------



## ManniX-ITA

heptilion said:


> Anyone know how to reduce the clock stretching on my 2nd CCD? I have tried increasing and decreasing CO bu the lowest I can get is this.


With just 3 MHz clock stretching I wouldn't bother at all... it's below the margin of error from the rounding of the raw clock value.



Kodo28 said:


> So I need to keep EDC value lower so both CCX are kept at same frequency but then not taking full perf of CCX1.


My guess is throttling, the CPU will give prio to the first CCX.



XPEHOPE3 said:


> 1) What's the current status of WHEA 19 vs AGESA versions vs "EDC > 140 limits voltage"? Is there an AGESA version ideal for both getting rid of WHEAs and not limited voltage?


None as far as I know.



XPEHOPE3 said:


> What's the usual approach to fix WHEA 19 errors on 5950X and high enough RAM clocks? (I know about MannixITA's solution to hide them) How is it AGESA version dependent?


It is dependent on AGESA but going back too much is often not helping or reducing so much the performances that it stops being worthwhile.
A very very long fine-tuning of settings and voltages can help but not very often, especially on a 5950X.
Couldn't make my replacement 5950X B2 run without performance regressions as my old 5950X B0 (which was not WHEA free but still 100% stable).


----------



## KedarWolf

MSI confirms Ryzen 7000 CPUs and X670 motherboards are set to launch on September 15th - VideoCardz.com


MSI X670 motherboards to launch mid-September Yesterday MSI revealed the design of its new X670 motherboards, today the company confirms when they launch. MSI confirms X670/Ryzen 7000 launch date, Source: MSI MSI has now confirmed exactly when the Ryzen 7000 and X670 motherboards launch and...




videocardz.com


----------



## Sir Beregond

So I have a question. Spent most of today figuring out my core optimizer settings for each core on my 5900X.

For reference: -30, -30, -20, -20, -30, -10, -29, -27, -26, -22, -30, -30 seemed to be stable.

One thing I am not the most clear on, how should I be approaching figuring out PBO power limits? Right now I just have it set to Motherboard.


----------



## Luggage

Sir Beregond said:


> So I have a question. Spent most of today figuring out my core optimizer settings for each core on my 5900X.
> 
> For reference: -30, -30, -20, -20, -30, -10, -29, -27, -26, -22, -30, -30 seemed to be stable.
> 
> One thing I am not the most clear on, how should I be approaching figuring out PBO power limits? Right now I just have it set to Motherboard.


Benchmarking.
Motherboard limits are almost always way too high.
First try hitting 95-99% usage on he workloads you are optimizing for.
Then you have to weigh sc performance vs mc performance and workload vs workload.


----------



## PJVol

Sir Beregond said:


> how should I be approaching figuring out PBO power limits?


For me the best approach is to have two separate presets, one for benching and one for everyday use (if your bios can store profiles in NVRAM).
For the 24/7 profile I have set PPT and TDC to the values, slightly above those reached in CB R23 MT, and EDC a bit below the peak value.
The "bench" profile has PPT and TDC set slightly above their peaks in linpack xtreme stresstest (2 > 5 > 1 > Y > Y > N) and EDC ~ 4x of the default.


----------



## GRABibus

XPEHOPE3 said:


> 1) What's the current status of WHEA 19 vs AGESA versions vs "EDC > 140 limits voltage"? Is there an AGESA version ideal for both getting rid of WHEAs and not limited voltage?
> 
> 2) I had a 5600X working fine with 3866-16 4*16GB memory at 1.2.0.3C AGESA but switched to 5950X (B2). Of course PC routinely rebooted with WHEA 18 as long as PBO was enabled. Then I updated to 1.2.0.7 AGESA and I had no WHEAs (18 or 19) with 5950X + stock PBO limits + XMP (3200-14). I can "crunch y's" all day w/o WHEAs. But if I use my 5600X's RAM settings I start getting WHEA 19 although TM5 tests are fine (still on stock PBO limits):
> View attachment 2565518
> 
> (with 5600X I ran VDGG CCD 880mV but it wasn't TM5 stable with 5950X)
> 
> What's the usual approach to fix WHEA 19 errors on 5950X and high enough RAM clocks? (I know about MannixITA's solution to hide them) How is it AGESA version dependent?


Did you try 3800/1900 ?

not a lot of Zen3 can do more than 3800/1900 without WHEA 19.


----------



## Imprezzion

With very high vSOC and perfectly tuned VDDP/G I could pull off 1933/3866 without whea's on one B2 5900X but that was on only 1 chip out of the 3 I had in total. I still miss it but yeah. I hated the crappy agesa / BIOS support and fTPM stuttering. I had to choose between stuttering on windows 11 and have proper EDC / voltage or limit it to 140 EDC or 1.425v and not have stuttering but also not clock for anything. I chose a 10900K. Lol.


----------



## GRABibus

Imprezzion said:


> With very high vSOC and perfectly tuned VDDP/G I could pull off 1933/3866 without whea's on one B2 5900X but that was on only 1 chip out of the 3 I had in total. I still miss it but yeah. I hated the crappy agesa / BIOS support and fTPM stuttering. I had to choose between stuttering on windows 11 and have proper EDC / voltage or limit it to 140 EDC or 1.425v and not have stuttering but also not clock for anything. I chose a 10900K. Lol.


Windows 10 still rules


----------



## MadGoat

GRABibus said:


> Did you try 3800/1900 ?
> 
> not a lot of Zen3 can do more than 3800/1900 without WHEA 19.


Had similar situation couple months ago. Took a lot of timing tweaking to get a 24-7 stable setup and I had to drop it down to 3800 to keep 1:1 IF. (IF proved to have a BIG issue going any bit over 1900 in my case). Although I am running 2x16...


----------



## SunMaster

From my hwinfo when running Prime95. The 5950x is a great performer, but's not using much less power than the 12900k when going all in.


----------



## Imprezzion

SunMaster said:


> View attachment 2568690
> 
> 
> From my hwinfo when running Prime95. The 5950x is a great performer, but's not using much less power than the 12900k when going all in.


Yeah well I still don't understand all the hate towards the 12900K power draw.. I mean, my 10900K can quite easily pull 240w with just MCE or even 290w when manually overclocked and a 11900K can draw even more then that. 

The 5900X is not any more efficient and I've seen package power on mine at -25 CO all core +100Mhz EDC 170 TDC 140 go over 200w package as well. They are much easier to cool though.


----------



## Audioboxer

Imprezzion said:


> Yeah well I still don't understand all the hate towards the 12900K power draw.. I mean, my 10900K can quite easily pull 240w with just MCE or even 290w when manually overclocked and a 11900K can draw even more then that.
> 
> The 5900X is not any more efficient and I've seen package power on mine at -25 CO all core +100Mhz EDC 170 TDC 140 go over 200w package as well. They are much easier to cool though.


I think it's a preference for knowing if your chip is at stock PPT, which even on a 5950x, is 142w, you can get really good performance. But if you want, you can pull like 250w in CB23 chasing benchmarks or multicore performance.

AMD have just made stupidly efficient chips, especially when you go down to some of the mid-tier AM4 stuff which is drawing less than 100w and still cranking out great performance. Most people would prefer a focus on that continuing, not just everyone going YOLO with power like Nvidia seems to be with the 4xxx range graphics cards.

Power is great if you can open up to it yourself when OCing, but innovation at the manufacturers end is the real industry pusher.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Imprezzion said:


> The 5900X is not any more efficient and I've seen package power on mine at -25 CO all core +100Mhz EDC 170 TDC 140 go over 200w package as well. They are much easier to cool though.


True, I unconsciously see my 5900X PBO/CO Tuned draw 230W while gaming/benching, though it runs really cool..67c max on that maximum power draw is ideally perfect..


----------



## Luggage

SunMaster said:


> View attachment 2568690
> 
> 
> From my hwinfo when running Prime95. The 5950x is a great performer, but's not using much less power than the 12900k when going all in.


With enough (sub-ambient) cooling it can probably pull much more.


http://imgur.com/wxXo9sw

I think I've topped out at 208W during p95sfft on PBO on my 8C 5800X in winter.


----------



## Owterspace

kairi_zeroblade said:


> True, I unconsciously see my 5900X PBO/CO Tuned draw 230W while gaming/benching, though it runs really cool..67c max on that maximum power draw is ideally perfect..


It should hit 235w PPT with a 10GB Linpack Xtreme load with a solid PBO tune that opens the taps. CPU should be running at least 4500MHz with PBO under that kind of load. Not in games..

I have my curve tuned to 235/160/190


----------



## KedarWolf

Cpu Platinum stability certificate - 8/11/2022 7:19:09 PM


The holy grail of CPU stability testing ( 12 hours !) : 2h CPU Large Extreme, 2h CPU Large, 2h CPU Medium, 2h CPU Small, 2h Linpack v2021, 2h CPU Large ( 1 thread, cycling )




www.ocbase.com





This test will find core instability even Core Cycler 720-727 FFTs and y-cruncher will miss.

00:00:00 - Info - Cpu stability certificate ( Platinum ) started at 2022-08-11 03:17:45
00:00:00 - Info - CPU - Started (Duration : 02:00:00)
02:00:00 - Info - CPU - Stopped
02:00:00 - Info - CPU - Started (Duration : 02:00:00)
04:00:00 - Info - CPU - Stopped
04:00:00 - Info - CPU - Started (Duration : 02:00:00)
06:00:00 - Info - CPU - Stopped
06:00:01 - Info - CPU - Started (Duration : 02:00:00)
08:00:01 - Info - CPU - Stopped
08:00:01 - Info - Linpack - Started (Duration : 02:00:00)
10:00:01 - Info - Linpack - Stopped
10:00:01 - Info - CPU - Started (Duration : 02:00:00)
12:00:01 - Info - CPU - Stopped
12:00:01 - Info - CPU - Benchmark started
12:00:11 - Info - CPU - 1 threads, SSE : 89.36
12:00:11 - Info - CPU - Benchmark started
12:00:22 - Info - CPU - 32 threads, SSE : 1 287.91
12:00:22 - Info - CPU - Benchmark started
12:00:33 - Info - CPU - 1 threads, AVX : 169.73
12:00:33 - Info - CPU - Benchmark started
12:00:44 - Info - CPU - 32 threads, AVX : 2 400.42
12:00:44 - Info - Memory - Benchmark started
12:00:55 - Info - Memory - Read : 1 414.62
12:00:55 - Info - Memory - Benchmark started
12:01:06 - Info - Memory - Write : 1 168.77
12:01:06 - Info - Memory - Benchmark started
12:01:17 - Info - Memory - Combined : 1 281.57
12:01:17 - Info - Test schedule completed


----------



## SneakySloth

Its kind of a hit or miss. I passed a gold and then a platinum test on my curve (18 hours of testing) but had y-cruncher crash one of the cores within a minute on the C17 test. Had to go from 29 -> 25 on one core and 22 -> 21 in another to reliably pass the C17 test.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

Owterspace said:


> It should hit 235w PPT with a 10GB Linpack Xtreme load with a solid PBO tune that opens the taps. CPU should be running at least 4500MHz with PBO under that kind of load. Not in games..
> 
> I have my curve tuned to 235/160/190


DOS OC + gaming should give you a tantamount of head room to see 200w+ power usage..FPS and Frametimes are impressive and consistent that way..I rarely run benchmarks..its just epeen numbers..(just saying I am simply happy with my build)


----------



## KedarWolf

If you're running your PC on a UPS, check your Power Options in Control Panel.

My UPS makes my PC think it's always running on battery even when it's not and things like PCI Express Link Power State Management were on Maximum Power Savings and I would get random reboots running benchmarks until I manually disabled it and a bunch of other power saving options that are enabled for Battery Power.


----------



## Wil8115

GRABibus said:


> Did you try 3800/1900 ?
> not a lot of Zen3 can do more than 3800/1900 without WHEA 19.


that is exactly my issue. I can't get it stable above 1900/1-1-1.. even using 4000C17 B-die underclocked..
It tests pretty well. I guess I just expected a bit better.
R15-4951
R20-115??
R23-293??
I was able to get the latency down to 51.4ns.
its super responsive in everything.

My rig is 5950X B0, X570 Aorus Elite, 32gb Gskill 3800/1900/1-1-1
PBO -19 all core for now.
its touched 253w package max.
6/8 of my ccx1 cores routinely hit 5024 or higher.
IceGiant cooler with TG-Kryo Extreme.(83.7c when BM)
probably swapping to aio in final assembly though.


----------



## dk_mic

Wil8115 said:


> that is exactly my issue. I can't get it stable above 1900/1-1-1.. even using 4000C17 B-die underclocked..
> It tests pretty well. I guess I just expected a bit better.
> R15-4951
> R20-115??
> R23-293??
> I was able to get the latency down to 51.4ns.
> its super responsive in everything.
> 
> My rig is 5950X B0, X570 Aorus Elite, 32gb Gskill 3800/1900/1-1-1
> PBO -19 all core for now.
> its touched 253w package max.
> 6/8 of my ccx1 cores routinely hit 5024 or higher.
> IceGiant cooler with TG-Kryo Extreme.(83.7c when BM)
> probably swapping to aio in final assembly though.


I want to see that screenshot of 51.4ns latency on a 5950x!

CB scores are largely unrelated to IF and memory speed/timings.
Your PBO2/CO settings or static overclock will impact CB much more.
The boost algorithm is also really sensitive to temperatures.

There are very few dual CCD zen3 chips can run IF > 1900 without WHEA.
Some have a IF hole at 1900. Try 1933 then, if this is unstable try 1866.


----------



## Wil8115

dk_mic said:


> I want to see that screenshot of 51.4ns latency on a 5950x!


Sorry, didn't see this. I've tuned it even tighter since.
I couldn't get the 4k kit any faster timing wise, so I bought a 3600C14 kit,
then OC to 3800, more tuning with dram calc.. below is a lowest to date.. )

chip is a B0 on a X570 Aorus Elite WIFI


----------



## dk_mic

Wil8115 said:


> Sorry, didn't see this. I've tuned it even tighter since.
> I couldn't get the 4k kit any faster timing wise, so I bought a 3600C14 kit,
> then OC to 3800, more tuning with dram calc.. below is a lowest to date.. )
> 
> chip is a B0 on a X570 Aorus Elite WIFI


I think you have some headroom, at least tRFC and some of the tertiary timings. You have a better bin than this one.


----------



## KedarWolf

EVGA X570 Dark










https://www.evga.com/products/product.aspx?pn=121-VR-A579-KR

Some people are getting 4000 MHz WHEA free even on a 5950x with this board where they could only do 3733 with the 3800 hole or only 3800 WHEA free.

Others it fixes the 3800 WHEA hole problem itself.

Right now, $399 USD on their website. $379 if you go there from pcpartpicker.com, it applies an affiliate code. Or Google an affiliate code.

Free shipping right now too, even to Canada.

And yes, I know the 7000 series coming out, but I'm damn sure scalpers will buy them all and I have no chance of getting a 7950x at retail.

Plus I'm waiting for better two DIMM motherboard options.


----------



## Wil8115

KedarWolf said:


> EVGA X570 Dark


I just scored a used Asus Dark Hero for 200bucks.
Gunna mess with that soon. Heard quite a few have
done 2k+ IF with it as well. And this kit I have seems
very well binned.


----------



## elderblaze

KedarWolf said:


> EVGA X570 Dark
> 
> View attachment 2572401
> 
> 
> https://www.evga.com/products/product.aspx?pn=121-VR-A579-KR
> 
> Some people are getting 4000 MHz WHEA free even on a 5950x with this board where they could only do 3733 with the 3800 hole or only 3800 WHEA free.
> 
> Others it fixes the 3800 WHEA hole problem itself.
> 
> Right now, $399 USD on their website. $379 if you go there from pcpartpicker.com, it applies an affiliate code. Or Google an affiliate code.
> 
> Free shipping right now too, even to Canada.
> 
> And yes, I know the 7000 series coming out, but I'm damn sure scalpers will buy them all and I have no chance of getting a 7950x at retail.
> 
> Plus I'm waiting for better two DIMM motherboard options.


Lol this did not happen 7xxx series is in stock everywhere and is selling really slowly, you could walk up to any retailer in the us on day one and walk out with one.


----------



## KedarWolf

elderblaze said:


> Lol this did not happen 7xxx series is in stock everywhere and is selling really slowly, you could walk up to any retailer in the us on day one and walk out with one.


I bought a 7950x on day 3, but it'll be a couple of months before I have a motherboard and DDR5.

ASRock B650E Taichi I think this will be the one for me. Only one Gen 5 M.2 though. but the VRM specs are incredible. 24+2+1 Power Phase, 105A SPS for VCore+GT with Enlarged Heatsink Armor. I'm pretty sure like the X670E board, the VRM is teamed though.


----------



## tonynca

No one could take advantage of the VRM on any of the new boards. It is just overkill and thermal on these CPUs are the main bottleneck.

no LN2


----------



## elderblaze

Hello, my 5900x is one of the first units on the market. 0 stepping. I been runing it at stock for a couple years. Decided to overclock it a bit and had pretty terrible results with PBO and CO, wanted to see if this was typical of early units.

PPT 180
TDC 125
EDC 130
No boost override
Cooling NH D15
Motherboard Asus Rog Strix B550-E gaming
Memory set to 3600 mhz

Testing : Core Cycler, 720-720

My system is stable at default settings, it is not stable with PBO turned on and no other changes, PBO by itself is enough to get failures on Core 0. I've been using core cycler and 720-720 fft to close in on CO settings and these are the results after a few days of tweaking.

+6, +2, -6, +6, -18, -1, -18, -17, -16, -20, -20, -3

These settings have not been fully tested, but have passed 8 hours of core cycler 720-720.

The results seem quite poor, is there any other things in the bios such as voltage offsets, scaler values, etc that I should consider tweaking to get more out of it? With such poor PBO and CO results, should I consider an all-core overclock? Workload is gaming and light windows use. No rendering/encoding.


----------



## elderblaze

tonynca said:


> No one could take advantage of the VRM on any of the new boards. It is just overkill and thermal on these CPUs are the main bottleneck.
> 
> no LN2


Yeah, it's a new platform, im sure there is future proof into the VRM spec, who knows what 8xxx or 9xxx series chips will need. This platform is probably going to last 3-5 yrs.


----------



## SneakySloth

If you're just gaming then I doubt you're going to notice much difference between this curve and something with lower counts. A few percentage points at most maybe. I would suggest focusing more on your ram timings rather than CO.


----------



## elderblaze

SneakySloth said:


> If you're just gaming then I doubt you're going to notice much difference between this curve and something with lower counts. A few percentage points at most maybe. I would suggest focusing more on your ram timings rather than CO.


Im running some really old 2133 ram with a 3200 mhz DOCP profile, I bought it for skylake probably 5-6 years ago. It actually runs at 3600 with it's DOCP profile. I think it's old samsung b-die. Im not willing to replace it with 4400 or 4000 this late in the cycle. Will just use it until new platform. DDR5, I see people using more advanced bios features like LLC, manual voltage offset, telemetry, C-states disabled (mine are on auto), I wonder if any of these tweaks can unlock better curve. I know it's not really a valid test but my Cinebench R20 multicore is around 8600 with the current settings. I can get it over 9k with all core 4.6 ghz, without much effort. But I don't ever do all core loads anyways, and I have not been testing single core, so I don't have a good idea of how that has changed with my tweaks (single core performance). Stock bios settings yields about 8050 R20 multicore. Im fairly happy with my results, about a 7% uplift over stock bios settings for multicore. Who knows about single core


----------



## Shenhua

elderblaze said:


> Yeah, it's a new platform, im sure there is future proof into the VRM spec, who knows what 8xxx or 9xxx series chips will need. This platform is probably going to last 3-5 yrs.


..........yeah, and maybe there's gonna be a 1kw CPU in the lifetime of the platform, who knows, maybe they do some vodoo magic to bypass thermal density......... instead of selling you snake oil and upping the TJmax.

keep buying boards that have peak efficiency at or close to the KW, with CPUs that start melting at 300w. If you dont price yourself eventually out of the market, cus you have more dollars than neurons, i wanna see how makes them for 10 ppl that can afford them................

GOD!!!,........sometimes i wanna crawl under a fking rock....... from this world just to hide from so much absurdity and so much stu****


----------



## elderblaze

Shenhua said:


> ..........yeah, and maybe there's gonna be a 1kw CPU in the lifetime of the platform, who knows, maybe they do some vodoo magic to bypass thermal density......... instead of selling you snake oil and upping the TJmax.
> 
> keep buying boards that have peak efficiency at or close to the KW, with CPUs that start melting at 300w. If you dont price yourself eventually out of the market, cus you have more dollars than neurons, i wanna see how makes them for 10 ppl that can afford them................
> 
> GOD!!!,........sometimes i wanna crawl under a fking rock....... from this world just to hide from so much absurdity and so much stu****


I don't know how to respond to this. AMD does have a history of overspec with regard to VRM's.. the VRM on Vega64 was a beast. Those cards had excellent reliability for it too.. years of 24/7 crypto crunching and an eventual home in a gamer's system with years more of service. Your quite critical of their engineering, perhaps a career in electronic engineering is in your future. Sometimes components are overspec because of supply issues or economies of scale. If a VRM is 100% better for .14 cents more on BOM perhaps it makes sense.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Shenhua said:


> ..........yeah, and maybe there's gonna be a 1kw CPU in the lifetime of the platform, who knows, maybe they do some vodoo magic to bypass thermal density......... instead of selling you snake oil and upping the TJmax.
> 
> keep buying boards that have peak efficiency at or close to the KW, with CPUs that start melting at 300w. If you dont price yourself eventually out of the market, cus you have more dollars than neurons, i wanna see how makes them for 10 ppl that can afford them................
> 
> GOD!!!,........sometimes i wanna crawl under a fking rock....... from this world just to hide from so much absurdity and so much stu****


There's no overspec VRM for OC; there's enough and underspec


----------



## ManniX-ITA

elderblaze said:


> The results seem quite poor, is there any other things in the bios such as voltage offsets, scaler values, etc that I should consider tweaking to get more out of it? With such poor PBO and CO results, should I consider an all-core overclock? Workload is gaming and light windows use. No rendering/encoding.


It's definitely not typical, there's something off.
Either something wrong in the BIOS release/settings or maybe a faulty PSU.
I wouldn't consider an all-core OC considering your usage.
Maybe try Hydra but I doubt you can get it working properly.
What do you mean with PBO off? That you did set to 0 the boost clock?


----------



## Shenhua

elderblaze said:


> The results seem quite poor, is there any other things in the bios such as voltage offsets, scaler values, etc that I should consider tweaking to get more out of it? With such poor PBO and CO results, should I consider an all-core overclock? Workload is gaming and light windows use. No rendering/encoding.


Drop power limits under stock, limit max frecuency to 4.8ghz, and start over with CO.
If your unit is not horrible you're looking at 7-8% improvement in games, and stay the same as stock in multicore.
Target 115-120w PPT.
I'm on a very similar platform.
I have same CPU, an equivalent board (b550 carbon), 3600 e-die 4x8 running stock, d15.


----------



## elderblaze

ManniX-ITA said:


> It's definitely not typical, there's something off.
> Either something wrong in the BIOS release/settings or maybe a faulty PSU.
> I wouldn't consider an all-core OC considering your usage.
> Maybe try Hydra but I doubt you can get it working properly.
> What do you mean with PBO off? That you did set to 0 the boost clock?


I mean with PBO set to "Disabled" in the bios. As soon as it's enabled I have stability issues if no other changes are made. In order to get PBO stable at all, it requires positive CO offsets on a number of cores.


----------



## elderblaze

Shenhua said:


> Drop power limits under stock, limit max frecuency to 4.8ghz, and start over with CO.
> If your unit is not horrible you're looking at 7-8% improvement in games, and stay the same as stock in multicore.
> Target 115-120w PPT.
> I'm on a very similar platform.
> I have same CPU, an equivalent board (b550 carbon), 3600 e-die 4x8 running stock, d15.


That's an interesting idea, is the goal to keep temps low and allow more up-time of lightly threaded boost on cores? so we see more cores boosting higher, for longer. More like undervolting stock. To limit frequency to 4.8 ghz do you use boost override with -100 option?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

elderblaze said:


> I mean with PBO set to "Disabled" in the bios. As soon as it's enabled I have stability issues if no other changes are made. In order to get PBO stable at all, it requires positive CO offsets on a number of cores.





elderblaze said:


> That's an interesting idea, is the goal to keep temps low and allow more up-time of lightly threaded boost on cores? so we see more cores boosting higher, for longer


I'm asking because you mentioned specific PBO limits and with PBO set to Disabled they shouldn't be applied.
So in theory you are running with stock limits now, better to check with HWInfo.
Hard to say what is the issue but something is really wrong, maybe the CPU itself but I'd double check everything else before blaming it.
I've never seen a situation so bad from a working setup, it doesn't seem a case of bad quality sample.
Maybe post a Zentimings screenshot to start.


----------



## elderblaze

ManniX-ITA said:


> I'm asking because you mentioned specific PBO limits and with PBO set to Disabled they shouldn't be applied.
> So in theory you are running with stock limits now, better to check with HWInfo.
> Hard to say what is the issue but something is really wrong, maybe the CPU itself but I'd double check everything else before blaming it.
> I've never seen a situation so bad from a working setup, it doesn't seem a case of bad quality sample.
> Maybe post a Zentimings screenshot to start.


The system has ran stable for 2 years at default bios settings, other then Memory which was set to DOCP profile of 3200 mhz. I use all high quality parts, case cooling is excellent, NHD15 cooler, Asus B550 E-Gaming, high quality overspec PSU. No issues at load while gaming and GPU maxed out.(asus 3080) Only once tweaking begins do issues start.

The only thing in my setup I feel suspect of, is the old 6+ year old DDR4, that is 2133 Ram with a DOCP profile of 3200 mhz. I ran the ram at 3200 for a couple years with DOCP profile, but all other bios settings at defaults. I wonder if I should back it down to 2133 and retry CO settings?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

elderblaze said:


> The only thing in my setup I feel suspect of, is the old 6+ year old DDR4, that is 2133 Ram with a DOCP profile of 3200 mhz. I ran the ram at 3200 for a couple years with DOCP profile, but all other bios settings at defaults. I wonder if I should back it down to 2133 and retry CO settings?


I would first test it with TM5 with 1usmus profile, at least 1h:30m.
Then yes, test with 2133 MHz and check if you can get a negative count on one of the cores where you need a positive CO.
If you are pretty confident about the parts, I'd say that either is the RAM or something is wrong with your settings.
Post a Zentimings screenshot.


----------



## elderblaze

ManniX-ITA said:


> I would first test it with TM5 with 1usmus profile, at least 1h:30m.
> Then yes, test with 2133 MHz and check if you can get a negative count on one of the cores where you need a positive CO.
> If you are pretty confident about the parts, I'd say that either is the RAM or something is wrong with your settings.
> Post a Zentimings screenshot.


Thanks for your help, I am not familiar with that program will have to download it and get the screen shot.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

elderblaze said:


> Thanks for your help, I am not familiar with that program will have to download it and get the screen shot.











ZenTimings


ZenTimings is a simple and lightweight app for monitoring memory timings on Ryzen platform.




zentimings.protonrom.com





There's a small camera icon, copy to clipboard and paste here.

Here's TM5 with 1usmus config 25 cycles:






TM5_1usmusv3_25cycles.zip







drive.google.com


----------



## elderblaze

funny I try runing ram at Auto settings and it runs at 2133 and VSOC drops to 0975 and it's unstable. If I manually increase to 1.0 it is stable, and when I use DOCP profile it automatically go's to 1.0, The below screen shot is with the default DOCP profile. Oh, usually the VSOC is 1.0, I was experimenting with it at 1.1, but that is not normal setting.Feel like im really fighting for that last 2%.. haha tempted to just turn PBO off again, and enable APE and call it a day. That saw a 3-4% boost by itself, with zero effort.


----------



## elderblaze

Shenhua said:


> Drop power limits under stock, limit max frecuency to 4.8ghz, and start over with CO.
> If your unit is not horrible you're looking at 7-8% improvement in games, and stay the same as stock in multicore.
> Target 115-120w PPT.
> I'm on a very similar platform.
> I have same CPU, an equivalent board (b550 carbon), 3600 e-die 4x8 running stock, d15.


Im testing this idea out now. Still not hitting a home run with CO values, but they may be out of the positive range and into the low negatives for best cores. Had to use boost override -150 to get my cpu to a max freq of 4800. I have not tested enough yet to verify anything.

I had considered dumping the 5900x altogether and buying a 5800X3D. Sell used 5900x on ebay for 250-300, the cost of upgrade is small. I only game, no productivity. Maybe give my platform another 1-2 years of longevity for gaming? People somehow think that more cores = future proof, but that is a huge fallacy. Compare a 3900x to a 5600, or 7600 for gaming... I think 5900x was probably a mistake for me from the start. Availability of parts was quite scarce during pandemic, had to get what you could. Was super lucky to score a 3080 at launch MSRP 699$. (asus tuf)


----------



## elderblaze

ManniX-ITA said:


> ZenTimings
> 
> 
> ZenTimings is a simple and lightweight app for monitoring memory timings on Ryzen platform.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zentimings.protonrom.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a small camera icon, copy to clipboard and paste here.
> 
> Here's TM5 with 1usmus config 25 cycles:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TM5_1usmusv3_25cycles.zip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com


Lol im sure it's just the googe file verification, but if I try to download that TM5 file it refuses and says "the file is infected with a virus, only the owner is allowed to download infected files"


----------



## ManniX-ITA

elderblaze said:


> Lol im sure it's just the googe file verification, but if I try to download that TM5 file it refuses and says "the file is infected with a virus, only the owner is allowed to download infected files"


Yes it's stupid Google...






VirusTotal


VirusTotal




www.virustotal.com





Now it doesn't work also the original from Yuri's folder...

You can use this:









23.5 KB file on MEGA







mega.nz


----------



## Shenhua

elderblaze said:


> That's an interesting idea, is the goal to keep temps low and allow more up-time of lightly threaded boost on cores? so we see more cores boosting higher, for longer. More like undervolting stock. To limit frequency to 4.8 ghz do you use boost override with -100 option?


Bingo! on all questions!
not necesarrily low temps, but lower than the boost temp target which is around 72ºC.


----------



## Shenhua

elderblaze said:


> Im testing this idea out now. Still not hitting a home run with CO values, but they may be out of the positive range and into the low negatives for best cores. Had to use boost override -150 to get my cpu to a max freq of 4800. I have not tested enough yet to verify anything.
> 
> I had considered dumping the 5900x altogether and buying a 5800X3D. Sell used 5900x on ebay for 250-300, the cost of upgrade is small. I only game, no productivity. Maybe give my platform another 1-2 years of longevity for gaming? People somehow think that more cores = future proof, but that is a huge fallacy. Compare a 3900x to a 5600, or 7600 for gaming... I think 5900x was probably a mistake for me from the start. Availability of parts was quite scarce during pandemic, had to get what you could. Was super lucky to score a 3080 at launch MSRP 699$. (asus tuf)


I dont think it was a mistake, unless you wanted to keep it for less than 3 years. Belive me you dont want a CPU that before 3 years starts hitting 100% usage while playing games, especially when you're optimizing for stable high refresh rate.
I´ve seen this over and over again with 4-6 cores non HT i5s along the years. They bought the CPU now and in less than 2 years, you had one popular game jacking up the CPU at 100% usage 30% of the time, and despite the CPU having the RAW power to hit 144 or 165fps, it didnt have enough room for the game to stretch its legs.
Current battlefield game is dead, but if wasnt, and if it was optimised i´m pretty positive you would see many 5600x struggling to hit 144-165fps on optimised settings. Warzone pushes it to 80-90%.
Cache size also helps once the CPU starts showing up its age.

5800x3d wasnt available, and just like it happens now with nvidia 4000 series, the 5900x was the best value CPU to go with the platform. 5600x and 5800x, were very poor value for the first 1.5 years, and 11 series were terrible just as well.


----------



## gamedude9003

Hi folks, first time poster here. I have spent a couple weeks working on my bios profile for my recently obtained 5900x and wanted to get some insight into where I could improve. I've been lurking and trying to consume the threads here on this forum but I think I'm ready to just ask for some input. I had a 3900x before where I also had to settle on 1867 FCLK.
5900x in a Gigabyte Aorus Elite x570 with 2x16Gb Crucial Ballistix (Micron Rev. B, single rank).

I feel like I had almost tamed the WHEAs at 2000 FCLK. I was down to produces dozens per minute instead of hundreds. I needed to pull myself out of the hole for a few days and get back to a profile I could game confidently with (iRacing, rip my irating lol).

One step lower on ProcODT caused some super scary BIOS behavior ("scratchy" graphics, probably IOD voltage was wrong for 30ohms?). I didn't try to fix it, I just called 32 the floor.

At 1900FCLK (w/ tRFC = 608) on otherwise identical settings, I just get this one WHEA 19 that shows up from time to time. Doesn't seem to crash anything necessarily that I've seen, but it makes me nervous about iRacing at those settings without further testing.

Thanks for any help or interest!

edit: forgot PBO: 300 PPT, 300 TDC, 140 EDC -- so it seems like TDC will still overdrive EDC?



Spoiler: 5 iterations of y-cruncher + HWINFO64 readouts w/ Zen timings

















Spoiler: CB23 scores w/ Zen timings

















Spoiler: Aida64


----------



## elderblaze

I eventually found a stable Curve optimizer, +3, +3, -12, +4, -20, +2, -20, -20,-20, -22, -22, -12, -150 Boost clock (max turbo 4.8 Ghz). 3600 Mhz ram speed with CL18 timings. Kept PPT pretty low down at 120, to keep boost clocks higher. Anyways, I just installed a 5800X3D and will be selling the 5900X. The upgrade will probably end up costing me 120$ or so. Looks like 4 out of 12 cores on my 5900X where real turds, I chalk it up to early sample (0 stepping). A recent hardware unboxed review of the intel 13900k and 4090 showed, on average the 5800X3D /w 4090, was 25% faster then a stock 5900x. Maybe it was the games tested, or the inclusion of a 4090, but it seems the delta has grown a bit, AMD said 15%, and 19-20% had been previously tested by 30+ game averages in previous reviews. Since my only work load is gaming, and it was almost an impulse buy at (400$ for X3D, sell 5900X for ~280-300$) I found 25% plenty convincing to make the switch.

I won't overbuy cores again. The truth is a 5600X curb stomps a 3900X at gaming, and a 7600X stomps a 5900x, the cores never materialized into any kind of future proofing for gaming workload. A 3900x will never beat a 5600x at gaming, not at launch, not now, and not in 6 years. Future proofing by buying more cores is a fools errand. Buy what you need to suite your workload. Maybe maintain parity with consoles in core count. There is a lot of ignorance going around with regard to core count, and hopium that one day a higher core count CPU will prove it's worth, they never do. (gaming workload). I don't honestly see the appeal of 12 core CPU, if you game, your wasting your money. If your in serious production, 12 cores aint good enough, if your a pro that makes money with your PC, you should probably be using Thread Ripper, or at the very least 16 core parts.


Now im tuning the new 5800X3D with PBO Tuner 2.


----------



## Shenhua

elderblaze said:


> I won't overbuy cores again. The truth is a 5600X curb stomps a 3900X at gaming, and a 7600X stomps a 5900x, the cores never materialized into any kind of future proofing for gaming workload. A 3900x will never beat a 5600x at gaming, not at launch, not now, and not in 6 years. Future proofing by buying more cores is a fools errand. Buy what you need to suite your workload. Maybe maintain parity with consoles in core count. There is a lot of ignorance going around with regard to core count, and hopium that one day a higher core count CPU will prove it's worth, they never do. (gaming workload). I don't honestly see the appeal of 12 core CPU, if you game, your wasting your money. If your in serious production, 12 cores aint good enough, if your a pro that makes money with your PC, you should probably be using Thread Ripper, or at the very least 16 core parts.


It aint that black and white bro. You dont future proof by buying more cores, you buy more not to lack......... it's not gonna give you considerably more performance, or more performance at all, it just prevents you to drastically lose with market changes.
You, representing the one that jumps on a new CPU every 2-3 years, not gonna notice it, unless there's a big shift in trends like it was with the ryzen launch.......
Me, sitting on a CPU sometimes for more than 5 years, it does, it does by a lot. My r5 2600 with b-die tunned at 144hz was great at start. 4 years later was choking with bf V on high settings (optimised), hitting ocasionally 100% usage and dropping frames. If i wanted to add a bit more like recording or streaming, something it was capable of doing at start, it was a NO/NO.
A 5600x it's already choking in some situations..... it might not be bothering any1 now, since it's not too severe, but wait a bit for the Warzone based on MW2 to show up. We will see then what happens, when ppl try to push 144hz+ with a 3080 and a 5600x combo on optimised settings. Spoiler alert! it's gonna hit the wall pretty fast.
Hell, considering the raw power on the 5800x3d, and with a GPU to push it "skyhigh", you might see it close to struggle too......

Now, regarding your experience with OC, and the CO results, if you're not doing anything wrong, it's a pretty bad unit seeing that CO. I was able to push mine more, with 114w ppt and stock max frecuency. If i would be able to drop it to 4,8 or 4,75, the avg CO would most likely be a good -20. Also you got it backwards, altough i can recongnise is pretty damn easy to mistake it. Your best cores are the ones that allow the least undervolt, as those are the ones that stay higher than the rest, most of the time.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

elderblaze said:


> I won't overbuy cores again. The truth is a 5600X curb stomps a 3900X at gaming, and a 7600X stomps a 5900x, the cores never materialized into any kind of future proofing for gaming workload. A 3900x will never beat a 5600x at gaming, not at launch, not now, and not in 6 years.


Buying more cores than needed it's always a bad idea. 
And an old CPU you can bet 99% will be beaten like a pulp by new ones in gaming, even with a fraction of cores (except some new Intel generations in the past).

Said that, it's not all black & white as pointed out already.
There are games which are not CPU bound, some which needs more cores, others which needs more peak clocks or memory bandwidth.
Depends what you game.
Also a 12+ cores is a must if you are streaming or don't want to bother to close everything else you are working on when you get pinged by your friends.

For most gaming use cases it's true, but if you use anything else more than Discord or TeamSpeak than more cores are a must.


----------



## elderblaze

I guess if the argument is, You must keep the CPU you purchase for 5 years. Then of corse a 5900x is better then a 5600x. And will age better. If the argument is one of money and performance, you are better served to buy a cheaper, current gen CPU if it meets your workload requirements, and upgrade it to a future cheaper CPU. Like in this senario

Instead of buying a 5900x or 5950x, Gamer1 bought a 5600X and pocketed the money. He then used the money saved to move up to a 7600X as soon as it was availible. His out of pocket expense is barely higher then if he had bought a 5900x to start, and his performance is much higher. This example is flawed a bit, because of the platform change between 5600x and 7600x, but it could still apply even on the same platform, buying a cheap AM4 CPU in 1st generation, and doing a CPU swap later, for example. It may cost less or the same, as buying a high end 1st Gen AM4 CPU.

There are inflection points, some CPU's are short lived if they are near a large change, my I kept my I7920 4 ghz o/c for like 7 years. 4 core, with HT. I bought it at launch, and Intel did basically nothing for a decade.

I upgraded to Skylake Intel 6700k, also 4 core /w HT. It was much faster then the I7920. But very short lived in comparision, consoles where moving to 8 core, and the Skylake was one of the last great 4C CPU's. We quickly moved to more cores and it's performance fell off a cliff in about 2-3 years. Changes like this don't happen often, i'd argue.

Initial results are promising on this X3D, tested it overnight with core cycler 720-720, no error's at -20 all core CO. Testing -30 now.. seems not likely to be stable. Will core cycler the heck out of it for a few days, dial it in.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

elderblaze said:


> I guess if the argument is, You must keep the CPU you purchase for 5 years. Then of corse a 5900x is better then a 5600x. And will age better.


Not sure, a 5900X will loose value quicker than a 5600X.
Economically speaking it's always better to avoid high-end gear.

It's all about the usage.
If you can make sacrifices and don't need more than just pure gaming, almost everything fits on 8 cores today.

I can tell you about my experience going from a 3800X to a 5950X.
Gaming wise much better but it's not that the 5950X is better than a 5800X.
I had for a few weeks a 5800X running while my 5950X was in RMA.
Excellent CPU, ideal for gaming. My niece loves it 

But with the 5950X I can just keep open a massive Chrome session, two or three Visual Studio projects, SSH sessions and other tools.
Yes maybe there's a slight loss in performances but that's all.
With the 5800X absolutely not. Forget smoothness. A fair of micro-stuttering and frame drops sometimes.
It just couldn't keep up with games which were not GPU bound.

It was worth for me the cost? Yes indeed.
But if I had bought a 5800X today I would have about 450€ more to spend on an AM5 platform.
It's a lot, you can almost buy a decent B650 board for that price


----------



## elderblaze

I can't believe this 5800X3D has been -30 all core for 3 hours of stability testing, with no error. That only comes out to about 20 minutes of 720-720 per core. No where near validated, but it's exciting, as my old 5900x would bsod at these levels, and if you managed to get into windows error out in seconds on core cycler. I thought -30 all core CPU's where a myth. Not saying this one will actually do it, it has many hours of validation to go. It's kind of a nice bonus, that X3D CPU don't gain as much from high dollar ram. This 5 year old samsung ram will do 3600 but at pretty bad timings. Apparently it makes little difference on X3D anyways.It's 2133 ram, that has a 3200 XMP profile. I leave 3200 profile alone, and just bump speed to 3600 mhz, which results in this :


----------



## ManniX-ITA

elderblaze said:


> I can't believe this 5800X3D has been -30 all core for 3 hours of stability testing, with no error. That only comes out to about 20 minutes of 720-720 per core. No where near validated, but it's exciting, as my old 5900x would bsod at these levels, and if you managed to get into windows error out in seconds on core cycler. I thought -30 all core CPU's where a myth. Not saying this one will actually do it, it has many hours of validation to go.


Very nice 
It's definitely a different CPU so can't be compared to any other Zen3 but -30 doesn't seem to be super easy so you are probably lucky.
I've read in the thread that sometimes -25 is better in performances than -30 but I don't know how is being tested.


----------



## kayan

elderblaze said:


> I can't believe this 5800X3D has been -30 all core for 3 hours of stability testing, with no error. That only comes out to about 20 minutes of 720-720 per core. No where near validated, but it's exciting, as my old 5900x would bsod at these levels, and if you managed to get into windows error out in seconds on core cycler. I thought -30 all core CPU's where a myth. Not saying this one will actually do it, it has many hours of validation to go. It's kind of a nice bonus, that X3D CPU don't gain as much from high dollar ram. This 5 year old samsung ram will do 3600 but at pretty bad timings. Apparently it makes little difference on X3D anyways.It's 2133 ram, that has a 3200 XMP profile. I leave 3200 profile alone, and just bump speed to 3600 mhz, which results in this :


I know that you are still dialing in your new cpu, but have you gamed on it at all? I’m in a similar position, have a 5950x, because it was available when I bought it, and lusting after better gaming performance. It’s basically all I do. Was curious if the 5800x3d is much better than what I have, or if I need to step up to a 7700 or 13600/700.


----------



## poah

Got my 5900x a couple of days ago and paired it with a msi B550 unify and CL16 4000 ram.

PPT 210 (195)
TDC 140 (130)
EDC 190

-30 on all cores

Hits 4650-4674 on all cores during a R23 run. Temp 75C (out the box was 63C). Single core R23 is 4900.

Score 23801 is my best.

Ram isn't so good. Can't hit 3800 at all and only above 3600 with GDM on.


----------



## Yura B

poah said:


> Got my 5900x a couple of days ago and paired it with a msi B550 unify and CL16 4000 ram.
> 
> PPT 210 (195)
> TDC 140 (130)
> EDC 190
> 
> -30 on all cores
> 
> Hits 4650-4674 on all cores during a R23 run. Temp 75C (out the box was 63C). Single core R23 is 4900.
> 
> Score 23801 is my best.
> 
> Ram isn't so good. Can't hit 3800 at all and only above 3600 with GDM on.


PPT 210 is not enough, at times 5900x can consume 220-230 watts.
Similarly with TDC, a minimum of 160-180 is needed.
EDC is better to leave 140 so that there is no voltage limit, or put 150-165.
-30 on all cores, it is not stable even for the best samples of processors. It is necessary to select CO.

My results:


----------



## poah

Yura B said:


> PPT 210 is not enough, at times 5900x can consume 220-230 watts.
> Similarly with TDC, a minimum of 160-180 is needed.
> EDC is better to leave 140 so that there is no voltage limit, or put 150-165.
> -30 on all cores, it is not stable even for the best samples of processors. It is necessary to select CO.
> 
> My results:


Tried EDC 140 but MC was less but SC up. Settled on 155 as that gives me over 5ghz single core will maintaining 4700-4725 MC. Stable at -30 as my computer does not crash on anything I do day to day.


----------



## Owterspace

I run 235/160/190 on my 5900X if that helps. When you lower the ppt TDC edc ceiling, you will lower its overall performance.


----------



## poah

Owterspace said:


> I run 235/160/190 on my 5900X if that helps. When you lower the ppt TDC edc ceiling, you will lower its overall performance.


how much of that do you actually use. not using more than 200W or 130A for TDC (limits are higher). I started off with higher EDC but wasn't as fast. MOBO limits I was using 180W PPT, 119A TDC & 212A EDC. EDC was 94% while PPT was 36% andTDC 41%. I use the CO all to -15 then limited the EDC to 180A. 

4.7 multi core and between 4.9 and 5.1 for single core depending on application is pretty good I thought.


----------



## Owterspace

poah said:


> how much of that do you actually use. not using more than 200W or 130A for TDC (limits are higher). I started off with higher EDC but wasn't as fast. MOBO limits I was using 180W PPT, 119A TDC & 212A EDC. EDC was 94% while PPT was 36% andTDC 41%. I use the CO all to -15 then limited the EDC to 180A.
> 
> 4.7 multi core and between 4.9 and 5.1 for single core depending on application is pretty good I thought.


It will use it all..


----------



## Jonnykiv

elderblaze said:


> I can't believe this 5800X3D has been -30 all core for 3 hours of stability testing, with no error. That only comes out to about 20 minutes of 720-720 per core. No where near validated, but it's exciting, as my old 5900x would bsod at these levels, and if you managed to get into windows error out in seconds on core cycler. I thought -30 all core CPU's where a myth. Not saying this one will actually do it, it has many hours of validation to go. It's kind of a nice bonus, that X3D CPU don't gain as much from high dollar ram. This 5 year old samsung ram will do 3600 but at pretty bad timings. Apparently it makes little difference on X3D anyways.It's 2133 ram, that has a 3200 XMP profile. I leave 3200 profile alone, and just bump speed to 3600 mhz, which results in this :
> 
> View attachment 2579121



How long does this last when you are doing nothing and just idling on the desktop? I found that for CO testing, having absolutely nothing 'actively' running on my system is the better way of testing as the curve just lowers the idle voltage and if it drops off a cliff then your system will either hardlock or just outright reboot due to the lack of voltage,


----------



## GDT78

Hello, I'm trying to get the best from a 5900x on my TUF GAMING X570-PLUS (WI-FI), I replaced my previous 3900x always left at default settings.
I'm switching to a new home so I haven't much time to play around with overclock and watching video about that, so I need your help for starting. This is my configuration:

Ryzen 9 5900x rev. VRM-B2
Asus TUF GAMING X570-PLUS (WI-FI)
32Gb (2x16) Crucial Ballistix MAX BLM2K16G40C18U4B 4000 MHz (Hynix Chips)
Corsair H115i AIO
2x Samsung 970 Evo NVME
nVidia RTX2080 Super
Corsair RM1000x PSU
I need some tips to get the most with this configuration, about PPT, TDC and EDC for this CPU, overclocking memory (reach 3800MHz with 1900 FCLK???) with which voltage and get lower temps, cause with my current settings I have quite high temps and we're going to have an hot summer...
These are my bios settings, that worked well since I updated to the latest 4408 bios version (AGESA 1.2.0.7) :

Ai Overclock Tuner [D.O.C.P.]
D.O.C.P. [D.O.C.P DDR4-4000 18-19-19-39-1.35V]
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
Memory Frequency [DDR4-3600MHz]
FCLK Frequency [1800MHz]
PBO Fmax Enhancer [Enabled]
Precision Boost Overdrive [Manual]
PPT Limit [185]
TDC Limit [125]
EDC Limit [170]
Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [Manual]
Curve Optimizer [Per Core]
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 0 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [17]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 1 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [17]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 2 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [11]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 3 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [17]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 4 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [17]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 5 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [15]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 6 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [17]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 7 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [17]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 8 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [17]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 9 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [17]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 10 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [17]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Sign [Negative]
Core 11 Curve Optimizer Magnitude [17]
Customized Precision Boost Overdrive Scalar [10X]
Max CPU Boost Clock Override [200]
DRAM CAS# Latency [16]
Trcdrd [18]
Trcdwr [19]
DRAM RAS# PRE Time [19]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [36]
VDDCR CPU Load Line Calibration [Level 3]
DRAM Voltage [1.36000]
Security Device Support [Enable]
Above 4G Decoding [Enabled]
Resize BAR Support [Auto]
SVM Mode [Enabled]
Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Disabled]
I'm not satisfied with these settings, I tried with these other setting:
I just tried with:

LLC: Auto
PBO Max: off
PBO Scalar: auto
PPT/TDC/EDC: 200/140/180
-30 on all cores, -25 on the best -27 on the second best

I can get 4,47 on all cores with highest temp at 82°C (a quit high considering 21° as ambiental temperature).

I need a good starting point. Can you help me?

Thank you all!


----------



## ManniX-ITA

GDT78 said:


> I need some tips to get the most with this configuration, about PPT, TDC and EDC for this CPU, overclocking memory (reach 3800MHz with 1900 FCLK???) with which voltage and get lower temps, cause with my current settings I have quite high temps and we're going to have an hot summer...


You can get better temps only by loosing more performances.
I have a 5800X with the same AIO on my niece's rig with an ASUS B550 TUF Gaming.
Tops 88°C under load... for a 5900X it's perfectly normal.

I said more because maybe you are not aware the latest AGESAs are crippling performances with EDC over 140A.
If you check with HWInfo you'll see the vCore SVI2 limited to 1.425V.
You are already running limited and that's the reason it's getting only up to 82°C.

What do you mean with all-core load? OCCT?

The VID cap limit is crippling your ST performances.
If your aim is all-core you can keep it as it is.
Otherwise you have to use 140A or below and limit all-core performances

Or downgrade to a BIOS with AGESA pre 1.2.0.4 to get full performances always:



https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/TUF-GAMING-X570-PLUS-WIFI-ASUS-4022.ZIP



Here's the list:








[Übersicht] - Ultimative AM4 UEFI/BIOS/AGESA Übersicht


Inhaltsverzeichnis: UEFI Collection | Hersteller Support Links | UEFI Mods | Weiterführende Links Keine weiteren Updates mehr geplant! AM5 UEFI/BIOS/AGESA Übersicht ASRock ASUS Biostar Gigabyte MSI EVGA NZXT B350 B450 B550 X370 X470 X570 B350 B450 B550 X370 X470 X570 B350 B450...




www.hardwareluxx.de





Think about the memory OC later and focus on the CPU first.
Post a Zentimings screenshot and full BIOS settings but in a spoiler.


----------



## dk_mic

82C is nothing unusual or bad for an overclocked zen3 chip.

3800 MHz @ 1900 IF is where most dual ccd zen3 cpus max out. Some have a hole at 1900, then try 1866/1933.
Regarding memory, check the DDR4 thread out on the forums, there are good straightforward guides with timing suggestions. Don't know how far you can push Hynix.








A guide to ram overclocking on Zen 3


BEGINNER: First Steps: 1.) Download Thaiphoon Burner. Read the SPD to find out details about which ram die you have. If you buy 3600+ XMP sticks(with 1.35v profiles), they have dies that can do 3800+. If you buy 3200 XMP or lower, you may have dies that do 3333 max. Note: The manufacturers...




www.overclock.net





TDC/EDC is specific for your chip, you have to test and you can tune it for different workloads, so best values for CB will not be the best for a single core workload.
Same goes with the curve optimizer values, if you want to have a truly stable system you need to test a lot with core-cycler, occt or similar.
Most likely it's not stable using -30 on 10 of your 12 cores.

AGESA 1.2.0.3 has the best performance, later versions reduce max VCore when you increase EDC.

It takes a lot of time to properly tune memory and curve, there are no real shortcuts. You have to decide if its worth it for you. They have great performance out of the box, you could turn on PBO + XMP, slightly increase the power limits and you will have 95% of the performance or so.


----------



## GDT78

ManniX-ITA said:


> What do you mean with all-core load? OCCT?


Yes, I was testing with OCCT, now I'm testing with y-cruncher.
If I choose to remain with 4408 (1.2.0.7) shoud I set my PPT/EDC/TDC in a different way?



dk_mic said:


> It takes a lot of time to properly tune memory and curve, there are no real shortcuts. You have to decide if its worth it for you. They have great performance out of the box, you could turn on PBO + XMP, slightly increase the power limits and you will have 95% of the performance or so.


So, if I choose to enable XMP (@4000?!?) and PBO will I have a valid compromise?
Should I leave everything else @default values?


----------



## ManniX-ITA

GDT78 said:


> If I choose to remain with 4408 (1.2.0.7) shoud I set my PPT/EDC/TDC in a different way?


It's up to you.
Typical values I see working for 5900X are PPT/TDC/EDC 220/135/180.
This config will give you good performances with all-core and low single-threaded due to the VID cap.
Otherwise you can use 220/135/140 to get better ST and sacrifice all-core.
The tipping point is 140A EDC.


----------



## dk_mic

GDT78 said:


> So, if I choose to enable XMP (@4000?!?) and PBO will I have a valid compromise?
> Should I leave everything else @default values?


Sorry, I was speaking generally, XMP of 4000 will most likely not work / you will get WHEAs. Check the thread I have linked, RAM tuning is definitely worth it


----------



## GDT78

ManniX-ITA said:


> It's up to you.
> Typical values I see working for 5900X are PPT/TDC/EDC 220/135/180.
> This config will give you good performances with all-core and low single-threaded due to the VID cap.
> Otherwise you can use 220/135/140 to get better ST and sacrifice all-core.
> The tipping point is 140A EDC.


I tried with PPT/TDC/EDC 220/135/180 and it passed 5 cycles of y-cruncher.
I have -30 on all cores, -25 on the best one and -27 on the second one, but seems like I have issues with windows startup sometimes, it goes in recovery mode like it can't load properly or occasionally WHEA errors, always on startup. But if it loads successfully it seems to be very stable. What should I check?



dk_mic said:


> Sorry, I was speaking generally, XMP of 4000 will most likely not work / you will get WHEAs. Check the thread I have linked, RAM tuning is definitely worth it


I'll surely give RAM tuning a try, after got it fully stable with these settings on RAM. Thank you!


----------



## Shenhua

Any1 here on MSI mobo and agesa 1207???

Sent from my Redmi Note 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Luggage

ManniX-ITA said:


> You can get better temps only by loosing more performances.
> I have a 5800X with the same AIO on my niece's rig with an ASUS B550 TUF Gaming.
> Tops 88°C under load... for a 5900X it's perfectly normal.
> 
> I said more because maybe you are not aware the latest AGESAs are crippling performances with EDC over 140A.
> If you check with HWInfo you'll see the vCore SVI2 limited to 1.425V.
> You are already running limited and that's the reason it's getting only up to 82°C.
> 
> What do you mean with all-core load? OCCT?
> 
> The VID cap limit is crippling your ST performances.
> If your aim is all-core you can keep it as it is.
> Otherwise you have to use 140A or below and limit all-core performances
> 
> Or downgrade to a BIOS with AGESA pre 1.2.0.4 to get full performances always:
> 
> 
> 
> https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/BIOS/TUF-GAMING-X570-PLUS-WIFI-ASUS-4022.ZIP
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the list:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Übersicht] - Ultimative AM4 UEFI/BIOS/AGESA Übersicht
> 
> 
> Inhaltsverzeichnis: UEFI Collection | Hersteller Support Links | UEFI Mods | Weiterführende Links Keine weiteren Updates mehr geplant! AM5 UEFI/BIOS/AGESA Übersicht ASRock ASUS Biostar Gigabyte MSI EVGA NZXT B350 B450 B550 X370 X470 X570 B350 B450 B550 X370 X470 X570 B350 B450...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hardwareluxx.de
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think about the memory OC later and focus on the CPU first.
> Post a Zentimings screenshot and full BIOS settings but in a spoiler.


Was cold last night so I had -1C water and did a bunch of benches with @PJVol s new monitor.

5800x: (from memory…)
Best linx 10G: 205-135-170 x10 5900
Best r23 mc 166-105-145 x3 5000
Best cpu-z mc 133-90-108 5050
Etc… 

It all depends on WL, some need all the amps, some like EDC-throttle. Most like PPT hitting 95-98%. Nothing likes very high limits, like “motherboard” except Aida L3 cache latency….

I’ll sort through all the ss over the weekend hopefully


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Luggage said:


> It all depends on WL, some need all the amps, some like EDC-throttle. Most like PPT hitting 95-98%. Nothing likes very high limits, like “motherboard” except Aida L3 cache latency….


And on top also on the board quality and AGESA.
My 5800X was running much better and could gain more with higher limits on the Unify-X than on the cheap TUF Gaming is running now.
Much easier with an 8 cores to find a sweet spot; with 12/16 you really need to favor either ST or MT.


----------



## Owterspace

ManniX-ITA said:


> 12/16 you really need to favor either ST or MT.


Nah. I still max my ST and MT. My secret is finding the absolute max power it can put out, and set my limits accordingly. Right now I am running 240/160/190 plus my curve. She rips. Fails corecycler but this guy does not care. **** that program


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Owterspace said:


> Nah. I still max my ST and MT. My secret is finding the absolute max power it can put out, and set my limits accordingly. Right now I am running 240/160/190 plus my curve. She rips. Fails corecycler but this guy does not care. **** that program


It depends on the workload 
Not sure which CPU you are talking about, I guess it's a 5950X.
You can get better ST with EDC at 140A, especially in gaming or CPU-z.
And you can get better MT with 215A at least.
It's a nice compromise but it's still a compromise; I use 275/165/215.


----------



## Shenhua

Shenhua said:


> Any1 here on MSI mobo and agesa 1207???
> 
> Sent from my Redmi Note 5 using Tapatalk


Nobody?


----------



## Luggage

Shenhua said:


> Nobody?


Try the x3d thread? Only reason to go beyond 1203c


----------



## Owterspace

ManniX-ITA said:


> Not sure which CPU you are talking about, I guess it's a 5950X.


I just noticed my sig is showing X3D, I am using my 5900X.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Owterspace said:


> I just noticed my sig is showing X3D, I am using my 5900X.


For a 5900X those are MT oriented limits.
There's always a chance that due to the board or the AGESA you don't see any difference.
But give it a try with a cpu bound game benchmark (SotTR would be the best), 3DMark TimeSpy CPU test and CPU-z.
With EDC at 140A you should see an improvement.
Best limits for ST performances should be 180/135/140 in your case.


----------



## Owterspace

ManniX-ITA said:


> Best limits for ST performances should be 180/135/140 in your case


I cant run that low, it will crash during pi32m. I need those high limits for both ST and MT. I am boosting to the tippy top for ST on multiple cores, and have a stout MT. Running AGESA 1203 for that 1.5v sweetness.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

Owterspace said:


> I cant run that low, it will crash during pi32m. I need those high limits for both ST and MT. I am boosting to the tippy top for ST on multiple cores, and have a stout MT. Running AGESA 1203 for that 1.5v sweetness.


Wow, it's very peculiar. Never heard of pi32m or anything else crashing with lower PBO limits...
If you want to try, you can use PJVol's PBO2 Tuner and just set temporarily low limits, test, set back the usual:









[Official] AMD Ryzen DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread


A bit tighter, but still stable :)




www.overclock.net





Good choice the 1.2.0.3.


----------



## Owterspace

ManniX-ITA said:


> Wow, it's very peculiar. Never heard of pi32m or anything else crashing with lower PBO limits...


Well.. its trying to push 5150, but if there is not enough juice behind it its just gonna clip and reboot. I've been running these setting for 2 years, for what I do she's good to go


----------



## JohnnyFlash

Owterspace said:


> Well.. its trying to push 5150, but if there is not enough juice behind it its just gonna clip and reboot. I've been running these setting for 2 years, for what I do she's good to go


Run core cycler while running a 4k x265 encode at the same for a couple hours; see if passes that. It may be an in-between voltage that isn't stable.


----------



## Owterspace

JohnnyFlash said:


> Run core cycler while running a 4k x265 encode at the same for a couple hours; see if passes that. It may be an in-between voltage that isn't stable.


I said right away that it isn't core cycler stable. It doesn't need to be because it is everything else stable, and run like that for 2 years with zero problems.

My 5600X on the other hand does pass core cycler with PBO +175 and my 5900X fails within the stock boost range lol.

Edit:

I just plugged in my X3D again.


----------



## JohnnyFlash

Owterspace said:


> I said right away that it isn't core cycler stable. It doesn't need to be because it is everything else stable, and run like that for 2 years with zero problems.


The system only knows there's an error if it has a result or range to compare to. If you're encoding videos, the encoder could be making bad decisions off of an incorrect result and you would never know.

If you're only gaming and never doing anything where the results matter, than it's not really an issue.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

JohnnyFlash said:


> If you're only gaming and never doing anything where the results matter, than it's not really an issue.


Not really.
It's never a good idea to run with unstable cores.
Even if gaming is not the type of workload where it's more evident it's of course not immune.
Games will stutter and micro-stutter and randomly crash, some games more than other.
You will experience some issues, depending on how much is unstable, it's just more subtle.


----------



## Owterspace

It was everything stable except core cycler. No hardware errors, no crashes, just smooth sailing. Back to my X3D for now. I can use quieter fans, and less case fans and have my peace and quiet back


----------



## Sir Beregond

4.8GHz / 4.675GHz @ 1.44v for a CB R23 multi-core run on the 5900X:


----------



## JohnnyFlash

ManniX-ITA said:


> Not really.
> It's never a good idea to run with unstable cores.
> Even if gaming is not the type of workload where it's more evident it's of course not immune.
> Games will stutter and micro-stutter and randomly crash, some games more than other.
> You will experience some issues, depending on how much is unstable, it's just more subtle.


Agree, was just trying to be polite. Going all the way back to the Athlon 2500+ people have been running unstable clocks that "don't crash".

PBO stability testing has improved drastically now that the boost limit can be lowered in BIOS.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

JohnnyFlash said:


> Agree, was just trying to be polite. Going all the way back to the Athlon 2500+ people have been running unstable clocks that "don't crash".
> 
> PBO stability testing has improved drastically now that the boost limit can be lowered in BIOS.


It can be done, I did for a while cause I was lazy and CoreCycler was not there yet 
But you need to expect from a little to a whole sort of weird issues.
Depends on how well you roughly tested the counts and how good is your bin.
For sure it's better than in the past.

There's also the CO calibration feature in Ryzen Master now.
It's very bad, very amateurish.
But it can give you a rough idea about which cores can go down and which not.
Sometimes it's tremendously wrong but if you are lucky it can provide not too much indecent baseline.
Once you have the baseline you can set +4 on every count RM is considering stable and hope it works.
Still better than just doing something completely random.


----------



## Luggage

ManniX-ITA said:


> And on top also on the board quality and AGESA.
> My 5800X was running much better and could gain more with higher limits on the Unify-X than on the cheap TUF Gaming is running now.
> Much easier with an 8 cores to find a sweet spot; with 12/16 you really need to favor either ST or MT.


also @Veii and @PJVol @The_King @XPEHOPE3 
Since no thread is the right thread really:
I tried to collect my cold test data but... It's easy to get a feeling for the pbo but I can't really graph it clearly









pbo limits and throttle behavior


Blad1 5800x 3d Mark CPU fmax,ppt,tdc,edc,x,max t,16 t,8 t,4 t,2 t,1 t 5050,250,200,700,10,8265,8257,6497,3815,1948,1004 5050,205,135,170,10,8281,8261,6548,3833,1988,1004 5050,164,100,135,10,8328,8302,6544,3839,1987,1006 5050,135,95,108,10,8233,8271,6531,3853,1988,1005 <a href="https://imgur.com/...




docs.google.com





And this is only ppt, tdc and edc - once you start changing fmax you get really strange behaviors around some break points


----------



## dk_mic

Is it possible to get 1.5 V core VID / Voltage back with EDC > 140 on AGESA 1.2.0.7 with PBO2 tuner? It seems I can't increase EDC above 140 using PBO2 tuner, when booting with 140. When I boot with higher EDC, I can't get > 1.425 V.

Otherwise: are there any issues running windows 11 with AGESA 1.2.0.3c? I have read about ftpm stuttering fixes in later AGESA versions, but never had those problems..


----------



## Luggage

dk_mic said:


> Is it possible to get 1.5 V core VID / Voltage back with EDC > 140 on AGESA 1.2.0.7 with PBO2 tuner? It seems I can't increase EDC above 140 using PBO2 tuner, when booting with 140. When I boot with higher EDC, I can't get > 1.425 V.
> 
> Otherwise: are there any issues running windows 11 with AGESA 1.2.0.3c? I have read about ftpm stuttering fixes in later AGESA versions, but never had those problems..


Set edc to auto in bios and you should be able to set it up to mb-limit with software.


----------



## dk_mic

Luggage said:


> Set edc to auto in bios and you should be able to set it up to mb-limit with software.


That works, thanks!


----------



## shiznit

What is the best way to rein in PBO so it doesn't put out a ton more heat compared to my manual 4.6 @ 1.325v while gaming? I switched to Linux on my desktop and I no longer have an easy way to downclock the CPU during very high load.

Edit: I read about the EDC VID bug and I paired it with a small vcore offset to match my previous manual oc at high medium loads. Now it boosts to 4.6-4.7 around 1.35v while obeying the PBO power limits during very high load.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

shiznit said:


> What is the best way to rein in PBO so it doesn't put out a ton more heat compared to my manual 4.6 @ 1.325v while gaming? I switched to Linux on my desktop and I no longer have an easy way to downclock the CPU during very high load.
> 
> Edit: I read about the EDC VID bug and I paired it with a small vcore offset to match my previous manual oc at high loads. Now it boosts to 4.6-4.7 around 1.35v while obeying the PBO power limits during very high load.


Still a lot of work to do but it's something that I'll add to ryzen_monitor_ng.
If you want to check it out is in my signature but you need to download the version before the latest of my ryzen_smu fork.
They are in my signature.


----------



## Sir Beregond

Been playing around with Dynamic OC Switcher on my ASUS board and helped me get some higher scores in some CPU related benchmarks (CPU Profile Max for example). Uses my static all-core OC's (4.8GHz/4.65GHz each CCX) for the all-core loads and switches to the PBO for the single core ones. Still playing around with it a bit but seems to work well. I really do have to rework my Curve Optimizer settings though. Thought I had a stable setup, but was sadly mistaken.

One question. I was really pushing voltage on the all-core stuff for benchmarks, but I am not really sure what's considered maximum safe.



ManniX-ITA said:


> There's also the CO calibration feature in Ryzen Master now.


Seems pretty worthless. It always tells me I can set every core to -30 and that simply isn't true.


----------



## ManniX-ITA

New b3 build, adds support for Vanguard and more fixes:






CPUDoc-v1.1.7-dev-b3.zip







drive.google.com


----------



## Worgened

Hello guys i have amd ryzen 5900x and x570 motherboard. i wanna be sure about that values PPT TDD EDC values what usage percantage should be good in %100 load. In hwinfo My values 100% %99.8 100%. Those values are good or they would not be never maxed like %100 and should be lower? ty for answers.


----------



## Owterspace

Luggage said:


> Set edc to auto in bios and you should be able to set it up to mb-limit with software.





dk_mic said:


> That works, thanks!


This way works for me as well, I get the 1.5v, but TDC and EDC are limited to 152.5, and PPT tops out at around 222 on the latest AGESA for my board with those settings. That is without APE enabled, I haven't tried it yet. If I breathe on TDC vcore is limited to 1.425 and might as well go back to 1203, which I have not done yet. I am playing with it now..


----------



## Shenhua

edit.


----------



## Shenhua

For anyone interested i had success in drastically reducing temps in a 5900x without losing performance.

Limited max frequency to 4.7ghz. That removed the top heat spikes, and also open the door to a humongous undervolt potential via CO.
Further i applied per core CO, and the avg obtained is -29.6 CO.

Results:
Avg temp: ranges from 16°C to 0°C (25°C+ peak).
Performance from 0 to 100% load, ranges from -3% to +5.5%. -3% being a load under 10% (gaming), and +5.5% being cinebench multicore.

Furthermore i increased TDC from stock 95 to 110A. The resulting performance from 0 to 100% load, was the following:
-1.2% to 6.5%.

The heavy undervolt effect over the frequency under gaming load at 35% was the following:
All core now jump from 3.6/3.7 to 4.7, but stay at peak frecuency less time generally. There are however exceptions. Best cores stay glued to max boost, and worst core stays glued to the bottom.


The 2 frecuency plot graphs above are while testing fps in bf V (same map, run, sequence etc). There's no performance loss.
The lazy cores can be fixed by dialing CO back. Depending on the core might even ask for positive. By how much? remains to be seen.
This should increase performance over stock, but diminish the temperature reduction.

So far it passed around 100h of core cycler. So it's pretty much stock like stable.


----------



## Luggage

Owterspace said:


> This way works for me as well, I get the 1.5v, but TDC and EDC are limited to 152.5, and PPT tops out at around 222 on the latest AGESA for my board with those settings. That is without APE enabled, I haven't tried it yet. If I breathe on TDC vcore is limited to 1.425 and might as well go back to 1203, which I have not done yet. I am playing with it now..


With agesa 1204+; For setting limits you’ll be limited by motherboard limits, as for what you’ll actually “reach” that is limited by FIT-limits and thermals. With very cold water the highest utilization I can get is with y-cruncher, p95 and linx…

with f.e.X MSI mb and agesa =< 1203 you can set limits to 4096 but performance will suffer with too high limits so that’s not helpful anyway.


----------



## Worgened

Worgened said:


> Hello guys i have amd ryzen 5900x and x570 motherboard. i wanna be sure about that values PPT TDD EDC values what usage percantage should be good in %100 load. In hwinfo My values 100% %99.8 100%. Those values are good or they would not be never maxed like %100 and should be lower? ty for answers.


Any idea about this guys please share if you know something thank you for answer.


----------



## Luggage

Worgened said:


> Any idea about this guys please share if you know something thank you for answer.


It depends..,








OFFICIAL 5900X and 5950X two chiplet Zen 3 CPUs...


Agree, was just trying to be polite. Going all the way back to the Athlon 2500+ people have been running unstable clocks that "don't crash". PBO stability testing has improved drastically now that the boost limit can be lowered in BIOS. It can be done, I did for a while cause I was lazy and...




www.overclock.net


----------



## JohnnyFlash

Shenhua said:


> For anyone interested i had success in drastically reducing temps in a 5900x without losing performance.
> 
> Limited max frequency to 4.7ghz. That removed the top heat spikes, and also open the door to a humongous undervolt potential via CO.
> Further i applied per core CO, and the avg obtained is -29.6 CO.
> 
> Results:
> Avg temp: ranges from 16°C to 0°C (25°C+ peak).
> Performance from 0 to 100% load, ranges from -3% to +5.5%. -3% being a load under 10% (gaming), and +5.5% being cinebench multicore.


Great work. 

I found the same thing, still working on finding the sweet spot.


----------



## Shenhua

JohnnyFlash said:


> Great work.
> 
> I found the same thing, still working on finding the sweet spot.


Can you go a bit more in detail? I see you are running higher limits. I found scaling to be quite horrible, so i keep them at stock for the moment. Does TDC increase performance at low loads by a lot?


----------



## colourcode

I just started tinkering with PBO for my 5950x paired with a Unify-X B550 board and a Noctua D15.

When I activate PBO I get the expected result in Cinebench reaching the limits of my Noctua D15 at 4,125-175 MHz and seeing higher scores. 

However doing some testing in various games it appears to boost higher with PBO off.

*In Division 2 benchmark: (according to HWinfo) *
PBO _off, _some cores hit 4,900 MHz 
PBO _on,_ the same cores max out at 4,750 MHz

Also not seeing any higher temperatures so I'd expect it to boost higher or as high with PBO on... am I missing something?


----------



## JohnnyFlash

Shenhua said:


> Can you go a bit more in detail? I see you are running higher limits. I found scaling to be quite horrible, so i keep them at stock for the moment. Does TDC increase performance at low loads by a lot?


I still have more work to do, but the max boost and curve optimizer numbers play a role in that as well. Generally TDC affects high load and EDC affects low load. Raising TDC will increase your Prime95 or x265 encoding clocks for example. EDC will impact things like Cemu more. You're right that there is a tipping point, but at 4.75 the chip behaves differently than at 5.05 because it tends to hit boost limit before. 

If TDC is making the chip push into clocks that run to hot it will constantly cycle between too high and throttle clocks to cool down, which results in less performance. These adjustments are done so quickly though it can be hard to see that happening.

I've been waiting for colder weather so the massive heat that testing produces wouldn't go to waste.



colourcode said:


> I just started tinkering with PBO for my 5950x paired with a Unify-X B550 board and a Noctua D15.
> 
> When I activate PBO I get the expected result in Cinebench reaching the limits of my Noctua D15 at 4,125-175 MHz and seeing higher scores.
> 
> However doing some testing in various games it appears to boost higher with PBO off.
> 
> *In Division 2 benchmark: (according to HWinfo) *
> PBO _off, _some cores hit 4,900 MHz
> PBO _on,_ the same cores max out at 4,750 MHz
> 
> Also not seeing any higher temperatures so I'd expect it to boost higher or as high with PBO on... am I missing something?


What is the EDC setting? EDC higher than 140 locks the max voltage at 1.425v, which in my personal opinion is a good thing.

Also, what are the actual benchmark scores between the two?


----------



## colourcode

JohnnyFlash said:


> What is the EDC setting? EDC higher than 140 locks the max voltage at 1.425v, which in my personal opinion is a good thing.


TDC 245, EDC 215 - Seems to be the default for just enabling PBO on this board.

I'm not looking to run benchmarks or such just to improve performance in general, if any. Since I generally don't play anything that will utilize 100% of all cores I thought it would allow it to boost higher in general without too much extra overhead.
That seems to be working though, as power draw is not much higher in general compared to PBO off. However if the difference is so low maybe it's not even worth keeping on.

I see now that the cores boost to 4,900 with this on aswell. Guessing it's just for super low workloads then.

Timespy extreme cpu score @9,248 and Cinbench MT @27,277


----------



## JohnnyFlash

colourcode said:


> *TDC 245, EDC 215* - Seems to be the default for just enabling PBO on this board.
> 
> I'm not looking to run benchmarks or such just to improve performance in general, if any. Since I generally don't play anything that will utilize 100% of all cores I thought it would allow it to boost higher in general without too much extra overhead.
> That seems to be working though, as power draw is not much higher in general compared to PBO off. However if the difference is so low maybe it's not even worth keeping on.
> 
> I see now that the cores boost to 4,900 with this on aswell. Guessing it's just for super low workloads then.
> 
> Timespy extreme cpu score @9,248 and Cinbench MT @27,277


That is *way* too high, and also reversed if correct. EDC needs to be higher than TDC, as EDC is the max boost and TDC is the max boost under load.

Change the EDC to 140 and TDC to 110 in BIOS and try it again. That should make a difference.

Why wouldn't you want free performance improvements and a cooler room in the summer?


----------



## Ivan B.

Hello, so I tuned too. For me the best way is cpu offset. I still have to work curve optimizer.


----------



## colourcode

JohnnyFlash said:


> That is *way* too high, and also reversed if correct. EDC needs to be higher than TDC, as EDC is the max boost and TDC is the max boost under load.
> 
> Change the EDC to 140 and TDC to 110 in BIOS and try it again. That should make a difference.
> 
> Why wouldn't you want free performance improvements and a cooler room in the summer?


You lost me! 🫡

Now I don't have the numbers off the top of my head but these are the default values IIRC?

So you're saying that running PBO with these would give better performance than running stock with no PBO?

With these values set in the Advanced PBO settings I'm getting 25,380 for Cinebench MT and barely hitting 65 degrees.

I also put negative 5 offset for all cores just to try that out. Highest boost now during writing this is 5,050 🤔


----------



## JohnnyFlash

colourcode said:


> You lost me! 🫡
> 
> Now I don't have the numbers off the top of my head but these are the default values IIRC?
> 
> So you're saying that running PBO with these would give better performance than running stock with no PBO?
> 
> With these values set in the Advanced PBO settings I'm getting 25,380 for Cinebench MT and barely hitting 65 degrees.
> 
> I also put negative 5 offset for all cores just to try that out. Highest boost now during writing this is 5,050 🤔


In the simplest terms, PBO is just another way of saying "manual settings". If you find the best settings, you will get better performance than stock. If you set them too high, the chip will boost too much and run too hot and you will get worse performance.

EDC = How much power for boost the chip gets if it stays cool.
TDC = How much boost the chip gets when it starts to get too hot.

If you're only hitting 65C, then try bumping both the EDC and TDC by 10. There's a lot of trial and error to be done here, but you can get much better results if you put in the time. My chip hit 95C (5.05GHz) at stock settings during games and light loads. Now it stays in the 70's for gaming, I haven't lost any real-world performance and multithreaded scores are much higher.

Curve optimizer is a separate animal that I would leave until you play with the EDC and TDC settings some more and get comfortable with them. Curve optimizer can cause crashes out of no where if it's not tested properly. It's perfectly safe if you test it though, and can give big gains.


----------



## colourcode

JohnnyFlash said:


> In the simplest terms, PBO is just another way of saying "manual settings". If you find the best settings, you will get better performance than stock. If you set them too high, the chip will boost too much and run too hot and you will get worse performance.
> 
> EDC = How much power for boost the chip gets if it stays cool.
> TDC = How much boost the chip gets when it starts to get too hot.
> 
> If you're only hitting 65C, then try bumping both the EDC and TDC by 10. There's a lot of trial and error to be done here, but you can get much better results if you put in the time. My chip hit 95C (5.05GHz) at stock settings during games and light loads. Now it stays in the 70's for gaming, I haven't lost any real-world performance and multithreaded scores are much higher.
> 
> Curve optimizer is a separate animal that I would leave until you play with the EDC and TDC settings some more and get comfortable with them. Curve optimizer can cause crashes out of no where if it's not tested properly. It's perfectly safe if you test it though, and can give big gains.


Thanks for the insight. I've been deep in the OC trenches* before but with intel and these "new" Ryzen CPU's are quite the different beast! Haha

Do you also manually set the PPT, or leave it auto?

edit: * relatively speaking, compared to people here I never knew what I was doing 😅
Found settings that give me as high of a score as the sky high settings did, whilst keeping the temps sub 70! Thanks again for the quick replies


----------



## JohnnyFlash

colourcode said:


> Do you also manually set the PPT, or leave it auto?


Set it to 1.45 x EDC to start.


----------



## Hhb65

Shenhua said:


> For anyone interested i had success in drastically reducing temps in a 5900x without losing performance.
> 
> Limited max frequency to 4.7ghz. That removed the top heat spikes, and also open the door to a humongous undervolt potential via CO.
> Further i applied per core CO, and the avg obtained is -29.6 CO.
> 
> Results:
> Avg temp: ranges from 16°C to 0°C (25°C+ peak).
> Performance from 0 to 100% load, ranges from -3% to +5.5%. -3% being a load under 10% (gaming), and +5.5% being cinebench multicore.
> 
> Furthermore i increased TDC from stock 95 to 110A. The resulting performance from 0 to 100% load, was the following:
> -1.2% to 6.5%.
> 
> The heavy undervolt effect over the frequency under gaming load at 35% was the following:
> All core now jump from 3.6/3.7 to 4.7, but stay at peak frecuency less time generally. There are however exceptions. Best cores stay glued to max boost, and worst core stays glued to the bottom.
> 
> 
> The 2 frecuency plot graphs above are while testing fps in bf V (same map, run, sequence etc). There's no performance loss.
> The lazy cores can be fixed by dialing CO back. Depending on the core might even ask for positive. By how much? remains to be seen.
> This should increase performance over stock, but diminish the temperature reduction.
> 
> So far it passed around 100h of core cycler. So it's pretty much stock like stable.


Ty very much. Just tested my 5800x with max set 4.700 mhz and -30 all cores except one at -28. It works really great. Cinebench better multi score and timespy scored 12.222 in cpu score. This was with PPT: 125, TDC: 90 and 115 EDC.


----------



## Shenhua

Hhb65 said:


> Ty very much. Just tested my 5800x with max set 4.700 mhz and -30 all cores except one at -28. It works really great. Cinebench better multi score and timespy scored 12.222 in cpu score. This was with PPT: 125, TDC: 90 and 115 EDC.


Can you mention any game? temperature and performance wise. What did you gain or lose (stating CPU avg laod aswell.......it's important)? Even if it's by eyeballing it.


----------



## Hhb65

Shenhua said:


> Can you mention any game? temperature and performance wise. What did you gain or lose (stating CPU avg laod aswell.......it's important)? Even if it's by eyeballing it.


I just ran OCCT streestest to test each core after benchmarking. I had to change one core to -10 and one to -24. Rest at -30 and all error free. with Noctua DH-15 in a fractal case with 8*140 and alot of airflow i hit maks. temp in cinebench and stresstest of 71 degress. Still i score same in timespy and cinebench. In Modern Warfare 2 the temp was between 55 to 58 degress in ground war with ultra settings in 1440p with my 6800xt gfx. The cpu boosted the cores to 4.700 and i did not notice a performance drop compared to my normal PBO setup with +100 cpu, where 2 cores boosted to 4.950 and rest between 4.875 to 4.925. mhz. Will test more when i got more time, but for now it looks good.


----------



## colourcode

JohnnyFlash said:


> Set it to 1.45 x EDC to start.


I've been trying different values now since last post and the highest single core boost (just in general use) Ive seen was with TDC 100, EDC 130, PPT 180 (Reaching 80%). Getting 5,100 MHz on top cores. CO -5 (best), -7 (2n best), -20 (rest).

Cinebench MT score just around 26,3k, all core boost in Cinebench ~4,050. Temp ~70 degrees.

Playing / idling in Division 2 (which is the best game I have for murdering my PC) it boosts like a motherfucker and temp qoes quite high.

These are some values I've tested. MHz override ~100 each run.










Then I set the TDC 115, EDC 150 and ran a Ryzen Master auto CO. Read alot of conflicting statements about it but it set the following values.










With these settings highest single core boost I've seen is 5,050. MT score ~27,5k.Settles around 77 degrees in Division 2. Actually seems stable so far. 
Had OCCT running with a bunch of background apps and also tested having lots of low CPU usage programs running when I was a way from the computer, like older games and the every day things most of us use.

So to summarize. I have no idea how this **** works because such little changes to either values seem to make quite the big difference.

Ideally I'd want to squeeze out more performance for the same wattage and lower heat, higher single core boost is probably more important for my daily computer use.


----------



## Shenhua

It's fake gains friend, go read comment #1913 and specifically watch the frecuency plots. If you dont belive me, go control all relevant variables and test it yourself.
Right now you should see cinebench single and multi gains, but lose or stay the same in games.
Bumping up max frecuency has a further negative effect on the matter cus it boosts higher and less.


----------



## dk_mic

These are not fake gains. If you want to increase multicore performance, you need to increase TDC and EDC until you find a sweet spot, depending on your thermals and sample. This is a tradeoff with single core performance, which will usually be better with lower limits. This is highly dependant on your workload, thermals and CPU sample.
@colourcode Use the ryzen master CO values just as a baseline, some testing with corecycler will most likely show instabilities pretty fast.

@Shenua I don't see the benefit of shaving 250 MHz boost frequency from a 5900x. You are reaching allcore overclock frequency territory, which I would prefer over a crippled PBO. If you can't cool the chip, Id rather run it in eco mode, maintaining high st boost or moderate voltage allcore.


----------



## Shenhua

dk_mic said:


> These are not fake gains. If you want to increase multicore performance, you need to increase TDC and EDC until you find a sweet spot, depending on your thermals and sample. This is a tradeoff with single core performance, which will usually be better with lower limits. This is highly dependant on your workload, thermals and CPU sample.
> @colourcode Use the ryzen master CO values just as a baseline, some testing with corecycler will most likely show instabilities pretty fast.
> 
> @Shenua I don't see the benefit of shaving 250 MHz boost frequency from a 5900x. You are reaching allcore overclock frequency territory, which I would prefer over a crippled PBO. If you can't cool the chip, Id rather run it in eco mode, maintaining high st boost or moderate voltage allcore.


I do not have a cooling problem, but considering this chip ability to overclock via PBO which is lower than 10%, or more like in the ballpark of 3 to 6% (in games, cus i couldnt care less for sinthetics), shaving UP TO 25ºC seems to me to make more sense.
Upping max frecuency, lets the CPU go way past the wall, and it creates temperature spikes (very high thermal density), no matter on what cooling solution you are......... which inevitably makes the boost more spiky and less continuous, which by the way, contrary to general belief (quite stupidly might i add.........brainwashed much by CPU manufacturers) do not bring any gain whatsoever, even in e-sports.
I have 3 best cores running 150mhz higher than stock, and losing a 3% performance in CS GO (that's a CPU load of 8%). !!!surprise!!! Whanna know why? !!! surprise again!!, im running 200mhz lower globally. So much for the theory of single core performance in games.

Right now im in the process of reverting the CO on the bad cores and im losing about 3% from the cinebench mult gains but also getting about 5% performance over stock in games, altough im losing about 70% of the temperature difference i gained in temps aswell. (more testing needed for better accuracy). All that limited to 4.7ghz.

Limiting max frecuency, increases the potencial of -CO. Going very high on negative CO on best cores has this effect:

35% load. Both tests are under 72ºC, so max boost possible boost is always holding.

4.95ghz (stock) -1 CO (point of stability)

4.7ghz -26 CO (point of stability)


----------



## Luggage

dk_mic said:


> These are not fake gains. If you want to increase multicore performance, you need to increase TDC and EDC until you find a sweet spot, depending on your thermals and sample. This is a tradeoff with single core performance, which will usually be better with lower limits. This is highly dependant on your workload, thermals and CPU sample.
> @colourcode Use the ryzen master CO values just as a baseline, some testing with corecycler will most likely show instabilities pretty fast.
> 
> @Shenua I don't see the benefit of shaving 250 MHz boost frequency from a 5900x. You are reaching allcore overclock frequency territory, which I would prefer over a crippled PBO. If you can't cool the chip, Id rather run it in eco mode, maintaining high st boost or moderate voltage allcore.


Alos depending on workload...








OFFICIAL 5900X and 5950X two chiplet Zen 3 CPUs...


Agree, was just trying to be polite. Going all the way back to the Athlon 2500+ people have been running unstable clocks that "don't crash". PBO stability testing has improved drastically now that the boost limit can be lowered in BIOS. It can be done, I did for a while cause I was lazy and...




www.overclock.net





Games are light load though...


----------



## Sir Beregond

JohnnyFlash said:


> In the simplest terms, PBO is just another way of saying "manual settings". If you find the best settings, you will get better performance than stock. If you set them too high, the chip will boost too much and run too hot and you will get worse performance.
> 
> EDC = How much power for boost the chip gets if it stays cool.
> TDC = How much boost the chip gets when it starts to get too hot.
> 
> If you're only hitting 65C, then try bumping both the EDC and TDC by 10. There's a lot of trial and error to be done here, but you can get much better results if you put in the time. My chip hit 95C (5.05GHz) at stock settings during games and light loads. Now it stays in the 70's for gaming, I haven't lost any real-world performance and multithreaded scores are much higher.
> 
> Curve optimizer is a separate animal that I would leave until you play with the EDC and TDC settings some more and get comfortable with them. Curve optimizer can cause crashes out of no where if it's not tested properly. It's perfectly safe if you test it though, and can give big gains.


Where's your starting point for tweaking EDC, TDC, PPT? I really was struggling to figure those out. Right now I have them set to Motherboard limit.

As for CO, I found my config to not be very stable, so going to go back to the drawing board. Have any recommendations for really how to tackle properly?


----------



## JohnnyFlash

Sir Beregond said:


> Where's your starting point for tweaking EDC, TDC, PPT? I really was struggling to figure those out. Right now I have them set to Motherboard limit.
> 
> As for CO, I found my config to not be very stable, so going to go back to the drawing board. Have any recommendations for really how to tackle properly?


Motherboard limit is going to be too high, especially for a 5900X. I would start at manual 140 EDC, 110 TDC and 200 PPT.

For CO, start at -10 on all cores and run default Core Cycler. Write a table to keep track on paper, cell or laptop. Cores that pass add 2 to CO, cores that fail reduce by 1. It's time consuming, but you'll find the best setting for you max clock speed. Once you have settings that pass the default test, you can do thorough testing to confirm stability.


----------



## Sir Beregond

JohnnyFlash said:


> Motherboard limit is going to be too high, especially for a 5900X. I would start at manual 140 EDC, 110 TDC and 200 PPT.
> 
> For CO, start at -10 on all cores and run default Core Cycler. Write a table to keep track on paper, cell or laptop. Cores that pass add 2 to CO, cores that fail reduce by 1. It's time consuming, but you'll find the best setting for you max clock speed. Once you have settings that pass the default test, you can do thorough testing to confirm stability.


Awesome, I was using OCCT before. I'll try Core Cycler. Thanks for the tips.

Watercooled as well btw if that makes a difference.


----------



## dk_mic

Shenhua said:


> 35% load. Both tests are under 72ºC, so max boost is always holding.
> 
> 4.95ghz (stock) -1 CO (point of stability)
> 
> 4.7ghz -26 CO (point of stability)


define 35% load?


----------



## Luggage

Shenhua said:


> I do not have a cooling problem, but considering this chip ability to overclock via PBO which is lower than 10%, or more like in the ballpark of 3 to 6% (in games, cus i couldnt care less for sinthetics), shaving UP TO 25ºC seems to me to make more sense.
> Upping max frecuency, lets the CPU go way past the wall, and it creates temperature spikes (very high thermal density), no matter on what cooling solution you are......... which inevitably makes the boost more spiky and less continuous, which by the way, contrary to general belief (quite stupidly might i add.........brainwashed much by CPU manufacturers) do not bring any gain whatsoever, even in e-sports.
> I have 3 best cores running 150mhz higher than stock, and losing a 3% performance in CS GO (that's a CPU load of 8%). !!!surprise!!! Whanna know why? !!! surprise again!!, im running 200mhz lower globally. So much for the theory of single core performance in games.
> 
> Right now im in the process of reverting the CO on the bad cores and im losing about 3% from the cinebench mult gains but also getting about 5% performance over stock in games, altough im losing about 70% of the temperature difference i gained in temps aswell. (more testing needed for better accuracy). All that limited to 4.7ghz.
> 
> Limiting max frecuency, increases the potencial of -CO. Going very high on negative CO on best cores has this effect:
> 
> 35% load. Both tests are under 72ºC, so max boost is always holding.
> 
> 4.95ghz (stock) -1 CO (point of stability)
> 
> 4.7ghz -26 CO (point of stability)


72C is not cold enough to hold max boost










edit but yea limiting max boost can help boost stability and mc a little


----------



## Shenhua

Luggage said:


> 72C is not cold enough to hold max boost
> 
> View attachment 2592693
> 
> 
> edit but yea limiting max boost can help boost stability and mc a little
> View attachment 2592694


Ok. ......maybe poor choice of words. "Max possible boost", would've been the more correct wording.
72ºC is the point of inflexion where boost will start to trend downwards, rather than upwards.
Either way, making temps equal, by giving one config a lot more cooling with a lot more noise, is not really the point, the whole point is to see how they behave with equal cooling, in a non constrained situation.
..........not to mention it's almost impossible to equalize temps.

Also please dont put words in my mouth. I never implied one of them was sitting at 72ºC. I said both stayed UNDER.


----------



## Luggage

Shenhua said:


> Ok. ......maybe poor choice of words. "Max possible boost", would've been the more correct wording.
> 72ºC is the point of inflexion where boost will start to trend downwards, rather than upwards.
> Either way, making temps equal, by giving one config a lot more cooling with a lot more noise, is not really the point, the whole point is to see how they behave with equal cooling, in a non constrained situation.
> ..........not to mention it's almost impossible to equalize temps.
> 
> Also please dont put words in my mouth. I never implied one of them was sitting at 72ºC. I said both stayed UNDER.


How did i put words in your mouth? o_0

I see boost scaling well below 60 depending on wl.


----------



## dk_mic

@Shenhua
i was curious and ran 4 runs of the 3DMark cpu test with different settings.
watercooled 5950x, 24C ambient, 28C water, low pump and inaudible fan speeds

looking at the results, I still can not see the benefits. loosing performance in low thread counts, whereas there is no big difference in temperatures









there is an improvement in MC over my daily setup, but that is due to lower CO.

monitoring screenshots of the 4 runs:


Spoiler


----------



## Shenhua

Edit. Forget about it. It's pointless.


----------



## dk_mic

Shenhua said:


> Edit. Forget about it. It's pointless.


well your screenshots showed lower power consumption and temperatures, while maintaining the same performance.
i just couldn't see that in my configuration with a synthetic bench, but apparently it's good in light gaming loads like csgo.
i am curious, did you try and benchmark csgo with eco mode power-limits PPT = 87W, TDC = 60A, EDC = 90A ?
multicore will tank, but low thread counts should run nicely


----------



## colourcode

Do these CPUs run hotter when paired with faste RAM? I just swapped out my 18-22-22 for 14-15-15 and I do feel like it spikes higher now. Maybe I just broke my cooler 🫡


----------



## Owterspace

colourcode said:


> Do these CPUs run hotter when paired with faste RAM? I just swapped out my 18-22-22 for 14-15-15 and I do feel like it spikes higher now. Maybe I just broke my cooler 🫡


Nah. If you are seeing spikes you should replace your cooler.


----------



## colourcode

Owterspace said:


> Nah. If you are seeing spikes you should replace your cooler.


highest I've seen is 86 degrees: running corecycler while playing some lighter load games. Can't recall it going that far before though. Maybe the fan curve needs optimizing... or is this in the realm of what you'd call a serious spike issue? 🤔


----------



## Owterspace

colourcode said:


> highest I've seen is 86 degrees: running corecycler while playing some lighter load games. Can't recall it going that far before though. Maybe the fan curve needs optimizing... or is this in the realm of what you'd call a serious spike issue? 🤔


I used to see spikes with my older coolers, I moved into coolers that are tuned for todays CPUs and no longer see spikes.. but I get what you are saying now.


----------

